Europa Barbarorum

That's just as well, and would fit with a lack of body paint, as the remaining nude warriors in Cisalpine Gaul, I don't believe, painted themselves. The rare occurences of them in the north do tend to say a lot were painted up, but then, possibly was influence from the Britons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

We can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
2) If we can train region specific troops? If we can’t, I think khelvan mentioned that we could add region specific mercs?

We can. We haven't found how just yet.

---

Gaius Julius at TWCenter knows how and is currently working on adding this aspect to the TR mod (in the same vein as the MedMods "homelands concept).

Im sure he would be happy to tell you how to properly use the hidden_resource command.

@Aymar: Didn't want to sound impatient. I just suggested some (as i thought) relativeley easy changes, as i said didn't want to sound impatient, if i did, sorry...

I installed the alpha yesterday and played a few hours with Macedon. I had Notepad open, and I alt-tabbed to it any time I had any relevant feedback for the game. Here are the notes I took:

Macedonia description - awkward first paragraph

impressions of first battle vs brigands
I enjoy the change in movement speed. Not drastic, but noticeable. Feels more realistic. Don't think I'd lower it much more if at all.
Improved defence - was paying too much attention to micromanaging cavalry to notice. However, at end of battle, i did notice i had a few more militia hoplites around than i expected.

impressions of first siege vs rebels (stone walls)
two bad side effects of the decreased movement rate:
- one unit of archers on their walls ensured that one unit of merc hoplites and one unit of milita hoplites were at half strength before reaching walls. Both units were reduced to single digits before getting out of missle range after abandoning their rams. In addition, 20 units from a unit of levy pikemen were killed before reaching the walls with siege tower.
- Two battering rams were destroyed before reaching the gates. In a normal game I would think that at least one of them would have made it with one unit of archers and walls firing at 2 rams and 2 siege towers

impressions from first large battle against Greece
Nothing major, but did notice I paused less. Not sure if its from the decreased movement or increased defence, but it was nice none the less. However, I do think that the cavalry charges may need to be toned down a hair. Although I'm likely not used to using a cavalry unit that has a 15 charge! (light lancers)

After reading them over as well as other's comments, I suggest the following:

- Different movement speed for different terrain
I remember using the terrain to my advantage much more in Medieval. I pretty much ignore it now.

Decrease missle attack values
- Archers are already extremely effective in vanilla RTW. Reduced movement speeds only amplify this.

- Increase the damage that siege equipment can take
Again, side effect of decreased movement rate.

- Try incrementing defence up a little more in the next version
I didn't really notice any benefit of the +2 defence. However, I do think that augmenting defence will likely be the best way to decrease kill rates. I agree with Aymar's comments about increasing hit points, and on the TWCenter boards many people have animation problems with mods that adjust the rate of attack.

After playing with the alpha for a while, I second the increase of Defense a little more, but because of that, I recommend keeping the missile attack values what they are. Missile troops should be a big threat, making using cavalry to combat them a more important strategy.

I didn't notice any real change in naval combat.

If the damage siege equipment can take can be increased, I'd much like that. I find it upsetting how speedily my rams and towers collapse, and the slower speeds does make it more of an issue (though base RTW I feel had this problem anyway)

Everyone who is testing and providing suggestions based on the testing, READ THIS:

1) First and foremost, Europa Barbarorum aims to be historically accurate. ALL decisions are made in that light. When making a suggestion, please cite a source which supports your suggestion, preferably from a period map or reputable historian, ideally from a primary period source.

2) Europa Barbarorum will not be copying things from other modifications. It has been in development for at least six months and while we respect the work of other mods we have our own goals, objectives, and ideas of how to get there, and an existing body of work.

3) When testing and making suggestions, please do it in the light of end results. For battles, what you like about the battles, what you don't like. Provide specifics about why things aren't working, and what you think the results should look like. Those of us working on the battles and such have a good idea right now of what data can be tweaked and what can't be, and are playing with the methods to get to a more acceptable -end result- and game play. Let us know if the results are what they need to be, and if we need help on the methods to get there, we'll ask. :)

4) Last, but not least, thank you. All of you.

As you can see from point 1) above, it is time to get tough. Pedantic posts are always welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

1. In campaign_descriptions.txt change: "Ptolemains" -> "Ptolemies", "Aetolians" -> "Greeks" (Aetolians are just inhabitants of one of Greece' regions). Add descriptions for other factions (I used edited mod by Luvian, jpinard and Siblesz from TW Center):

---

I will make your correction of Ptolemies; I know little of the Ptolemaic Empire.

However, I do not accept your suggestion to name the Aetolians the Greeks. The Seleucids, the Macedons, and really most of the factions around the Aegean and beyond are all successors of Alexander's empire, and are more or less ALL Greek. How is it any more -historical- to call ONE of these factions "Greek" when they ALL are? We might as well toss out all the factions and just have five or so big ones, including Roman, Greek, Barbarian...do you see my point?

Historically, the Aetolian League and Sparta fought bitterly against Macedon and the Achaean league. Macedon should not control Corinth, the Achaean League should. Macedon in its current representation is both Macedon -and- the Achaean League, so it makes sense for her rival to be called the Aetolian League. I added cities that I believe were historically under the banner of, or in league with (forgive the pun), the Aetolian League. For instance, Pyrrhus of Epirus fought Macedon with a vengeance, on behalf of the Greek cities in question. If you can show me how I should not have particular cities in this faction, or how the faction is improperly named, I will change it.

However, why in the world would you tell me to rename the Aetolian League to Greek and not, for instance, Macedon?

Keep in mind that we cannot currently add factions, we must make do with what we have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

2. Add leader's portrait and map for every faction (except Senate and rebels) on faction selection screen. I made map for original RTW version so they represent default positions of factions. Use it as temporary variant. When we finally decide the question of factions' start positions I make new maps.
Download rar archive.

---

Yes, this will come. However, it makes no sense to do the map at least until we have all of the new provinces we will be making.

Edit: removed section to avoid confusion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

4. Edit errors with rebel unit names and pictures in new rebel regions. Also edit rebel's names (there are tragladitos now in Getae; amazons are still in Hiperborea).

---

Give me specific edits, and I will make them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

5. I don't agree to reduce farm's income. The original is small enough. I play with large unit size and very hard difficulty and think that we should increase farm's income or/and reduce units' maintain cost to play with largest unit size for battles to be really epic.

---

You may not like the outcome here. Population growth is still too high in my opinion. Cities should not be growing at 10% a year (5% every 6 months) in a representation of the Classical world. Growth is too quick, population needs to be reduced more. We may consider decreasing unit costs proportionately across the board to allow for larger armies, but population will continue to be a limiting factor. One faction should not be able to conquer most of the Mediterranean in 20 years.

The problem is the effects that will have on the AI, which will probably empty its cities of people if unit costs are cheap. Thus we face a delicate balancing act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

6. Make new map using "Total Realism" mod features - add Corsica, Raetia and Caledonia.

---

See point 2) above. We will be adding a great many new provinces, but we will not be copying them from another mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

7. Move Campus Scythii to Black Sea coast and rename to "Olvia" (or "Olbia" - not sure about proper English spelling).

---

I am more concerned about the Latin spelling, not English. Find me its Latin name and I will do so, though someone else doing the graphics end will have to play with the map to make it look right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

8. Some suggestion on current factions' start positions:
- Give Tribus Sarmatae to rebels.
- Give Mauretania to Carthage
- Give Dimmidi to rebels
- Give Numidia to Numidia. It's illogical that Numidia belongs to Carthage while there is independent Numidian state. Of course it would be ideal if we could make Numidia protectorate of Carthage at the start of the game.

---

Please show me a map that supports giving Tribus Sarmatae to the rebels, and I will do it.

I do not think Mauretania should go to Carthage. While Carthage did have control over some of the coastline to the northwest of Tingi, she did not have control over the majority of the province. If you think that is enough, I can do so, but I will not be giving Numidia to the Numidians regardless of name. It is illogical to give a province to a faction simply because they share a similar name, I prefer to do what is historical, and as the Carthaginians had subjugated the numidian tribes it would make intuitive sense that they should own Numidia. In any event, every map I see of 270 BC has Carthage controlling almost the entire area of RTW's Numidia. There is no reason to give it away. At the time in question Numidia did not exist as an independent state.

Also, for what reason should I give Dimmdi to the rebels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

9. Rename "Domus Dulcis Domus" (to "Vilnius" :clown:). And maybe "Bylazora", it sounds like anachronistic later Slavic name - something like "White Lake" (not sure completely).

---

If we are renaming cities, we'll be inserting historical ones with Latin names in their place. I agree the silly stuff has to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

10. I prefer my own settings of units' speed. I found EB version too slow. Also better setting of speeds on different ground types required. My suggestion:

---

Please explain why you feel the unit speed is too slow. Be specific!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

11. I use reducing kill speed mod I found on TW Center. Imho it's better then EB variant: combat last a bit longer, hoplites acts much better against cavalry. So EB version of units' stats must be reworked.

---

This is the very first build of the mod, with our very first tweaks. There was never any question that unit stats would be reworked after the release of this build. In fact, we will probably still be tweaking unit stats and battle settings months from now. If you wish your feedback to be valuable to our effort, please rephrase it in terms of end results. I see a bit of it here - you think combat needs to last longer, and hoplites need to act better against cavalry.

However, you need to explain this in more detail. Why, specifically, do you think combat is off? What, specifically is off with the length of combat - do units die too fast? Break too quickly? Does the movement speed put them into engagements too quickly? What, specifically, is wrong with how the hoplites act against cavalry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

12. I didn't find any changes in naval battles. Is it just me?

---

Attack factors have been increased, defense decreased. They should be more lethal. Much more lethal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salazar

1. Increase Unit Hps for all Units to have Battles last longer, increase Attack of Missiles to have them still be a serious threat

---

I appreciate the suggestion, but for a number of reasons that go beyond the scope of this reply editting the HPs to do that is a bad idea. What, specifically, do you see wrong with the battles at the moment (kill rate, morale breaking, or what) and how would you like it to look once we are done editting?

Don't worry, we will make adjustments on the back end to make it happen; Tell us what your objective is and leave the details of how to get there to us ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salazar

2. Use Movement Modifiers something like that:

This makes Rough land the Enemy of all organized Formations just as it was in reality thus making the Terrain more important.

Why Making Swamp THAT bad?
Because actually Water slows you down but you normally know what you stand on, in swamp you have to be veryveryvery carefull or try doing it by trial and error as you never knoe if the Ground before is actually ground or just a bit of Mud swimming on the Water.

---

Don't worry, I merely adjusted movement rates across the board to get a base reference point. Once we have acceptable movement for grassland, for instance, I will adjust the others accordingly to be more accurate. For now, let's worry about the base movement on normal terrain, and get that just right as a calibration point. We can fine tune the rest later, though your suggestions on upping the movement cost on rough terrain and swamp are appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salazar

3. Kick the following Units

---

Unit changes will come in a later build, based on what each faction's coordinator has found to be historically accurate. These units will be dealt with on a faction by faction basis and some may be taken out of the game completely.

There have been and will continue to be discussions about specific factions, where these units will be discussed. I am sure they will take your suggestions into account there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salazar

6. Boost Barb Peasants a bit

---

What, specifically, is wrong with this unit, and what in historical literature are you referencing to say this - what do you want the end result to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salazar

7. Add Corsica Caledonia and Raethia (spelling?)

---

Province changes will definitely happen in the near future. Rest assured that these and many more will come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salazar

8. Give Numidia to Numidia but give other Carthaginian Provinces more Trade goods ( if yet possible)

---

Aside from the name, can you show me a map or a historical source that indications "Numidia" should go to the numidian tribes, who were subjugated by Carthage during this time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salazar

9. Let Numidia start as Protectorate of Carthage (possible??)

---

I do not believe this is possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hormiga

.Spartan over at twcenter has done some pretty extensive testing with the navies. He basically found that by increasing build times (+75% I think) and reducing defense values you could get around the "mega fleets" problem.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...howtopic=11196
I still feel that the navies need to be redesigned (remove some of the bigger ships, maybe use a fleet concept?) but this works fine until a better solution comes along.

Also check out his AI changes (both are included in the D/L on the first post, they are designed to work with the Total Realism mod though...)

Hope you dont mind me posting here, just wanted to point out some things that might save you some time and testing! :bow:

---

"mega fleets" are not a problem. "mega fleets" are historical. I am in favor of lowering build times for ships across the board. They should be quick to build and readily available. Connolly states that both Carthage and Rome, at least, mass produced entire fleets. Rome built a several hundred ship fleet in one month. Mega fleets should stay.

Ships need to be redesigned, but there will be bigger and better ships coming. The basic bireme and trireme were small ships compared to some of the huge galleys that fought in naval battles in the classical period. If we can find the information at least one type of smaller, faster ship will be added, since some "factions" used them.

On the AI changes, see 2) above. I have read Spartan's work and I appreciate what he has accomplished, but we as a mod team are happy to test our own changes and tweaks so that we can produce historical results based on the research we have done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hormiga

Gaius Julius at TWCenter knows how and is currently working on adding this aspect to the TR mod (in the same vein as the MedMods "homelands concept).

Im sure he would be happy to tell you how to properly use the hidden_resource command.

---

Amyar is mistaken, I can do this with hidden resources. I was looking for a different solution, based on requirements. In any event units will be restricted, just as they were in MedMod for MTW. If I am not mistaken some of the members of EB contributed to the development of MedMod, so you will see similarities in design philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Juice

- Different movement speed for different terrain
I remember using the terrain to my advantage much more in Medieval. I pretty much ignore it now.

Decrease missle attack values
- Archers are already extremely effective in vanilla RTW. Reduced movement speeds only amplify this.

- Increase the damage that siege equipment can take
Again, side effect of decreased movement rate.

- Try incrementing defence up a little more in the next version
I didn't really notice any benefit of the +2 defence. However, I do think that augmenting defence will likely be the best way to decrease kill rates. I agree with Aymar's comments about increasing hit points, and on the TWCenter boards many people have animation problems with mods that adjust the rate of attack.

---

Thank you, lots of valuable feedback here.

From my understanding, missle units were devastating in the classical period. Do you think they are too lethal? We will be going over all the units and tweaking them, so we will take this into consideration, especially the siege changes.

Pay attention to how the units fight at the moment. In the next build we will be trying something drastically different to affect combat. So keep your impressions fresh in mind as you play, so the differences will be clear.

Also, for battle testing, we may want to set up some basic custom battles to be used as test beds. Something to consider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

Quote:Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
3. Use expressions "Aetolian League city", "Aetolian League family member", "Aetolian League navy", etc. instead of "Aetolian city", "Aetolian family member", "Aetolian navy", etc. Because "Aetolian" means just inhabitants of one Greek region.

Unless you can show me why I should not also rename all of the other Greek factions in this manner, I believe this to be a mistake.

---

IMHO, if we are going to replace the Greek Cities faction with the Aetolian League then we should use the term Aetolian League to denote navies, cities, etc. The terms Ptolemy and Seleucid refer to a dynasty - the term Aetolian refers to a geographical region, not a political power. If we could add factions and make Rhodes, Sparta, Aetolia, etc. separate factions but strong allies at the outset of the game (much like the Roman factions) then it would make sense to use the term Aetolian when referring to the League (like Polybius does). Since we can't do this and have to use the Aetolian League as a vague concept bonding all of the Greek cities into a playable faction, then let's use "Aetolian League" consistently as a descriptive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

"mega fleets" are not a problem. "mega fleets" are historical. I am in favor of lowering build times for ships across the board. They should be quick to build and readily available. Connolly states that both Carthage and Rome, at least, mass produced entire fleets. Rome built a several hundred ship fleet in one month. Mega fleets should stay.

Ships need to be redesigned, but there will be bigger and better ships coming. The basic bireme and trireme were small ships compared to some of the huge galleys that fought in naval battles in the classical period. If we can find the information at least one type of smaller, faster ship will be added, since some "factions" used them.

On the AI changes, see 2) above. I have read Spartan's work and I appreciate what he has accomplished, but we as a mod team are happy to test our own changes and tweaks so that we can produce historical results based on the research we have done.

---

The problem that was encountered with "megafleets" (ex: Greeks owning 3 citites but having 6 full stack fleets) is that the AI bankrupts its self by pumping out huge fleets. For whatever reason many AI factions tend go heavy navy (this seems to be hard coded) regardless of the situation on land. This can really castrate the AI (greeks, macedonia, carthage esp.) since the AI doesnt use its fleets very effectively anyway.

Spartan basically achieved a way to focus the AI on land battles (although it still does just fine at sea). Naval combat still needs alot of work... but I think this is a vast improvement over vanilla RTW.

Im not trying to offend or suggest that you cant test your ideas as well as other modders.... just wanted to point out that many people have addressed various game balance issues that you guys are just starting to address. While you may not agree with how they did it, you should at least pay heed, all the people I mentioned are just as determined to make the game more "real" as you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chemchok

IMHO, if we are going to replace the Greek Cities faction with the Aetolian League then we should use the term Aetolian League to denote navies, cities, etc. The terms Ptolemy and Seleucid refer to a dynasty - the term Aetolian refers to a geographical region, not a political power. If we could add factions and make Rhodes, Sparta, Aetolia, etc. separate factions but strong allies at the outset of the game (much like the Roman factions) then it would make sense to use the term Aetolian when referring to the League (like Polybius does). Since we can't do this and have to use the Aetolian League as a vague concept bonding all of the Greek cities into a playable faction, then let's use "Aetolian League" consistently as a descriptive.

---

Thank you for the explanation - I originally misread what Dead Moroz was saying in this section. Please forgive my lack of reading comprehension. I will make these changes.

Update on the work list:


-campaign map/province/city changes:

khelvan
Oleander Ardens
Dead Moroz
...
...


-faction name changes/new faction implementation:

Silver Rusher
...
...
...


-unit changes/new unit implementation/3d and 2d graphics:

I've taken the liberty of subdividing the team in faction groups, according to your interests.
Please PM me if you don't agree with your assignement.

Gauls and Britons:
Vercingetorix
PSYCHO V
reconspy

Germanics:
Stefan the Berserker
...
...

Iberians:
Aymar de Bois Mauri

Dacians and Thracians:
TigerVX
Dead Moroz
The samnite
...

Scythians/Sarmatians/Parthians:
Dead Moroz
...
...

Other factions (PM me to coordinate):
...
...
...
...
...
...


-battle system changes:

Steppe Merc
Aymar de Bois Mauri
...
...


-naval battle changes:

khelvan
Colovion
...
...


-economic/population model changes:

khelvan
Oleander Ardens
...
...


-Coordination of the EB Historical thread:

Teutonic Knight
Aymar de Bois Mauri
...
...


-Faction and unit Descriptions:

Gauls and Britons:
PSYCHO V
Ranika

Germanics:
Stefan the Berserker
SaFe
...

Iberians:
Aymar de Bois Mauri

Aetolian League (former Greek Cities):
chemchok
...

Dacians and Thracians:
Stormy
...

Scythians/Sarmatians/Parthians:
Steppe Merc
...

Other factions (PM me to coordinate):
Stormy
chemchok
Ranika
Steppe Merc
ick_of_pick
...
...
...


-Gameplay testing and debugging:

Colovion
Ranika
Steppe Merc
Monk
Stormy
chemchok
PSYCHO V
Hagbard la Suede
Salazar
Mr. Juice
Dead Moroz


Post me if you have any doubts about specific assignements within the same work related area



Updated 20:53 - 10/21/04

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hormiga

The problem that was encountered with "megafleets" (ex: Greeks owning 3 citites but having 6 full stack fleets) is that the AI bankrupts its self by pumping out huge fleets. For whatever reason many AI factions tend go heavy navy (this seems to be hard coded) regardless of the situation on land. This can really castrate the AI (greeks, macedonia, carthage esp.) since the AI doesnt use its fleets very effectively anyway.

Spartan basically achieved a way to focus the AI on land battles (although it still does just fine at sea). Naval combat still needs alot of work... but I think this is a vast improvement over vanilla RTW.

Im not trying to offend or suggest that you cant test your ideas as well as other modders.... just wanted to point out that many people have addressed various game balance issues that you guys are just starting to address. While you may not agree with how they did it, you should at least pay heed, all the people I mentioned are just as determined to make the game more "real" as you are.

---

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not personally offended. This may not apply to you, but it seems that people do not understand that RTR and EB are completely different mods, with different design philosophies, and are not in competition (at least I believe that as a whole we in EB do not feel competitive). So I've been trying to get that point across as much as possible. I've seen your name pop up in the RTR threads pointing them to EB, and here pointing us to RTR, and I just wanted to make it clear that our mods will never be one in the same, and we will continue to move in different directions. Though I, for one, certainly appreciate the attempt to help us both out.

With respect to the fleet build time, I was still a part of RTR when that was implemented and I know for a fact it was not due to the AI overbuilding ships (at least not at the time). If Spartan has made AI changes which seem to counterbalance this overbuilding I can't recall seeing it, so if you can point me to a post which states this I would love to read it. As I recall his work had to do with the two AI parameters set for each faction, which was great work, but I recall nothing about how the AI weighs building units, especially naval units.

In any event I am of the mind that any gameplay problem can be attacked in different ways, and even though one solution may seem like a good one if it puts historical accuracy aside for the sake of gameplay, I am inclined to look for other solutions to the problem. It may be tough to do so, for instance in the case of simply upping build times for ships, but to me that is a real problem because ships were quick and easy to build in the Classical world, and I would prefer to test just about anything else rather than an ahistorical solution to the problem.

Cheers,

-khel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hormiga

Gaius Julius at TWCenter knows how and is currently working on adding this aspect to the TR mod (in the same vein as the MedMods "homelands concept).

Im sure he would be happy to tell you how to properly use the hidden_resource command.

---

You're sure? I'm not... :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salazar

@Aymar: Didn't want to sound impatient. I just suggested some (as i thought) relativeley easy changes, as i said didn't want to sound impatient, if i did, sorry...

---

Only a little. :wink:

No problem. The things you've mentioned are, for the most part, planned. I want those changes too. And sooner rather than later. But we're still in a very early stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Juice

I installed the alpha yesterday and played a few hours with Macedon. I had Notepad open, and I alt-tabbed to it any time I had any relevant feedback for the game. Here are the notes I took:

Macedonia description - awkward first paragraph

impressions of first battle vs brigands
I enjoy the change in movement speed. Not drastic, but noticeable. Feels more realistic. Don't think I'd lower it much more if at all.
Improved defence - was paying too much attention to micromanaging cavalry to notice. However, at end of battle, i did notice i had a few more militia hoplites around than i expected.

impressions of first siege vs rebels (stone walls)
two bad side effects of the decreased movement rate:
- one unit of archers on their walls ensured that one unit of merc hoplites and one unit of milita hoplites were at half strength before reaching walls. Both units were reduced to single digits before getting out of missle range after abandoning their rams. In addition, 20 units from a unit of levy pikemen were killed before reaching the walls with siege tower.
- Two battering rams were destroyed before reaching the gates. In a normal game I would think that at least one of them would have made it with one unit of archers and walls firing at 2 rams and 2 siege towers

impressions from first large battle against Greece
Nothing major, but did notice I paused less. Not sure if its from the decreased movement or increased defence, but it was nice none the less. However, I do think that the cavalry charges may need to be toned down a hair. Although I'm likely not used to using a cavalry unit that has a 15 charge! (light lancers)

---

I like your methodology of testing. Good way to keep details fresh. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Juice

After reading them over as well as other's comments, I suggest the following:

- Different movement speed for different terrain
I remember using the terrain to my advantage much more in Medieval. I pretty much ignore it now.

---

You haven't notice any particular change in different terrain? That is strange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Juice

Decrease missle attack values
- Archers are already extremely effective in vanilla RTW. Reduced movement speeds only amplify this.

---

Yes, true. Contrary to what khelvan thinks, I think the infantry (even heavy) suffers a bit more than it should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Juice

- Increase the damage that siege equipment can take
Again, side effect of decreased movement rate.

---

I don't quite agree. We can circunvet the problem without increasing some in-balances already present with siege equipement (atomic warhead onagers).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Juice

- Try incrementing defence up a little more in the next version
I didn't really notice any benefit of the +2 defence. However, I do think that augmenting defence will likely be the best way to decrease kill rates. I agree with Aymar's comments about increasing hit points, and on the TWCenter boards many people have animation problems with mods that adjust the rate of attack.

---

I can tell you one thing for sure. I find that decreasing the rate of attack is a bad solution to the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

If the damage siege equipment can take can be increased, I'd much like that. I find it upsetting how speedily my rams and towers collapse, and the slower speeds does make it more of an issue (though base RTW I feel had this problem anyway)

---

Then it is more a problem of siege equipment resistance to arrow fire and alike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chemchok

IMHO, if we are going to replace the Greek Cities faction with the Aetolian League then we should use the term Aetolian League to denote navies, cities, etc. The terms Ptolemy and Seleucid refer to a dynasty - the term Aetolian refers to a geographical region, not a political power. If we could add factions and make Rhodes, Sparta, Aetolia, etc. separate factions but strong allies at the outset of the game (much like the Roman factions) then it would make sense to use the term Aetolian when referring to the League (like Polybius does). Since we can't do this and have to use the Aetolian League as a vague concept bonding all of the Greek cities into a playable faction, then let's use "Aetolian League" consistently as a descriptive.

---

Explained like that, I'm inclined to agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

You haven't notice any particular change in different terrain? That is strange.

---

I believe that khelvan changed movement speeds to 0.8 across the board with the intent of finetuning different terrains later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

I don't quite agree. We can circunvet the problem without increasing some in-balances already present with siege equipement (atomic warhead onagers).

---

My apologies, when I was talking about siege equipment I was referring to the rams and towers I had built on site, as I have yet to make an onager in my Macedon campaign. With the slow rate of advancement to the walls, my rams were lost, and I wouldn't doubt that my towers barely made it. Also, they only had one unit of archers. In vanilla R:TW I would have lost one ram to these defences tops.

And yes, onagers are rediculous in R:TW. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Juice

I believe that khelvan changed movement speeds to 0.8 across the board with the intent of finetuning different terrains later.

---

I believe that, in average, they were reduced by the factor 0.8. I might be wrong though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Juice

My apologies, when I was talking about siege equipment I was referring to the rams and towers I had built on site, as I have yet to make an onager in my Macedon campaign. With the slow rate of advancement to the walls, my rams were lost, and I wouldn't doubt that my towers barely made it. Also, they only had one unit of archers. In vanilla R:TW I would have lost one ram to these defences tops.

---

Ok, now I see. Yes, khelvan already had the intention of increasing the resistance of rams and towers. He just didn't do it for this test version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Juice

And yes, onagers are rediculous in R:TW. ~;)

---

LOL :grin:

There are differences in terrain modifiers. I simply reduced the vanilla modifiers by 80% across the board. Thus units should be slower in different terrain. I do not, however, agree with the weight that CA put on different terrain and I feel it needs to be slower in some instances, and perhaps higher in others. This will come when we have a base for appropriate movement speed in the open (right now the standard terrain to fight on is grass).

when will be a released ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeadRunner

when will be a released ???

---

Hello, Deadrunner!!! ~:wave: What have you been up to?

Estás ansioso? HE!HE!HE! :grin:

Ainda estamos na versão Alpha 0.1, portanto ainda vai demorar um bocado. Estamos a fazer as coisas passo a passo, para ter a certeza absoluta de que o jogo terá, não só uma grande fidelidade histórica em termos de unidades e culturas, mas também que será o mais realista possível. Coisa que a versão sem MOD não é...

Se quiseres podes testar a versão Alpha 0.1. Entras no grupo EB como beta-tester. Manda-me um PM e eu indico-te como. Mas esta ainda só tem stats diferentes. Não tem unidades novas. Ainda as estamos a fazer.

Se não quiseres, enquanto não sai a V1.0, vai tomando atenção ao thread. ~:wave:

Reconspy:

Been playing an few battles with your Arverni. Geez they look great. Be good if we can implement a sort of phalanx option for them, with a long sword as a secondary (non-phalanx) weapon. Not sure who has the know-how to do that?

* Could we make the spear a little longer?

Vercingetrix:

* Do you know how to implement this dual function for the Arverni so when not in a sort of phalanx formation, they fight with longsword?

* Noticed your sword for the Arverni. Is it possible to model on the sword and scabbard on units?

* Is it possible to model it so that for example, when in phalanx, the model shows a sword in the scabbard but when 'not' (ie sword in hand) the scabbard is empty?

This would add a heap to authenticity and eye candy!!

Aymar de Bois Mauri:

Doing a great job. Sent you a PM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Reconspy:

Been playing an few battles with your Arverni. Geez they look great. Be good if we can implement a sort of phalanx option for them, with a long sword as a secondary (non-phalanx) weapon. Not sure who has the know-how to do that?

* Could we make the spear a little longer?

---

I'm going to intrude in your discussion... :embarassed: ...but, in the RTW engine itself, regarding calculations, there are only three kind of spear-type weapons:

-Spear
-Short Pike
-Long Pike

If it is possible to alter only the graphics for the spear and not their beahaviour, it might be possible, but I don't think so.

Regarding the phalanx option, as I've said in a previous post answering that same question :wink: , if the Averni Arjos use the hoplite unit animation, they will behave like a phalanx, including the draw of swords for closer melee. But, IIRC, this means two things:

1) Use the hoplite model to base the Averni Arjos on, requiring the remodeling of that same model.

2) Extracting the animation data of that hoplite model and that is something that Vercingetorix is still working on his CAS import-export plug-inn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Aymar de Bois Mauri:
Doing a great job. Sent you a PM

---

Got it. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

Regarding the phalanx option, as I've said in a previous post answering that same question :wink: , if the Averni Arjos use the hoplite unit animation, they will behave like a phalanx, including the draw of swords for closer melee. But, IIRC, this means two things:

1) Use the hoplite model to base the Averni Arjos on, requiring the remodeling of that same model.

2) Extracting the animation data of that hoplite model and that is something that Vercingetorix is still working on his CAS import-export plug-in

---

Hmmm, the hoplite animation could be a work-around but it would be better if we could have two distinct options. Reason being that in RTW the Hoplites / phalanx guys use their swords when involved in very close / in your face combat... as would of happened in real life.

The prob is that the Celtic long sword was not used in this way. They needed room to swing it so the troops would have to completely break out of close formation and charge with sword in hand. So if somehow we could enable the unit to wield a spear in 'phalanx' but sword otherwise, it would be preferred.

Maybe we could link it to the hold button. When on 'hold position', the unit thrusts with spear, otherwise they use the long sword. Or visa versa with a 'Draw Swords' button. Hmm?

my2bob

@PSYCHO V:
I am sure that it can be done, and making the spear longer would be no problem. And yes, Vercingetorix is doing the finishing touches on the Arverni Arjos now, so you should ask him. The "sword back in the scabbard" look when they are using spears I think is probably impossible.

The sword and sheath are seperate models but I don't think it is possible to have the sword in scabbard when not using it otherwise it would be some eye candy! Ok I wasn't able to finish up the Averni Arjos but quickly made the gallic warband.

http://img24.exs.cx/img24/2894/gallic_warband.th.jpg

Not sure if that's what you wanted with the pants? I didn't texture them but I tried to make them like this pic: https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...merc/celt1.jpg

They now have javelins to throw, I wasn't sure if I should add a sword or just leave them with spears so I left them with their usual spears for melee combat. They're still light infantry, do you think swords are too much? I would personaly rather see them keep the spears but not my call. Gave them a torc as well, did I miss anything?

edit I would be surprised if you have any problems implementing any old unit in a phalanx. As far as I know the phalanx units use the same universal unit skeleton. I haven't really spent any time changing units in this way just the graphical changes...I may be mistaken.

http://home.earthlink.net/~axel44/gallic_warband.zip

Hi there guys! im quite new to the editing scene for RTW, (ive always edited ofp) lol anyway i was just thinking with that cool screen of the gauls you were edititing, why dont you consider editing the saturation levels a little of the clothes they are wearing (or the er textures of the clothes) and likewise for the shield (adding some dirt and scratches etc) that could make the unit look more kinda real - that said of course CA has a lot of units that look too bright or colourful in my opinion.

Anyway Vercingtorix i think the work your doing is great, ive only been here for a week or so, but i can already appreciate the great work ur doing.

Brilliant stuff Verci !!

Torc Torc Torc !! :charge: :charge: :charge:

Re the pants: I think the boots are too high imho. Ok for the more elite units like Arverni etc that could afford special boots but for the grunts I think it best to keep the pants gathered low at the ankles with shoes.

Re the weapons: Nice with the throwing spears. I do think the sword the preferred secondary weapon. This will reflect historically how the majority fought, and the Warband is a generic majority unit. The peasants are your ‘too poor to have sword’ spear unit, whilst the Arverni, Helvetii and Bodubatae etc are your spear defence units. If we can get those later ‘elite’ units that dual role thing between thrusting spears and swords, the Warband throwing spears and swords ability will also add a bit of variety. My2bob

Waiting eagerly to begin skinning!!

nice stuff Vercingetorix - but how are they going to stay warm with no shirt on in the chilly north?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

Why use "Total Realism" features? This is the EB MOD. We will modify the map according to History, not according to other MODs.

---

Ok, let's make our own! :charge: I think it's good idea to add some new regions.
I miss Corsica. Don't understand why it's united with Sardinia.
Caledonia will be good too imho.
Not sure about Raetia. I would easily agree to forget about it.
Also I'm thinking about renaming "Bosphorus" to "Tavria" (need proper Latin spelling), and making new (historically accurate) Bosporus (not Bosphorus - it's strait near Istanbul) on both coasts of Kerch strait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

You want to use Slavic to depict a city name before the slavs appeared on the scene? That is NOT an Historical approach and this MOD is all about that.

---

You got me wrong! I just pointed out that name "Bylazora" (original CA's) may be Slavic and anachronistic for that period. I already found better name for town in this region - Serdica (from map in Osprey's book about Thracians).