Yeah I agree aswell. would like to know what units I lose when I have reforms
Printable View
Yeah I agree aswell. would like to know what units I lose when I have reforms
I got a question in a PM about what MIC stands for, and I realized it wasn't part of the FAQ. Perhaps we could add this?
Quote:
Q: What does MIC mean?
A: MIC stands for Military-Industrial Complex, and is the most common way that forum members refer to the buildings in EB that enable you to recruit soldiers. Other names for the same include "barracks", and both are often prefixed by local/regional/allied or native/factional. Another FAQ entry points to the differences between these.
Probably more descriptive than "The word 'MIC' is something that breaks the versimilitude of your EB game about as much as the existence of head hurlers. It was originally internal EB team shorthand for 'barracks' that spilled out into the public forum. If you ever see a reference to a 'MIC' within the EB game itself, please alert us in our EB Bug Reports & Technical Help sub-forum so we can remove it immediately."
Though I take no position on the issue. :beam:
Do you mean the name "MIC" or the actual things in-game (which would presumably mean that there should be separate barracks, stables etc.)?Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksnail
The former. Nice catch!
OK, just checking! :beam:
I suppose it's just easier to use "MIC", "Oppida" etc. when referring to them instead of looking up their names for all the factions.
A question, didn't the names of Sweboz cities change from when this FAQ was made? As none of those cities seem to exist, they were all replaced with stuff like "Gawjam-Silencos" or Sweboztaztaradaldaktamn(or something..) with hundreds of accent marks. So it seems the cities I am look to build markets have been changed to something else.
The names in the FAQ refer to the names of regions in the game and all of them are in the game and up to date. The name of the region can be seen in game by right-clicking terrain inside the said region while not having a unit selected, or by hovering your mouse over the region on the minimap. So, if the FAQ says you have to have Habukolandam, you in other words have to have the city Gawjam-Habukoz, which translates to "Camp of the Habukos".Quote:
Originally Posted by Olaf The Great
I've been searching through the forum for the past hour and haven't found anything so far so I decided to ask about the Seleukid Reform in 1.1 in here.
In my Seleukid campaign in 1.0 I didn't do any of the criteria to get the reform, but then for some reason later in my campaign (I think it was 220 bc but my memory is fuzzy) I was suddenly able to recruit Hellenikoi Kataphractoi. Now during my first campaign in 1.1 with the Seleukids I waited till 236 bc before sending two general-led armies to fight the Pahlava (whose armies had katapracts and noble katapracts) and lost to them in auto-calculated battles but I didn't get the reform or "intrigued by kataphracts" trait with either of my generals :embarassed:
Should I have fought on the battle map and lost to the Pahlava on purpose, lost more men in battle (I lost 700-80 men in both) or do my armies have to be full stacks or have certain units in them? ~:(
Any tips or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
What level of "selfishness" is "Can't be selfless"? And in which file "selfishness" has been defined?
Thanks
Can't be selfless = Must be selfish. It's part of the 6 basic traits, so see the EDCT.
Hello,
I'm playing with saka, and have completed all conditions to trigger the reform. But new units didn't appear. What I need to do?
Need to build an allied government, instead of nomadism or pastoralism, then you can make the barracks that will give you your new units.
I don't know if this is the right place to post it, but I want to know why Rome can build type II governments in what is now Poland, Denmark, etc (if the recruitment viewer doesn't lie).
This is incredible, when romans never crossed the Elba, and thay have no real plans for doing that.
But I think that this a very weak reason for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I hope that you will change this, guys.
Roman Type2 areas do not represent where they historically ruled. They represent what they could have integrated into the Roman Empire were to have ever conquered it.
But they never did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
I think is too easy for the romani.
And Rome would have "integrated" all the world in the same way, if they had had the opportunity. Your argument could be used for Ireland or even for China too.
And remember:
Type II govs description talks about "romaniced" provinces.
Type III about "lightly romaniced" ones (provincia romaniensis).
Why would Tuat or Garama be lightly romaniced (or a client kingdom) and Poland full romaniced? It makes no sense at all.
Remember this isn't about recreating history, so what happened historically is a moot point. The Romani team has decided that if conquered, Germania could have been Romanized such as Gaul was.
The Romani Type2 areas are actually smaller then they used to be. In v0.7x they had the ability to build Type2's in all places but the steppe (and maybe Arabia, IIRC). The Romani Type2 areas were reduced to better balance them against other factions (gameplay balance).
I'm sorry but you don't convince me.
And I will never build type II gov in a province that any roman army had "visited".
:no:
I try to play the game as historic or real as possible, I know that there are lots of players that prefer other ways to play it, but I believe that it's more funny doing the things as I do.
Obviously you can leave the game as it is now (it's great), but please think about what I suggested.
Another question about romaniced provinces: In fact the north of Spain was lightly romaniced, the Basque Country and the mountains of Cantabria and Asturias were never fully romaniced. There I always build Type III gov. to emulate this.
Nobody forces you how to play a game.
It's completely up to you if you want to use some kind of "house rules" making the game historical for you. Even if having a historical EB-game seems kinda impossible to me, regarding the RTW-engine...but as said, that's your matter of concern.:yes:
Is there some sort of limitation about the marriages (of the daughters, I mean) and adoptions per turn?
In every turn they only happen once. We have now only one marriage or adoption per turn.
Is there a possibility to increase that?
Nope. There can only be 0-1 adoption/marriage event per turn.
Thank you for the answer.
I need more fresh generals in my current campaign. :whip:
[QUOTE=MarcusAureliusAntoninus;1533054]Europa Barbarorum FAQ
I have tried to run EB v1.1 "Play Multiplayer" option in order to play custom battles with all faction troops, but the game allways crashes while loading the battle!!Quote:
Q: In custom battles or multiplayer the unit selection is missing units.
A: All of the regionals cause a problem for the custom battle / multiplayer list. There is a special EDU for custom battles / multiplayer in the "...Rome- Total War\EB\mp custom game edu" folder. Rename your campaign EDU then place the EDU from that folder into the "...Rome - Total War\EB\Data" folder. When you want to play a campaign again, switch back to your original EDU. EB v1.1 now comes with the trivial script, which will automatically switch the files for you. To play custom battles or multiplayer battles with all of your factional units, run the "Play Multiplayer" option of the trivial script.
Any possible solutions??
Have you installed the 1.1 fixes from the EB Bugs forum? If not I might suggest reinstalling. Does it crash in campaign mode when you load a battle? I assume not.
Foot
No I haven't. Can you give me a link?
And by the way, no the game dosn't normally crash while loading battles in campaign mode, but the campaign mode eventually allways crashes after some hours of play. Maybe this problem can be fixed as well?
What exactly does the trivial script do? If it has already been mentioned may I have a link to where it explains its function?
The fixes are stickied in the Bug reports and technical help subforum. Crashing after a few hours of play is most likely the RTW memory leak. The only way to fix it is to reboot every so often or buy some more RAM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlon
I have a few questions, and I didn't feel like starting a new thread.
First, I was wondering if anyone could post the stats for all of the late/ elite Cataphracts? I'm looking for the following ones:
Grivpanvar (Parthian Late Armored Elite Cataphracts)
Sahigan Pahr (Parthian Late Bodyguards)
Ysaninu Aysiramj� (Saka Cataphracts)
Sahiya Hadabara (Saka Late Cataphract)
and the Hetairoi Kataphraktoi
I'm somewhat obsessed with comparing the unit's stats, and I want to know how all of these compare.
I want to know this because I want to start a campiagn as an eastern faction, but want to see how the late units compare.
Also I had one other question.
To get the Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi (Hellenic Cataphracts), the AS has to get the reform, by losing some big battles to Parthia, or the Bactrians. Bactria also has access to this unit, but I don't know how they get it. Is it available without reforms? Is it tied to the AS getting their reform, and only after they get it, does Bactria get it? If that is the case, can I simply just beat the AS in some large battles to encourage the reforms? Or, is there some sort of reform that Bactria has to perform to get them?
I want to know this in case I end up playing as Bactria.
Oh and one more, are the Hetairoi Kataphraktoi the Bactrian late bodyguard, or are they a trainable unit? And if they are the bodyguards, are they still trainable from the MIC?
p.s. Any screenshots of those units i mentioned would be awesome, I'd like to see what they actually look like on the battlefield!
Why not post a new thread instead of replying to a random one? Anyway, use the Unit Documentation to compare units.
where can i find that, the unit documentation?