Printable View
Could be cause the Sabaean units are relatively expensive. Most of them are a tad better than the standard cheap eastern levies so their unit expense is quite high. Since the slingers are a cheap base unit with low MIC requirement the AI keeps spawning them for the lack of funds to train the better ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
Wow, really stuck into my first real campaign. Really impressed as I said before. Started as the Romani and was not hugely expansionist until I was attacked by Koinon Hellonon who had become VERY strong. This led to a massive war which led to my control of all the Greek lands as far Olbia down to Byzantion and all of the main Greeek cities.
My knowledge of history is not on a par with most of the guys on this forum by the looks of things(thats why I expected to get the legions a lot earlier, and still haven't got them...), but I thought the Spartan Hoplites who I fought against would of had the Corinthian style helmet. I was kind of dissapointed, mainly because I think it looks class. Was this style of helmet outdated by the start of the game? Most of the hoplites in the game seem to have the Montefortino style helmet, which I presume was more practical?
But, if this is not the case I think it would be savage to have the classical hoplites and Spartans to have the Corinthian helmets in the next version.
Thanks.
There are some corinthian helmets around still, but they aren't as common as the pilos. There is zero support on the mod team for giving the spartans, or any entire greek unit I'm aware of, the corinthian helm.
There are some bonuses for faction leaders and heirs, however for other characters it's all done by traits. So just go through the traits and count up all the personal security bonuses and penalties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Hunter
You can see how a -5 penalty from a single trait ("Conquering Hero") would nuke the bodyguard size (10 guys lost right there), especially if there are a few other penalty traits along with it. Kinda backwards considering you would think it would actually be easier for a famous general to attract men to fight with him. Currently, the more cities your general conquers, eventually the smaller his max. bodyguard size gets. His greater Influence would counteract it, but not totally, since you lose 2 bodyguards per negative point of personal security, but you have to gain THREE points of influence to get those 2 guys back.
I just don't see why Victor/Famous Victor/Conquering Hero should be negative traits at all, I guess. But I know it was in vanilla as well.
As a Baktrian player, I feel like I have an excuse to field lots of missile units, cause that's partly how "eastern" armies fought. I love the way 6 units of foot archers, 2 units of horse archers, and 2 units of slingers can just ERASE an enemy unit from the map. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Southern Hunter
(double posted without thinking, sorry)
Im playing Baktrian as well. For the maintenance of 1 unit of Elephants, I can instead have 20 units of 160 slingers. They erase whole armies before they even get to the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheep
"Historically, the Sabaean urban population was, besides Arab levies, the only other major component of their cavalry divisions. Hailing from a highly urbanized society, these men hailed from both small and large settlements, many helping to work royal land grants, a few riding horses provided by stables owned by their local High Priesthood, and some even enrolled in the forces of semi-independent city commanders. They were skilled veterans, their service during Sabaean campaigns leading them into the rugged mountains North of their well watered and fertile lands, fighting raiders and marauding tribes almost as a way of life. For this service, their pay was good and their lives away from campaign were fairly comfortable, but their strong association with the High Priesthood from engrained childhood perceptions to livelong economic and social relationships, leave their loyalty and dedication beyond reproach."
The above description is from the Sabaean Medium Cavalry. Yet the Sabaeans can't build even the most basic "grant of land" let alone royal or temple estates.
Is this an oversight? If not then I suggest the Sabaeans get some level estates to build. Could be royal since that's what it says in the description.
Before I go on the crux of my post, I feel the need to throw out the obligatory "EXCELLENT MOD!" comment and give my thanks to all of the hard working team members who made Europa Barbarorum possible. That being said, on to the question!
Would it be possible for each of the Koinon Hellenon cities to recieve a hit to their loyalty when Makedon is destroyed as a faction? I feel that this would help to partially represent the dissent that would spread among the city states once the common foe of all true and righteous Hellenes is crushed.
That's logical Artificer, but I don't think we can do it. At least not from my standpoint dealing with building bonuses. Macedon manages to survive usually on Lesbos for very long periods of time also, so getting totally rid of them is usually pretty difficult.
Thanks for the reply, Teleklos. I wasn't really thinking of it from the AI angle, where the KH would certainly have trouble surviving the first few years, let alone making a successful foray across the sea. However, from the player's perspective this would open up all sorts of neat opportunities, role playing and otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
Just imagine the possibilities! With the Makedonians pushed from Hellas proper, the KH finds itself in a rather precarious position. The old rivalries spring forth once more, bringing unrest both civil and military. Do the Hellenes push forth into the world, to reassert their power as a culture? Or does one overly ambitious Spartan or Athenian see the chance for their respective homes to claim hegenomy over all? Who knows?
The Glorious and Bountiful Rhodian Federation has a certain ring to it, don't you think? :2thumbsup:
Of course, this is all likely impossible and I've just wasted five minutes. Oh well. Sometimes dreaming about something can be just as fun as seeing it come to fruition. :beam:
I don't get why Sauromatae generals speak Celtic; the sarmatians were an Iranian people. Pahlava and Qarthadastim generals speak Greek, too; they had their own languages. What gives? :juggle2:
Plus, the Hetairoi were supposedly more elite than the Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi; yet the Kataphraktoi can beat up on Hetairoi due to much higher defense. Since Hetairoi were so awesome, shouldn't they be better? they were THE BEST cavalry in their heyday. Hetairoi should :whip: the Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi
And this is what grivpanvar on gaesatae looks like :wall:
Gaesatae lack armor (though they have shields) but their lack of a good group should make them easy pickings. eqvites romani and crap like that can still turn and pwn them, but the best cavalry in the game should nearly run them overlike grass. plus, the kontos is no longer or more powerful than a xiston; kontos is, literally, "barge-pole" in Greek. OMG :furious3:
Only Greek, Latin, & Celtic voicemods have been finished. For all of the other languages placeholders are being used. The team thought it was better to have an incorrect ancient language for the unfinished guys, rather an an odd sounding incorrect modern language (English) as a placeholder.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeeek2
...
Gaesatae are drugged up 'naked fanatics'. What's wrong with them...?
...
In my 2 campaigns played so far in 0.81a, the Casse AI after conquering all of Britain and the northern province of Ireland stays on the border with a full stack and just freezes there for many many years, is this because the AI thinks the garrison in there is too strong? There are some Milnaht but still this is not normal...
I was reading this article by General Sun at TWC and it seems to be he has a point in the idea that recruiting in a newly conquered region should drive unhappiness up, not down. Can this be implemented, maybe via scripts?
Having small stone walls for the Celtic factions would help greatly with their defence. I keep getting my cities with a small armies crushed quickly by the Romans and the Greek factions.
I've found the massive slinger armies too... I found out that having really heavy infantry in the front helps a lot... I usually defeat them by never leting them hanging on my flanks... With the Romani after you get polybian princeps it's easy to counter such armies... Also, you'll need some good cav...
Cheers...
There are plans for a new reworked stonewall for the gauls. The current stone wall isn't right for the celts (giant, cut stone, pollished walls).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawl ap Hywel
The Goidilic Daisbard infantry would look good as the new Eleutheroi general. I think he would look equally good in the east, Africa, Arabia, Iberia and the Steppes.
Also the unit would make an excellent new Sabaean family member. Just change the cloak to a more uniform color (instead of the celtic checkered one) and you have an excellent new generic general model.
What if you included historical battles for certain factions in the year they took place and have different effects based on who wins and loses (like RTR is doin in their next release)?
I don't know that we know how to do that - having historical battles affect a campaign.
I think he means creating battle in campaigne (by script).
I dupe we will do that, EB is more about representing history and not recreating it ( this wouldnt be very interesting game but a great movie ).
If you are talking about spawning things like Hannibal's army, than EB has decided against that. From 272BC onward, history is entirely different. (It is very hard to recreate the First Punic War in the same way that it happened historically. And if it didn't happen the way it did historically, there would be no Hannibal.)
OK, I got a few ideas:
1) Acquiring technology.
As part of diplomacy, you can offer to give another faction some unique technology of yours, or ask them to teach you one of theirs. E.g. Roma teaches Paved Roads Aedui in exchange for Taverns.
You could use this if you're some obsessed gotta-catch-'em-all guy, but I was thinking more: get the Barbarians to fill your coffers and do your road-building for you, after which you can hire some armies on the money you make and charge into Gaul, killing them anyway. Or buy Theatres from the Greeks to keep your people happy (I'm still talking about Roma here). Obviously, some factions would be very unwilling to sell some technologies (e.g. only an idiot would sell Large Stone Walls for $100, and if you're non-Roman, you'd have to offer something special to get them to teach you the technology). However, it might be quite sensible to teach people large ports or markets in exchange for a tribute, because:
a) The tribute would fill up your coffersSurely this sort of thing happened in history, and if implemented, the possibilities would be endless...
b) It would drain theirs
c) It would improve trade for both of you - good if they're your Allies, and it gives you extra income anyway
d) It means you can invade a better city (see note about roads, above)
2) Population resettlement.
You will have the option of "recruiting" normal civilians fom your cities. They can be recruited in groups of thousand, and each thousand people takes 2-4 turns (your choice) to recruit (because they have to get ready, get belongings etc.). Once they're all ready, you can move them out of the city, where you'll get a big civilian "army". You can then move them to a different city, and again let them settle in. Again, 2-4 turns per 1000 to buy/build a new house etc. This would both slow/stop squalor in huge cities, and help tiny villages that take 20 years to advance, grow.
In order to stop this from becoming some super-own-everything-God-mode feature, the following drawbacks should be included:
a) Both the city that the citizens leave and the one they arrive in will suffer a short-term unrest boost, decreasing happiness (as the people are forced from their homes).
b) The original city will only lose its population when the citizens physically leave the city; while they are still getting ready, or sitting inside ready and waiting to move, they'll just be sitting there, creating squalor and unrest. Similarly, only when they become fully assimilated into the new city will its population increase; whilst assimilating, they will increase unrest. The unrest will last a few years after they leave/settle in.
c) Citizens will have various effects on the world around them:
i) The citizens will gradually become more and more irritated, the more time passes from when they were evicted to when they settle in. If their anger reaches a certain point, they/the city they're in will rebel and become a large Eleutheroi army, or a city with a large Eleutheroi garrisson (or both, if there are enough citizens and the rebelling city's garrisson spills over). These armies may or may not be aggressive, up to you guys, really.
ii) Citizens devastate the landscape and slow trade, even in their own regions (like enemy armies).
iii) If citizens are moved from a frontier region, their unhappiness at moving out may be decreased. If there are enough hostile armies near the settlement they move out of - i.e. the threat of a siege, and consequently their deaths, is high - they may, in fact leave the settlement happier than they were. Incidentally, perhaps add a few things that upset settlements' populations: sieges and the distance to the capital already exist as decreases to population happiness, but what about living on the frontier/next to the enemy (not necessarily distance) and/or the threat of a siege (possibly same thing)?
Citizens that are moved from a plague-ridden settlement will also be happy to leave (just make sure they aren't carrying the plague).
On a similar note, the more baths, temples etc. a city has, the smaller the lingering unrest will be once the citizens move in. Note, this is about happiness upon resettlement; the other two points are about happiness upon leaving. Note also that this is not the same as the assimilation period - i.e. the time it takes to add the citizens to the settlement's population (see 2) d)).
d) All cities have a cooldown period after assimilating 1 unit of citizens; the smaller the city, the larger the cooldown period. Also, very small settlements might take longer than 2 turns to assimilate 1 unit of citizens. This is because there are fewer resources and less manpower there to build new houses etc. Also, in terms of balance, it means that you can't skyrocket your town into a Huge City - indeed, dumping loads of citizens onto some random town will mean instant rebellion (and not the good, time-to-massacre-and-make-money type, because you'll get a huge Eleutheroi army too [see 2) c)]).
On a similar note, citizens take longer to get ready in small towns (because of less available supply to get them through the journey etc.), if you wanted to drain a small settlement of its population; and, as always, you can't have <400 people.
e) These groups of citizens can be interacted with by every type of character:
i) Allied
1) Another group of citizens: can merge with them, and they can split, like armies/fleets (1 unit=1000 citizens, therefore max. 20K per group).
2) Army: can merge, subduing anxiety/rebellious thoughts, and will help in battles (see 2) e) ii) 2)). Generals can either increase or decrease happiness, and increase or decrease rebellion, depending on traits.
3) Spy/Assassin: can merge, subduing anxiety and helping prevent enemy spies/assassins from succeeding with their missions. May involve killing off some citizens.
4) Diplomat: can merge, increasing happiness (by lying to them/calming them down).
ii) Enemy
1) Another group of citizens: either they fight or nothing happens, not sure (see 2) e) ii) 2)).
2) Army: can attack the citizens. I'm in several minds about this - either they automatically kill all/80%/50%/whatever of the citizens if they engage, or you get an auto-resolve only battle, or you get a normal battle, with every citizen unarmed and wielding no weapon; 1 attack, 0 charge, 1 defence and practically no morale. An auto-resolve only battle would probably be best because:
a) A normal battle would probably be quite laggy, especially with 20,000+ people!
b) 100% extermination all the time might be quite unfair as then you could get 1 Peasant (in theory) to wipe out 20,000 citizens. Even 1 unit of the most elite troop in the game would get killed eventually.
c) On the flip side, 50%/80%/whatever extermination all the time would also be unfair if you have a super-elite army which can only kill 500/1000 people (even though it would probably be able to slaughter all of them), just as 1 Peasant can.
3) Spy/Assassin: Spies obviously spy as recon for the enemy, and Assassins can kill citizens (probably in groups of 50 or 100 at a time to make it worthwhile - these assassinations spread fear and thus speed up the rebellion process).
4) Diplomat: Can try to bribe citizens to become Eleutheroi, and/or spread lies/rumours of the cruelty/military defeats/etc. of the citizens' faction, decreasing happiness. Possible option to try and convert some/all of the citizens to the Diplomat's faction...?
I've been toying with several ideas with regards to how to implement this. I first thought of a different unit/agent type, meaning that you will need a new bar to "store" citizens in (i.e. "(Fleet) Army (Construction) Agents Citizens".
However, I think it's much more feasible just to create a new Citizen unit, 1000 people per unit, as mentioned above, which goes in the Army slot. This will, first and foremost, make merging with soldiers simpler and battles will make more sense. I have several thoughts on battles involving citizens, if they are implemented into the game as a unit(see 2) e) ii) 2)):
1) Armies with Citizens can only auto-resolve battles.
2) Armies with Citizens can fight normal battles.
3) When presented with the screen at the start of a battle, an Army with Citizens can choose to either committ all its units (including the Citizens) and auto-resolve a battle; it can tick a checkbox that will "Omit Citizens from the battle", meaning they can stay behind whilst the normal soldiers fight either an auto-resolved or normal battle (thus lowering the army's size and strength but ensuring no citizens die).
If the army were to lose, what fate would befall the hiding Citizens is up to you (extermination, flight [i.e. they flee], rebellion; a combination, depending on the battle; the enemy gets to choose; whatever).
I'd say option 3 was best, as it avoids huge, laggy battles and generally just creating a Citizen unit is, in my opinion, the easiest way to add this to the game. I don't know what the limits of RTW's hardcoding are, but hopefully this will stay within its borders (if not, make Citizens 500-, 320- or whatever-strong).
Unfortunately, with regards your first idea, we cannot make any changes to the diplomacy engine, it is hardcoded.
With regards your second, much of the stuff you've written (concerning repopulation and the happiness and stuff) will not be able to be implemented properly, I don't think we have the necessary triggers in the script to check for the kind of things happening in game. We cannot creat new agent types, but certainly we can create a new unit type. However, the maximum size (on huge unit setting) is 240, in addition we have a cap on the maximum number of units avaliable, so using this precious resource is not something we want to do unless absolutely necessary.
Nice ideas, but RTW hardcodes are getting in the way.
Foot
Indeed, they are nice ideas, and you took a while to properly think them out. They would be really great, but we just can't touch the hardcode, and every one of them I see would require being able to change something that we currently cannot. Pretty much anything that involves *adding* a new box or option or a new concept that doesn't entirely exist within current game mechanics is off limits to all RTW modders. Hope this doesn't disuade you from thinking about things that are possible within the game engine, or getting into modding the game yourself even.
And what would you have to do to bypass those hardcodes? Hack into the exe or something :P? Anyway, can't you just send an email to CA or pay them 20 bucks or something to send you the C++ or whatever code version for RTW/BI/Alexander? I mean, they're focused on M2TW now right, so what do they care what we do?
Also, can you make citizens with 200 per unit then and transfer them that way?
However, if you can't move your citizens, can you make an option to exterminate/enslave the populace of a settlement you already own? This will avoid unnecessary intentional rebellion and retaking of cities.
This is how to get noticed by CA in the wrong way. Firstly to buy an engine is excessively expensive, secondly we don't have the expertise to do anything with it, and thirdly MTW2 has only just come out and I imagine that RTW is still selling in small numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
As I said, we can do that, but we are short on unit space and in addition we could not do any of the other stuff you represented in your proposal connected with this idea.Quote:
Also, can you make citizens with 200 per unit then and transfer them that way?
As Teleklos said, we cannot make new options.Quote:
However, if you can't move your citizens, can you make an option to exterminate/enslave the populace of a settlement you already own? This will avoid unnecessary intentional rebellion and retaking of cities.
Foot
What, they monitor these forums?Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
But is it for sale? If so: how much does it cost, where can I buy it, and what language is it in? Also, what software do I need to edit it (successfully)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
OK, I'm confused. I'll admit right now that I know next to nothing about programming. I know a little bit of BASIC (my most complicated program created lottery tickets :laugh4:) and as for RTW, I can only do the simple typing-words-modification - i.e. unlimited ammo, unlimited camera etc. You guys, on the other hand, have practically created a new game here - or a new expansion pack, at least. Nowhere in those text files I managed to "mod" did I see any easy TRUE/FALSE option for new factions, units, or a new map; nowhere have I seen an option in RTWV's text files to make the soldiers speak their own language, or change the main menu screen. Therefore you guys must know something that I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
So what exactly is it you do to create EB? How do you make the new buildings, units, factions with their own crests etc.? And therefore what precisely is stopping you from getting to the "hardcode" and adding population transfer systems, an auto-exterminate button or any other wildly different ideas?
Well if You have spare few hundreds thousands american dolars then I think You should contact CA directly.Quote:
But is it for sale? If so: how much does it cost, where can I buy it, and what language is it in?
It's most likely writen in C++.
Well we redesigne RTW.Quote:
So what exactly is it you do to create EB?
You can change a lot there. Actually only few percent of RTW cant be touched by us. Ofcouse there are some parts that could be changed but we dont know how to do it, reverse engineering is not an easy thing to do.
But also this few precent are most crucial and extremely difficult to create. Thats why it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to create it.
It's not something I would like to call "monitoring", there are simply a couple of CA people who visit this forum as well. Simply put this forum is for everyone who's got something with TW series and wishes to talk about it, and this of course includes CA people. I believe that they actually use these and perhaps other forums to support the fan base - in this way that this is a sort of platform for fans (mostly modders) to get in touch with the people who wrote the game and exchange ideas/ opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
Simply look at the amount of files that don't end with ".EXE" or ".DLL" - and look at what they are. There are sound packs that contain all the sound files used by Vanilla RTW, there are pictures that contain every faction icon used in game, there are text files that contain instructions for the engine where to find what files, or that work like a database (containing, you got that right already, all or part of the data used for a specific part of RTW - say the Stats, or the Campaign map). That's what we can edit. All those files that don't involve messing with the actual program itself. And the refore we better thank CA for putting so much of the data in plain, and relatively easy to understand, text formats, rather than keeping everything stored somewhere inside the program itself. (Which would lead to a faster RTW, btw.) Otherwise, EB would simply not have been there.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
Well, ergo my remarks above, we edit all the files we can. Or about all of them. And we can't edit anything in the program/ hardcode itself (everything ending with ".DLL" or ".EXE") - or perhaps, some of us could do that but that would be highly illegal. (Read the user license agreement...) The program as a whole can't be edited by anyone, unless that person actually has the source code. Note that you have the executable (hence, the ".EXE"), which is altogether different from the source code, since it's basically a tiny version of the source containing a minimum of data to run properly - but containing so little data that you can't use it for editing your RTW engine. Simply: you have all the DLL's (libraries, containing pieces of code you wouldn't want to keep "copying" and "pasting" every single times, you'd rather call upon the library once in a while when you need it so your exe demands less resources.), and you've got a frame which makes everything work together the EXE, plus you've got the output ready to be assembled (the files we can edit). So, if we edit the unassembled bits of output one by one, the assembled output becomes completely different from anything Vanilla. But that's where it ends, we can't do anything about "input" (DLL's & EXE that determine where you have to click) or anything between "input" and "output" (that determine what exactly the game is going to do with your input) bar the few databases and the "lookup" files that contain data for the engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
And breathe... Hope this clears thing up a bit.