Printable View
Have you used enough question marks, or do you need some more. We are not going to go over this again and again. Perhaps it should be included in the FAQ. We are very happy with our current stat system and we are not going to change it. I'm sure someone from the stating team will be able to tell you more.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wicked
Foot
:oops: sorry Foot that i upset you it was not in my intension :beam: but i didnt know that this matter was in talks before... perhaps you can direct me in a relative thread :yes: ?
There are several concerning minor issues, but nothing that would be much interest to read. We haven't released our statting system, so unfortunately we cannot give you much more info. Additionally this isn't my area, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.
Perhaps, if you don't want to upset me, you shouldn't make demands of the team. This is the suggestion thread, so give suggestions but don't demand new content or changes to original content. Its just a way of approaching things carefully.
Foot
If the naked warriors do have a 5 armour bonus as The Wicked says, then I too find that rather illogical, although perhaps it's meant to reflect their toughened, weathered skin ;)
No, its meant to represent their helmet.
Foot
Hmm, fair enough I suppose - does M2 subdivide defence bonuses at all (into head, body etc.) or does it keep the same system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wicked
Armor counts helmets as well. Clothing gives some armor, pectorals, greaves etc. Its not just high end body armor.
For example, Camillan Hastati have a helment, a heavy shirt, and a greave on the leading leg. All of those things contribute to their armor rating.
Our stat system is seriously thought out, has undergone lots of testing and adjustment, and continues to undergo testing and adjustment, we didn't just make up numbers.
Do you guys plan to limit the effect of experience somehow? Maybe increasing overall stats and giving e.g. 3 chevrons to every unit is a good way of accomplishing this? Something surely must be done.
Any chance of the first government (the military law one) giving more than a 5% boost? Once empires get big it gets harder to keep distant cities, it gets to a point that its impossible. Could be nice to be able to put martial law in place and wait for the unrest to die down so you can establish a proper government. Lets face it, a newly conquered province isn't going to have the organisation to rebel with a 20 stack army sitting in it.
Can you make a scripts form a army if it make a long siege a city, the army get some tip of plague for force the player to attack the city.
I posted this in another thread and I thought it belonged here:
Could you make the dynamic reforms only for the human player or make them less complicated for the AI?
If more reforms are going to be dynamic, I hope all of them are in the final build. Then perhaps the ones for the AI should only depend on date and maybe provinces held (but less provinces than what would be needed if the faction was human-controlled ).
That way there is a fair chance a Romani AI will get to Marian, or other factions that are going to have dynamic reform soon (i heard something about the celts) can get their reforms even if under AI control.
I haven't been playing EB very long, but it seems to me the winter campaigning movement restrictions don't work too well. It's a beautiful idea - but the way things are, armies led by a captain move much faster in the winter than armies led by a general, which is somewhat absurd.
Using armies with only a captain for an offensive is considered cheating. We unfortunately have no way to influence captain movement.
Maybe decreasing the "starting_action_points" in descr_character and increasing the movement rate of the generals and the "agents" (spies, assassins, diplomats) by hidden traits will do it?
That would unfairly reduce the movement of legitimate troop movements. If players want to "cheat" then we are not going to stop them, we just suggest that it ruins their gaming experience. There is no reason to be concerned about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybvep
Foot
Hmmm, I would suggest that when a modification necessitates introducing a house rule, it might not be such a good modification after all - no matter how sound the concept behind it.
Let's face it, movement rates in games are from Fantasy Island, period... Ships take a year to sail 300 miles, etc. I would like to comment out the movement restrictions. Would someone be kind enough to tell me if this calls for more adjustments than commenting out the relevant trait in the character trait file, without calling me a cheat? :-D
A modification is no good if it needs *a* house rule?
The movement restrictions for characters that can make more realistic and enjoyable things like summer campaigning issues, running out of provisions, being sick, etc., are a fantastic addition, and we suggest that all campaigns outside of one's own territories be led by a character and not a captain. Really, it's a terrific addition.
Personally I use captain-led armies from time-to-time, and never considered it a cheat. And sometimes you might have so few family members that captain led armies are the only option. But usually it's not a good idea, since even though your army might move a little faster (usually the reverse), you'll pay a price for it in several ways:Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelis
- The General's usually kick-ass unit is not part of your force (try a few Pahlava battles without generals and see how much fun that is)
- Your captain's "leadership" has *zero* impact on the battle. No command stars, no morale, nada.
- Without a General, you get no cool new ancillaries or traits from winning the battle.
I consider all of those penalty enough, and no house rule is required. To be honest I can't think of ANY *mandatory* EB-specific house rules. Bridge battles are frowned upon, but that's an RTW AI issue. Other than that, it's really up to you.
Firstly, we would never call you a cheat if you wished to play the game as you wish to play the game. Many of RTW's hardcodes necessitate that as a modification we must have certain house-rules. But they are just that, house-rules, we don't stop people from playing otherwise, and we don't call those people cheats - we also don't think that by breaking our house-rules that you are getting the most enjoyment out of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelis
As far as the EB team continue pushing RTW and, soon, MTW2 to the limit of their original capabilities we will need to have house-rules. You say that this is a bad thing, I say that this makes us one of the best mods ever. Our changes reach nearly every part of this game and our modifications have stretched RTW to breaking point (you may well notice that many people who run MTW2 smoothly and quickly have some trouble with RTW loading speeds), and that makes us a good modification and not a bad one. One of the consequences of this is that we have to introduce house-rules for the sake of consistency of the gameplay. If you don't like it, that is fine, but I entirely disagree with you that this makes us a bad mod. It would make us a bad mod if it was because we couldn't be bothered to do the actual modding. We can, we just can't go any further.
Foot
Whne EB2 comes out the team can implement this a lot better. Just make the probability of a captain led army outside your own province boarders rebel =1.
If people don't take generals with them, vthe armies will just rebel.
Cheers...
That's exactly what I wish to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I enjoy a game most when I do not have to create/abide by any house rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Yes, IMO the necessity of introducing a house rule means an issue isn't resolved satisfactorily. BTW, I think we have a misunderstanding; as I said elsewhere, I think your mod (EB) is one of the best ever - full agreement here. It's the modification of this specific thingie - movement rates - that I don't like, precisely because it requires a house rule to make it work.There are a few other things that I don't like about EB - nothing's ever perfect in this world - but this doesn't change the fact I'm enjoying EB more than any other game I've discovered over the past couple of years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
See what I said above about there being a misunderstanding. Now, can anyone tell me off the top of their head whether I can comment out the winter campaigning thing without dire consequences? If you don't know offhand, cool - I'm not asking anyone to look through files just because I'm too lazy to do it myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Seeing as this is the 'suggestion' thread, I was indeed answering your suggestion that we should remove "house rules" as such a modification that "necessitates introducing a house rule, it might not be such a good modification after all", which, given the thread, does indeed suggest a suggestion. If your point was simply to ask where you can comment out the trait for winter campaigning, then why did you post it in this thread, which is explicitly for the purposes of making suggestions to the improvement.
If I misunderstood you it is simply because you have failed to state what you wanted to the satisfaction of my own intellect. You were neither direct nor posting appropriately, both of which, in the environs of the internet forum, are fully capable of misleading any reader. Indeed, your post seems to have been confused or at least moving wildly from one point to another. At first you remark on our "house rule" of only using a general for attacking outside of controlled provinces (though certainly with a very general wording), yet you then inquire as to our movement restrictions (which is what confused me). Our movement restrictions are not house-rules, though certainly they can be removed if you find it necessary. House-rules are regarded (at least for EB), rules that are followed which represent conditions in the game, which we cannot reproduce given the hardcodes of the RTW engine. The movement restrictions don't fall into that as they are certainly represented by the engine.
As to how to remove them, I couldn't tell you the precise whereabouts, but once you've found the internal name for the effect you are looking for (in this case the movement reduction one), it should be an easy case of searching the export_descr_character_traits.txt file for the traits that carry that same effect and commenting out the said effect from each trait.
EDIT: I'm sorry Michaelis, I've only now seen your first post on the subject, and I understand the second one much better. Sorry for the misunderstanding, entirely my fault. I should have read the beginning of the discussion (or at least remember doing so), and my mistake was not to. Again, I apologise, as I feel that my above post mistakenly accused you of something that you did not in fact do.
Foot
Yeah, our trait guy could answer it, but Foot's pretty much on the right track. Other traits like the supply lines stuff is more complicated, but you could take a look at that too and see if there is anything there to comment out.
Oh, didn't vanilla have generals get tired after moving so far? The same issue pretty much I mean? It's been years since I played vanilla, but I thought their generals/characters could get tired from forced marching or exhausted or something like that, but captains were immune (i.e., traitless). Or is all of that EB stuff too?
Its been so long since I've played vanilla, and I've played EB so much, that I cannot tell which of our core stuff was in vanilla and which of it we made up. It sounds so very necessary that it must be vanilla, but it sounds so ingenious that it must be EB. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
Foot
All that is EB stuff. If it was vanilla, why wouldn't they make it count for the captains as well?
I apologize if my comment was taken as a derogatory remark. I was simply trying to say that we can't affect the captains, and because they have the ability to circumvent our logistics/movement traits I meant that it is best to not use them for offensives. I won't be looking over your shoulder.Quote:
Would someone be kind enough to tell me if this calls for more adjustments than commenting out the relevant trait in the character trait file, without calling me a cheat? :-D
You should probably not comment out the trait as some of your generals may currently have them, which I think could cause trouble. You should comment out all triggers that affect the given traits instead.
Well, he could comment the Effect MovementPoints lines in the traits if that's what he really want.
Thanks guys, I was worried that if I comment out the relevant lines in the traits file alone it might cause problems - didn't know whether the movement restriction thing wasn't linked to other stuff elsewhere.
I haven't played EB enough to offer a proper critique/suggestion block in this thread, but I will at some point. So watch out, Foot ;-).
I hate house rules because they destroy the suspension of disbelief for me. I like to lose myself in a game, transporting myself into a fantasy world, and when I have to remind myself that I can't do this or that because of that or other, it just destroys the experience. I'd rather play without some features activated.
Kull, everything you said about fighting with a captain-led army is right on, but you didn't mention one thing: a captain can get promoted to a general after the battle. It gives me a great thrill when that happens and yes, I shall continue to fight with captain-led armies.
And finally, to make this post fit the suggestions subject of this thread: I think the campaign goals might be a little too modest. I have played four campaigns so far - two with Sweboz, two with the Getai - and from what I saw so far both can be easily completed around 250 BC on VH/M. Maybe they should be renamed as quick campaigns, a full campaign requiring the player to conquer the known world or sthg ambitious like that? BTW, I couldn't completely finish the Getai campaigns; got a game-terminating CTD after about 80 turns in both cases (just as I was about to wipe the floor with the Romans! Grrr). Interestingly, both Sweboz campaigns played out without a single CTD.
My apologies for writing a post that's all over the place.
There are some temporary fixes available that might get you past the Getai CTDs. Check out the stickies in the tech help forum.
Good idea, thanks. I installed v2, BTW, but it didn't seem to help.
I've started a campaign with the Lusotannians in the meantime - wow, some breathtakingly beautiful units there. Anyway, I thought of a possible solution to the movement thing. It's like this: increase the movement rate of generals so that their movement rate equals the captains' AFTER the restrictions kick in. Of course, that would make general-led armies significantly faster - which wouldn't be unbelievable, after all one assumes an army led by a general is managed more efficiently. But I do not know how it would work out in gameplay. Seems okay at first glance, there would be an extra incentive to have a general leading the army, and of course the big reward would be that it would erase the need for a house rule to make things work.
If someone could point me to the right file, I'd be willing to test it out. Sorry for asking, it's just that I'm unfamiliar with the game files (on my first sally I looked in the wrong data file, lol).
PM me, we are thinking along the same lines.