Printable View
i need something to assuage my despair that after all my years of waiting for a good hannibal movie treatment, mr. vin diesel decided not only to direct it, but to star in it as well. :wall:
i cant wait to see how he tries to shoehorn some sexy leading lady in there~:rolleyes:
but anyways, i'm really hoping that with the use of kingdoms this and many other awsome things will be possible...waiting for this mod to come out may kill me
it is possible with rtw as well, could've gone the same way as xanthippos (sp?) point is that hannibals father could have had sex at a different moment with hannibals mother causing a different son (or a daughter) to be born and eb is pretty much about changing history i guess. Kinda see it like this: if your parents would have had their sexual intercours (sp?) one day later than they in reality did, then u would have probably not been born.
ummm yeah :creep:
good thing that wolf didnt eat romulus and remus or there wouldnt have been a rome :stupido2:
i was thinking something more along the lines of the william wallace event....
We don't really need Hannibal if we win the First Punic War as Carthage (or loose as the Romani, but what are the likelyhoods) now do we?
Historical railroading = teh suxors
Well, at least too much. There are some things we go with because there is enough of an historical basis behind certain developments. People, however, is a no.
Exactly, Abou makes a very valid point.
Hannibal Barkas was born in 247 BC, and between 272 and 247 a lot could've happened. Roma could have crushed the Kart-Hadastim, Hamilcar Barkas could've been killed, Kart-Hadast could have conquered Roma, etc, etc. It's just too late in the timeframe to do something like that.
by that reasoning why should you have any of the various reforms and events that are in the eb script?
there were a series of situations, chance events etc that all added up to the creation of reforms
hannibal in eb2 shouldnt be dismissed out of hand, especially when you consider how long the man was in italy, although i do understand the argument that in the end it didnt change the outcome of romes destiny (or maybe it was the catalyst, who can know?)...but IF we are to agree with theodore dodge, hannibal was the crucible that helped make the romans what they eventually became
all i'm suggesting is possibly a trigger that would allow him to appear in spain..how feasible that is to code or whatever i dont know
edit:: just to make it clear, i'm not trying to start an exhausting argument over the merits of having certain great figures from history added to eb2. i know how hard it is to choose what goes in or out of such a huge and sweeping mod, and by all rights i should just shut up and enjoy the finished product, which i'm quite certain will be nothing less than fantastic. all i am asking is that it is considered
Touché.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shabby_Ronin
You got the point. :beam:
Well, many of the reforms that occured during EB´s timeframe were close to inevitable, less something truly extraordinarly happened, such as Carthage conquering Roma by 250 BC, and that just doesn´t seem likely.
For example, the Polybian reforms are a direct result of Roma´s increased contact with mainly Gallic and Iberian warriors, something that would likely have happened even if some famous Romans hadn´t been born.
Same goes for the Marian reforms, the creation of such a large empire required some sort of reforms as the Roman system was unable to accomidate such a large empire.
The Augustan reforms are also quite likely to occur with the creation of an even larger and not so expansive empire, and especially so with someone like Augustus taking power and centralising it upon a single figure.
As for the Carthaginian reforms, they too were likely to happen, wether Xanthippus had arrived or not. It was pretty much the natural next step.
Same goes for pretty much all the other reforms.
Those were broad social and military changes, not the actions of one man. So much of Hannibal's march depend on Hannibal being born, and being born the same person in the same world. It's not inevitable and not necessarily likely that it would have occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shabby_Ronin
It's true that EB's reforms mostly follow history, but that is simply due to limitations of the engine. There are only so much reforms and reformed units one can include. With the exception of Epiros, all factions in EB were around for enough time to have at least a chance to reform. One can therefore argue that the reforms included in EB are historically the most likely option, even if they need not have happened at the time that they did.
Including Hannibal's march, on the other hand, seems an attempt to shoehorn a famous character in.
appo, i agree with that, but if we are to run with it we need to suppose all these things would eventually happen from the first turn you play. the argument of "historical railroading" is easily applied to any argument and quite arbitrary in my opinion.
to argue there would have to be marian reforms due to romes ever increasing empire is to first guess there was an ever increasing empire, and at the start of the game that has yet to be decided. when these things are added to the script you are presupposing something will happen to allow an event to occur
i just think it would be cool to have an event that if the certain triggers are met, he appears.
i wont deny i have hero worship, and my request is quite selfish :sorry:
ludens, to distill hannibal down to the march through the alps is to forget this man was the terror of rome for over a decade, basically creating a state within a state for quite a long while, but i agree that if you step outside of the whole vast timeframe of this period, those 15 years can appear superficial
like i said i understand and empathise with all your guys' points
heres to civility ~:cheers:
Hey, nobody's stopping you to ship a Hannibal of your own to Spain, recruit an army there, march through the Alps to terrorize Rome!
This is EB, you can -change- history!
I've done it and it's great, but with no elephants at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
:sweatdrop:
Not to be a dick about it, so that isn't my intention when I say this, but we have and we will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shabby_Ronin
It isn't justifiable to include him. Reforms are mainly due to changes in military schema and influence by other technologies. Including Hannibal is a whole other bag.
it would probably be better to say "we have considered it, yet we dont feel we can represent all the minutia of history to try and please everyone" or at least something a little more diplomatic in nature
no offense, but your posts are antagonistic and a bit coarse
but i get it, and i'll let it drop
thanks for your replies
When you´ve done what Abou has done, you have the right to be as big a dick as you like.
You know if anything, if they put in Hannibal I don't know how many people would be screaming for Julius Caesar and Pompey and Spartacus and Scipio Africanus and Vercingeterix and Surena and such.
The problem being by their time all their enemies have probably been wiped.
I mean by 60 BC the player would probably have already taken out Gaul, or if the player is some other faction then Carthage already taken out Rome, etc.
So really, it's only logical for you wanting Hannibal is to play Carthage and do it yourself. I mean it really wouldn't make sense if Rome decide to expand into Gaul while Carthage into Spain and the two remain faithful allies to have a Hannibal pop up in Italy ravaging the countryside now would it?
i thought it would be cool to have some various great people appear if CERTAIN CONDITIONS merit it, possibly using the special abilities available in kingdoms... and as i said , it is very subjective about who people think was more relevant. i understand it could cause too many arguments about who was more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shabby_Ronin
they stated its not an option, so thats that
But you know, that would be giving Carthage a huge army at Carthago Nova (or whatever its actual name is) which is already unfair. And then if AI controls Carthage, then we have to force the AI to march that stack by land into Italy through the alps, and we have to force BOTH Gallic tribes to declare war on Carthage but only attack Hannibal with small 1~3 unit stacks, and then he goes into Italy and if the AI also control the Romans, then the AI has to send army after army after it, but only two or three direct confrontation, and Carthage have to win all of them, and then we have to give Southern Italy + Campania to Carthage, and after that we still have to make sure Hannibal stays in Italy and not march back to Spain or go to Scicily.
Not to mention if the player is either Gaul or Roman then Hannibal would be stopped dead before he gets anywhere, and if the player is Carthage that just give the player unfair extra troops.
Well, you're right, I am coming across as antagonistic. This topic has come up several times on the boards. In fact, several of us in the team kind of squirm when we see threads that act as guides for Rome that state what to conquer and when to do it by. That isn't role-playing, which is what the team intends; that is forcing a square peg into a triangular hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shabby_Ronin
That being said, I hope you don't feel entirely disheartened by the team's decision.
Hi Shabby_Ronin - as a general rule the EB team tries to start the game with an accurate snapshot of the year in which it begin. Beyond that it's anybody's guess, as we take a "hands-off" approach to specific events or wars that come later. Generally we leave this up to modders to do such things. There is nothing wrong with recreating specific histories, we just don't do so as a team.
Are you considering more reforms for EB2? I mean not only militar reforms, but cultural, religious or economical ones.
its cool abou, i dont keep up with eb forums and information, so i was unaware this has been addressed ad nauseam. frankly i never got to play eb1 that much due to the fact that i discovered it about the same time i got mtw2 so i kinda left rome behind...so besides being very deep and wishing to portray history correctly i didnt know much about it...i just know it was quite popular
i wasnt trying to demand you guys to shoehorn someone in, i was merely enthusiastic about the possibility of something similar to william wallace emerging in brittania and ss 6.0 and didnt know this went against your mods objectives...frankly i just think he was the greatest general of the classical era, given his bad luck and lack of recources, i'm sure everyone has a "favorite" they always wanna see given some representation...but i said, its a selfish request and i completely understand your position
i am unaware if this emerging individuals mechanic was available in rome...although i do remember something with the romano british in bi, so i thought that since your using kingdoms you might explore this feature....again i am very unsure if this is exclusive to kingdoms or could always be done
being quite ignorant of your guys' philosophy i didnt know hannibal was a square peg and EB2 was a round hole
good luck with your mods development
I'm not entirely certain what the historians are cooking up, but I will say that we are no longer as limited by technical issues if we do need to add reforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartaphilus
Good news!!!
:balloon2:
@Shabby-Ronin
You should really give EB 1.1 a try. I am a big MTW2 fan, and I never thought that I would go back to playing any kind of RTW (modded or otherwise) because MTW2 is simply a better overall game that has fantastic possibilities and is highly moddable in its own right. Never-the-less, I haven't popped that medieval disc in my computer in almost 4 months... EB is that good! To be fair, I have some performance issues with my computer (big battles just drag on MTW2) but even so, I was truly addicted, and now I am hooked on EB even given the limitations of the RTW engine. Oh yeah, their are some EB 1.1 modders who seem to be scripting in a Hannibal event, so if you try it, you might get your Hannibal fix sooner rather than later!
For reference, the guy working on a Hannibal script is QuintusSertorius. He lurks around at the org and the twcenter.
I don't know if this is a time exhausting, game engine limits etc. problem, or just a historical one.
But if it's just a historical one, what's wrong with only including it if necessary conditions are met? Say you play historically to the bone and use force diplomacy so that the map in 240 BC looks like the real world map of 240 BC (approx, of course), something like this could happen?
Wouldn't that be kinda like the Augustan reform? An 'only if' reform/event?
I totally understand if it involves a lot of extra work, but if not, what's the problem?
It is nothing like the Augustan Event at all. That was a socio-political movement that had specific causes based in large, population-wide criteria, the individual component was not based on a specific name but a combination of factors mostly covered by our trait and ancillary system.
The Hannibal Event is a singular campaign by a historical individual. The specific causes are beyond the remit of a game like total war - it would require something as indepth as The Sims, not a political, military game - and as such is something that we will not ever include.
Some people may not see a problem with this, but we feel that it is at odds with our vision of EB and clashes with our view of what a historical game such as EB should represent.
Foot
Basically if we want it, we'll have to mod it in ourselves. Which I hope someone does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
in other words there won't be any "surprises" in EB like we see in MTW2 with arrival of mongols and timurids or discovery of america?
No. Didn't say that. There won't be events that were not based in quantifiable social and political causes that we can reliably reproduce in the game. If these events take place outside of the influence of the map (both the mongols and timurids would come under this heading were EBII based in the same timeperiod of MTW2) then the event will happen within a time-frame much in the same way that the timurids and mongols appear (though not as seperate factions).
Hannibal does not, in our opinion, fall under the category of mid-game events that we want to include. Our criteria is hardly constrictive so you can expect to see may suprises throughout the campaign.
Foot
If, say, somebody were to use the base EB2 1.0 game to develop a Hannibal mod a la RTW's Alexander...
<cough, cough>
Uh. Someone who has the same opinion as me. Balloon for you :balloon2:, however antagonistic you may be. I like that EB doesn't try to FORCE history upon you after the first turn. At turn 1, you're teleported back to 272 B.C. - and THEN you play. Having people turn up later would be like: you're transported back to 272. Then you play for 12 years and then, if you were so cruel as to alter history, EVERYTHING is reset to perfectly suit how things were in 260 BC. That wouldn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
All the problems currently existing belong to the inability of the AI. A better AI could perhaps be made to see that it has to defeat Romani instead of just staying in Spain, and would then perhaps send an army in that direction. I also hate that RTW AI doesn't get the real question of Sicily: if Carthage loses it, they make peace with Rome and ignore each other. That Carthage always sought to take Sicily, so as to prevent enemies from using it to invade Carthage, isn't something the AI is aware of - and the Romani AI isn't either. Besides, even if AIs were to mount naval invasions, I doubt they'd be historic enough to do it from Sicily to Carthage and not from weird places like from Bosporus to Carthage:beam:
But all that is due to the vanilla AI. Were it better, I doubt anybody would request historic events like the invasion of Italy. But trying to get the AI on the right track by scripted events is kinda an illusion. We just have to wait until a better AI is developed. One that will know of some sort of strategy, instead of merely "it's nearby, let's conquer it".
So the recent thread about Xanthippus made me think of this thread. Will he not be included in EB2, then?
Yes he will. But he was alive in 272. Hannibal was not. in addition, due to the close proximity to the start date and that he is not represented elsewhere (and so is essentially off-map till his appearance), there need not have complex conditions to spawn.
We already apply the criteria as expressed here in EBI.
Foot
Cool beans. How did you reply so fast?
I am a moderator for these forums. We know...
Foot
Aside from that Hannibal was a slightly different figure from Xanthippos. It is plausible for the Senate to hire a merc general (literally) X; hence the event. It's plausible given the right conditions (triggers!).
It's somewhat less plausible some important Carthy noble suddenly finds himself with a son, who not only he hadn't heard of before (his wife must've kept the kid away from the daddy...?) but it also turns out the son inherits his fathers drive to put an end to Roman agressions (odd?) and who is, to top it off, also appointed as commander in chief of what can be considered one of the largest standing Carthaginian forces? Better yet: he voids the treaty between Carthage and Rome, by assaulting a town of some people who've been hurting Carthaginian interests & allies?
Such a gross contradictio in terminis is easily possible when you aim for a Hannibal event in a game such as M2TW which simply hasn't been designed with keeping itself consistent with a complex, alternate past-history & alternate future ahead of time. You cannot 'mark' the boy before he comes of age; and you cannot even control at which date he gets born. The way he was 'marked' at a young age, and in which age he was born made Hannibal; had he lived 50 years earlier or had he had a different childhood, he would't have been quite the Hannibal...
EDIT: Not to mention the various other high-ranking nobles who accompanied him on his legendary campaign.
Not to mention the impact he had on modern-day views.Quote:
The way he was 'marked' at a young age, and in which age he was born made Hannibal; had he lived 50 years earlier or had he had a different childhood, he would't have been quite the Hannibal...
Imagine a "Hasdrubal Lecter". -shiver-