I hope you improve the battles

The battles use to be a field where you can do whatevery you want. like riding with your cavalry and charging from the back. The size of battles was historicly much bigger. And that made it harder to do this. So it was nessecary to go fancy things to get the cavalry trough the lines of infantry. Like breaking your own lines to make a gap in both the enemy and your own lines or placing the cavalry in front, or just do like they do in The Gladiator, lol.

I know you cant make the battles this big. But if you make tha map smaller. or make very thick forest around, like the historical battle from medieval 2, battle of hastings.

This is also forces you or the computer to attack the enemy from the front like in real battles.

And not making a stupid battle with all the units spread all over the map attacking eachother one on one and cavalry flanking them and running back and doing it again and units flee and come back again and full chaos, you know what i mean?

If you do this there will be more focus on planning and strategy. Making flanking something we have to do with strategy and not just running around them. We will have to fight for the flank. And that is what they did in ancient time, and the game will be more awesome.

Friend, this is hardcoded. It means it can't be modded, which is what the EB team is trying to do.
Besides, the M2 AI is famous for its stupidity. So, getting it to do smart stuff is nearly impossible.

There is no way we can manually edit each tile on the campaign map to come up with what you suggest on the battle field. The battlefield is based on the campaign map tile, but otherwise it is randomly generated, afaik. Historical battles can be manually edited. Basically we cannot do what you suggest at all.

Foot

You can edit the campaign map. And from there you can change tha battlegrounds, in cost of a little campagin map realism. And if you can edit the size of the battle map to. it would be perfect. It sounds very easy tough.

But in EB, the battlegrounds actually looks better. And that is becouse you changed the campaign map.

I noticed that in my first EB battle. Seriously, you sould just start a campaign with Getai and move your army up between the mountains your first turn and the Elutheroi army will attack, and you see a prefect battlefield. seriously you should try.

I love that the threes are more bushy and denser and smaller.

so if you cant make the battle map smaller, you can edit the size of the trees. and you can edit the size of the soldiers.

But that would probably change the gameplay very mutch :wall:

What possibilities do you have?

We can alter the campaign map, but that only gives us limited control over how the battlemap will look. We spent a lot of time doing that for EBI and it worked out pretty well but what you see in EBI is pretty much the best we can achieve. A bit of tweaking here and there may improve it slightly but we really cannot fully do what you suggest. There will be many map tiles that produce battlemaps that lack a lot of the terrain features that you would wish to see, of course there will also be plenty of battlemaps where tactics will be absolutely necessary. However we cannot fine tune it to the level that you seem to wish for, its just not possible.

Foot

okay, i see. Just one more question: Are you able to make some kind of army-camps full of tents, in the battlemap? That lies in the background or something to make a more ancient battle-feeling? Just some idea i had. Like it is a part of the vegetation and are present on every battlefield. Maybe just some stupid idea.

No, I don't think that is possible either. Watchtowers, for example, appear on the battlemap, but they are hardcoded and we cannot add new elements such as military camps.

Foot

okay. but can you make the size of the soldiers, just a ittle bigger? barley noticeable. So that the battles appear a little bigger?

What? Making the soldiers on a larger model? We've already started making units it would be impossible to change their size now. I'm not sure how it would make battles look bigger. The Battlemap would appear smaller but there would be the same number of soldiers on there making the whole thing look smaller. Decreasing the size of soldiers (along with other elements such as trees) would actually make the battlemap look bigger and also give the impression of a larger battle.

However there is no way either of that is possible, as I've mentioned.

Foot

ah. i diddnt know they would all have to be remodeled. But if had made them bigger, the battle would not be bigger, but the battle map would be smaller. But nvm, i love the mod anyway :)

On the subject of changing terrain, it would be nice if something could be done for the battle maps where the entire map is basically a big forest, which means you basically can't see anything that's going on. (Tell me thats historical all you want, but historically I'd have Centurions to micromanage my cohorts, and I wouldn't have to try and do it from fifty feet in the air, or level with the horse's ass if I zoom in all the way)

And then theres my personal favorite, where a map has a mountain or something on it that goes up practically at a 90 degree angle, and the A.I. deploys at the very top. Perhaps it'd be possible to simply make this regions 'impassable'? Steep enough in other words.

I know neither of those are probably do-able...but it's something nice to think about.

Quote:

---

And then theres my personal favorite, where a map has a mountain or something on it that goes up practically at a 90 degree angle, and the A.I. deploys at the very top. Perhaps it'd be possible to simply make this regions 'impassable'? Steep enough in other words.

---

This is very possible in Medieval II.

I certainly hope so, though I don't really see how it could happen unless M2TW offers alot more flexibility than RTW that I'm not aware of. I've certainly had the '90 degree angle' situation happen to me in M2TW just like in Rome :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

No, I don't think that is possible either. Watchtowers, for example, appear on the battlemap, but they are hardcoded and we cannot add new elements such as military camps.

Foot

---

You absolutely sure about that? I have had lots of times in M2 where I have fought a battle with a building on the map that I can't use. (Usually a church of some sort)

Oh yeah, that is possible. But they are randomly generated, and generally appear in the middle of the map. You can even get little villages and the like as well.

Foot

Yeah, I´ve been pretty pissed by the hundreds of times there´s been a little castle just next to my starting position, the gate is open, and I´d really need some defenses against the heavily outnumbering enemy. Yet there is no way for me to enter the castle. I can walk up to the open gate, but through it? No way.
Stupid, why put them there in the first place if you can´t use them.

Little farms with mills and wells can actually be pretty useful for dividing your enemy´s forces into two when they´re crossing the area. But still annoying that you can´t garrison them or anything.
At least it appears this sort of actions will be possible in ETW. Better late then never.

so with eb 2 you will have to change all this castles and small villages into ancient?

Well, if it is possible I´m sure the EB team will attempt to do so. Or just remove them, provided of course that is possible.
The whole editing buildings thing is pretty damn hard though.

Maybe not in the first release, though.
Given the complex process, remodeling and texturing all those battle-map buildings will likely be a quite lengthy affair.

I personally think the building editing should be the number one priority and have the most resources put into it for the first release of EBII. As a mod whose purpose is to immerse the player in history, any medieval buildings on the campaign or battle map completely ruins the goal, accuracy and utterly shatters the player's suspension of disbelief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_belief

No.1 you say. Hmm, before, say the core mechanics of the campaign, before the actual models for the units, before you can actually play the game.

I mean if you don't want to play it until we have ancient buildings thats easy enough, but if you don't want to play it before its playable thats not an issue because - you can't!

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

No.1 you say. Hmm, before, say the core mechanics of the campaign, before the actual models for the units, before you can actually play the game.

I mean if you don't want to play it until we have ancient buildings thats easy enough, but if you don't want to play it before its playable thats not an issue because - you can't!

Foot

---

umm I don't think I said that should be the only thing to work on. My point was to have more effort put into the building editing now as well as finish the basics such as unit models, mech..etc.. I didn't say to just get the buildings down and then release the product. From what I hear and read, building editing is one of the most time consuming and difficult tasks to do, so why not just it done right off the bat instead of planning to finish it by EB II v 1.1.

I have no problem waiting however long it takes, but in my point of view it seems as a mismanagement of time to not get the most difficult things done with first and finish up the easier things later. Again, I am not trying to say it should be the only thing worked on.

How about we have a first release of EBII without the ancient buildings, with a warning mentioning this fact, and then allow people to decide whether to play an early release or not. You, of course, would not, others would.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

How about we have a first release of EBII without the ancient buildings, with a warning mentioning this fact, and then allow people to decide whether to play an early release or not. You, of course, would not, others would.

Foot

---

Actually it would depend on how much other stuff would be in that release. If its just the bare basics then no. If you managed to add fun stuff such as messages of the A.S. breaking up or the moving of Alexander's body (both of which don't work in EB I), then I would download it.

So buildings aren't entirely your no. 1 priority, then? Odd that you think they should be ours.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

So buildings aren't entirely your no. 1 priority, then? Odd that you think they should be ours.

Foot

---

No, they are still my no. 1 priority. I am just saying if you managed to add a lot of other goodies to offset the fact that everything looks medieval and 1000+ years out of place, then yeah I would probably get it then. I am not gonna get too picky over a free game.

If they're really a problem, I could live with an EBII sin ancient buildings. Like you say, Mr. Hunt (BTW, mods, there are really people named Mike Hunt) it's a free game. So what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

If they're really a problem, I could live with an EBII sin ancient buildings. Like you say, Mr. Hunt (BTW, mods, there are really people named Mike Hunt) it's a free game. So what?

---

Whatever, its not really that much of a big deal, I am just used to doing the most difficult stuff first and handle the easy stuff later, so if you fall behind schedule its easier to catch up.

Well you know, with this kinda project it´s a bit more complicated. For example, lets say all skinners are on vacation or working for their exams or having trouble with their computer. Then it´s kinda hard to say "okay, this month the skinning will be top priority".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

Well you know, with this kinda project it´s a bit more complicated. For example, lets say all skinners are on vacation or working for their exams or having trouble with their computer. Then it´s kinda hard to say "okay, this month the skinning will be top priority".

---

Well obviously, but I am sure the EB team is more organized then that.

Not with Foot in charge. :p *runs away*

Its not even that. You think that making buildings is more complicated. Technically, yes they are. However they are connected to nothing else. Units on the otherhand are connected to anything. Want to test stats? You need units. Want to test recruitment? You need units? Want people to be motivated to work? You need units. Want to work campaign balance? You need units.

Ancient Buildings are nothing but aesthetic add-ons, but the units are necessary because they connect to everything else.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Its not even that. You think that making buildings is more complicated. Technically, yes they are. However they are connected to nothing else. Units on the otherhand are connected to anything. Want to test stats? You need units. Want to test recruitment? You need units? Want people to be motivated to work? You need units. Want to work campaign balance? You need units.

Ancient Buildings are nothing but aesthetic add-ons, but the units are necessary because they connect to everything else.

Foot

---

Well I would have a clue what exactly the priorities the EB team would be if I was around when EBI was first released but I wasn't. I haven't seen exactly what has been added for every new version so now with the first release of EBII being developed I have no clue what to expect.

In the first version of EBI was there a script? Was it added soon after or in later versions? Was it just bare basics (units, buildings, factions, settlements and map)? Or did it have any goodies (i.e. any thing beyond the bare basics)?

I have no clue as to any of these questions, I came in at the beginning of April and enjoyed 1.0 for a week or two before 1.1 came out. I have been assuming all this time that for the majority of the EBI versions the only thing different were fixed bugs, new units and minor changes to the script/trait/EDU/other data files.

Can you enlighten me Foot or someone send me a comprehensive list of each version and its main additions/changes so I can make educated assumptions as to what to expect from EBII when it is first released and how long it would take to get to that stage I am familiar playing with on 1.1 EBI?

You can read the wikipedia article, or grab yourself an old copy of the first ever EB open beta 0.72? Be sure to install 0.72 on an RTW 1.2. It will enlighten. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

You can read the wikipedia article, or grab yourself an old copy of the first ever EB open beta 0.72? Be sure to install 0.72 on an RTW 1.2. It will enlighten. ~:)

---

I have read the wikipedia article, its coverage on updates is not quite adequate in my opinion:

"The earliest known internal alpha release of the modification, version 0.6.2, was completed in June 2005. The first public release of the modification, version 0.7.2, which marked its transition into a public open beta phase of development and was developed for patch 1.2 of Rome: Total War, came on 27 December 2005. After three more relatively minor releases in the month of March of 2006 which mostly fixed bugs and made small adjustments in the modification, the next major release of Europa Barbarorum was version 0.80 on 6 December 2006. The release marked the start of the 0.8.x series of releases, as well as being the first Europa Barbarorum release for patch 1.5 of Rome: Total War. It included the addition of the Sabaean faction, new music, the addition of the provisional military government level, the inclusion of a new MIC system and other changes. The release of version 0.8 was also announced by the Europa Barbarorum development team on a third-party computer modification review website. There subsequently followed three more minor 0.8.x releases during the first half of 2007, all three of which primarily made minor adjustments to the modification and fixed bugs. All in all, over 135,000 downloads of the 0.80-0.81 versions were tracked.
The next major release after 0.80 was version 1.0. The Europa Barbarorum development team skipped any 0.9.x releases in order to make the modification appear as though it was no longer in the beta phase, which they felt it had left by 1.0's release. Version 1.0 was released on October 12 2007 and included new government options for the Pahlava and Hayasdan factions, the addition of a new type of wall to the battlemap, new units, new music from Prehistoric Music Ireland, a more challenging start to campaigns for the player and other changes. The 1.0 version was downloaded over 90,000 times in the six months following its release.
The current release is version 1.1, which was released on April 7 2008 and included new battle map landscapes, new units, the addition of the Pahlavi voicemod and the inclusion of an introduction video for the Saka Rauka faction.
The next Europa Barbarorum release being worked on for Rome: Total War by the Europa Barbarorum development team is version 1.2. Although the development team has previously stated that future releases of Europa Barbarorum for the Rome: Total War engine will not include any major new gameplay changes, version 1.2 is expected to contain the addition of the Punic voicemod as well as bug fixes."

What I got out of these three paragraphs that I had not known was:

.62 first version
.72 first openly released version
.80 upgrade to 1.5, saba, new music, different govs added
All other upgrades between these three were mostly bug fixes.

Having played 1.0 and 1.1, I know the improvements those two made. Still have no clue on when script came into being, but the other things I was curious about, (music and govs) I now know when they were at least first included.

I have no idea where I could find a place that still hosts the .72 version of EB but I would like to play it. Can anyone just answer me on the last thing I have yet to find out: When did the script come around? Thanks.

The script was already present in 0.72, although some functions (like the client rulers) only came into being later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

The script was already present in 0.72, although some functions (like the client rulers) only came into being later.

---

Thank you Ludens.

Ok, this has to do with improving battles sort of, and I didn't want to start a whole new post about it. Now, I know that the fighting in EB1 is much slower than in RTW. That I take it is much more historical, most troops focusing on staying alive rather than stabbing all over the place. The morale though seems a bit too high there. It's very hard to get a rout going, a chain rout at least. That results in battlefield tactics changing a bit, since getting surrounded at a point, or having an enemy breakthrough somewhere is not all the decisive (which as I see it it should be). Instead of trying to maintain an unbreakable front to the enemy, you end up using small detached units. Well, not exactly so, getting flanked is still a bad idea, but not as destructive as it would be (and should be imo) because the morale seems a bit too high to me.
Anyway, will the morale be lowered in EB2?

Oh, and if MTW2 uses experience chevrons and weapon upgrades, will those be removed from the multiplayer edu? So that when we have a mp battle the stats won't be skewed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scundoo

Ok, this has to do with improving battles sort of, and I didn't want to start a whole new post about it. Now, I know that the fighting in EB1 is much slower than in RTW. That I take it is much more historical, most troops focusing on staying alive rather than stabbing all over the place.

---

I really have not noticed if EBI has slower fighting, is that true or is it just lag because EB is well... EB size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scundoo

It's very hard to get a rout going, a chain rout at least. That results in battlefield tactics changing a bit, since getting surrounded at a point, or having an enemy breakthrough somewhere is not all the decisive (which as I see it it should be). Instead of trying to maintain an unbreakable front to the enemy, you end up using small detached units. Well, not exactly so, getting flanked is still a bad idea, but not as destructive as it would be (and should be imo) because the morale seems a bit too high to me.
Anyway, will the morale be lowered in EB2?

---

Its not that hard to create a chain rout, you just need to be quick about it. Gang up on one side, take out the captain/general and use your best friend cavalry to hit them from behind. Works every time.

We have reduced the lethality stat in EBI compared to what it was in RTW. That means people get hit just the same, but don't die as easily. This is what Scundoo refers to. We have also slowed down the walking (but not the animation as I believe that was somehow impossible to change). However the attack animations are the same speed as they are in RTW.

Foot

just one simple question, is i possible to have huger unit sizes in eb 2. or is it hard to make that? not from the options, but from the codes.

maximum size in Kingdoms is 250, compared to RTWs 240. But that is as high as we can go (and thats on huge unit sizes).

Foot

I could have sworn I saw a unit of 512 in a screenshot somewhere. Perhaps that was a savegame hack though.

yup that was a savegame hack.

Foot

So, smaller battle maps, less maneuvering, more frontal butchering? :skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The General

So, smaller battle maps, less maneuvering, more frontal butchering? :skull:

---

yeah. makes is more hard to flank, than just running around the enemy and charge from behind, one of my friends does. he is very noob, and he makes noob-boxes, to prevent the enemy from flanking him. And it works :( If the map was smaller, things like this would be harder.

But i just got an idea. If you make all units run slower. Then it would be much more difficult to do stupid manuevers.

I think that has less to do with the map and more to do with the AI.

Sending your cavalry off on a wild flanking move would dangerously isolate the cavalry and leave a hole in the flank uncovered. I used to send my cavalry off all the time because the AI won't take advantage of my weakened position.

But once I started MP I no longer send them. My friend did and I left a token force to cover my flank and smashed through the hole created when he did that and he lost bad.

The only time a wild flanking maneuver worked in MP that I personaly saw was during a 2 on 2 in XGM when the flanking move was by a huge group of twelve companion cataphracts. And the only reason it worked was because the companion cataphracts are overpowered for their prices and no unit on my team can kill them. But we wiped their infantry off the map.

So I say it's not the map size. It's large enough for battles (though not pre-engagement-maneuvering). For battles the only thing wrong with the map itself is terrain bonus and penalty (units in bad terrain doesn't recieve enough penalty, too easy to move to a high elevation, etc). For the problem you identified the problem is the AI's inability to identify weak points in the player's line and exploit it: drive through a unprotected flank, surround isolated groups, send heavy cav plowing through a weak single line that has no reserves, etc.

welcome back parallel pain. long tome no see.

anyways, I;d have to agree with him on his post.

I get you point very good. Pre-engagement-manuevring was a good thing to keep in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

welcome back parallel pain. long tome no see.

---

Good to be back, but I won't be here for long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ludwag

I get you point very good. Pre-engagement-manuevring was a good thing to keep in mind.

---

I never do any pre engagement maneuvering unless its MP. I hope the EB team can make the AI for EBII smart enough to make sure I never say the previous statement ever again.