What are the main things you want to see fixed from EB1 in EB2???

I got the idea for this thread from a poll I started regarding the making of EB2. Naturally, it developed into a discussion about the things in EB2 and how it will be different from EB1. Thus, with people so focused on the new things that will be present in EB2, I thought it would be productive to talk about the old things in EB1 that people are uncomfortable with, or dislike, and would like to see fixed in EB2. For is it not that things are made better by improving upon them and adjusting that which contains problems, rather than trying to make something completely new and different? So what are they?

To make things more clear, list your items and, if you want, explain your reasoning for such opinions after the list. Try to be specific. These are mine:

1) Battle Map Fighting (Yea they are elite, armored units, but come on, they are not supermen!)
2) Campaign AI (I offer an army-less, money-less, territory-less faction peace for nothing and they refuse with the attitude that they can still kick my @$$!)
3) Ending Date/Time period (Personally, I wish EB2 would be more "Imperial" than "Republican," but if it must be, at least go into it, don't stop at it's beginning)
*I think this one is especially relevant, for Rome did not stop growing until Trajan's days...
4) Illyria (Like Aristotle used to say, if Gaul, then why not Illyria???)
5) Or for that matter Numidia, Mauretania, Belgae, Aquitainia, Dacia, Scythia and Thrace! (These were all unique people with unique customs and heritages - I wouldn't put such "tribes" as Massalia, Crete, Rhodes, etc. as a faction because they only really comprised 1 single province/town and were part of a greater culture, not its embodiment)
6) New/more formation alignments... would be great to be able to deploy in triple line, or alexanders cavalry/phalanx, with a simple click... as the real generals of old used to do!

(1) What exactly? One-on-one units tend to last quite a while; but the right `push' or `shove' crushes even elite units like they're simply not there.
(2) Not our bug, essentially. It is a problem deep down in the core AI which is largely unaffected by what we can mod*
(3) Not going to happen; in fact if we are really pressed for unit slots we'd probably drop Imperial units altogether. As it is, Imperial reforms pretty much marks the death of the Republic as we know it in EB. No faction is remotely accurate in 14 AD as it is portrayed in EB: expansion, for one thing, is all wrong; and for many factions the depiction of internal structure and culture would be anachronistic (as these developed much more in the real world than is possible within the game) not to mention that units would be outdated, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

1) Battle Map Fighting (Yea they are elite, armored units, but come on, they are not supermen!)

---

What do you mean by this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

2) Campaign AI (I offer an army-less, money-less, territory-less faction peace for nothing and they refuse with the attitude that they can still kick my @$$!)

---

Diplomacy in M2TW is still as shit as in Rome: TW, so it won't be any better, I fear it's hardcoded. That's why people use that forced diplomacy mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

3) Ending Date/Time period (Personally, I wish EB2 would be more "Imperial" than "Republican," but if it must be, at least go into it, don't stop at it's beginning)
*I think this one is especially relevant, for Rome did not stop growing until Trajan's days...

---

The game is not about Rome alone ;). Besides, it already has over a thousand turns, that's REALLY long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

4) Illyria (Like Aristotle used to say, if Gaul, then why not Illyria???)

---

They're still working on the new factions, though I doubt any Illyrian tribe will be playable. You should look for the criteria for faction-inclusion on these forums and see if they fit any of those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

5) Or for that matter Numidia, Mauretania, Belgae, Dacia, and Thrace! (These were all unique people with unique customs and heritages - I wouldn't put such "tribes" as Massalia, Crete, Rhodes, etc. as a faction because they only really comprised 1 single province/town and were part of a greater culture, not its embodiment)

---

Again, they're still working on new factions, but you should read the previews, 'cause then you'd know that: Numidians are in, represented by the Kingdom of Massylia, and Dacians and Thracians are already in EB1, just check out the Getai.

Factions are political units, not cultural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

6) New/more formation alignments... would be great to be able to deploy in triple line, or alexanders cavalry/phalanx, with a simple click... as the real generals of old used do!

---

Hardcoded again, I fear.

Personally, the biggest issues I have are with the AI, and those should've been fixed by CA, but alas, the AI is still bad :(.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arkhis

Diplomacy in M2TW is still as shit as in Rome: TW, so it won't be any better, I fear it's hardcoded. That's why people use that forced diplomacy mod.

---

Actually, it's better. I've been playing TATW for some time and when I really started to beat up an evil faction, they came suing for peace despite still bordering me (didn't help them as their last settlements were taken by the AI Dwarven Empire, hehe).
M2TW's AI is still retarded but believe me it's an improvement over RTW's, at least on the campaign map.

I'd like to see some improvements on the map in the middle-east. Specifically the incorrect locations of some of the settlements, such as Susa or Mazaka, as well as some geographic improvements to the Atropatene province. But this is mostly just nitpicking by a map freak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epimetheus

I'd like to see some improvements on the map in the middle-east. Specifically the incorrect locations of some of the settlements, such as Susa or Mazaka, as well as some geographic improvements to the Atropatene province. But this is mostly just nitpicking by a map freak.

---

If you can be more specific and post your evidence that we got it wrong, that would be great. Note that translating a world that is not flat onto a map that is never going to be correct. But if you don't tell us how we've got it wrong (and back that up with some good evidence) then how are we going to know we got it wrong. Its all well and good for you to say "fix it", but we need to know what to fix and also the reasons why you think it needs to be fixed.

Foot

Actually you're wrong about the formations being hardcoded... Rome Total Realism actually doesn't even have the default formations with exception of the single line formation... they have real, set formations such as triple apex, macedonian phalanx, etc... The reason I bring these things up is because I feel that if EB had the same type of Battle map style as RTR it would be nearly perfect. Also, RTR is much less laggy, which I think should also be improved in EB.

Nothing broken in EB1 that isn't broken in RTW really, pretty much the best possible effort.

Happy to see the "experience problem" for militia units seems to be solved with seasonal/annual/whatever-it-is disbanding. I stil RP disbanding non-elites especially non-elite missile troops. Gold chevroned slings are the HMG of EB.

Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).

Maybe they will even be able to use the unique unit feature from Crusades for some awesome fun kick-ass historical units. Maybe AS stormtroopers could be souped up even more if there was just one of them innthe game at a time? Maybe an Iberian faction could have the Vasci shockers if it was just one unit in the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).

---

You think Triarii are nasty? Well, I recently disabled Elite African Pikemen (except for my Roman and Carthaginian campaigns) because there basically were several full stacks of them screwing everything in Italy. That happened in at least two recent campaigns. In fact, it happens all the time unless the Romans manage to throw Carthage out of Sicily early on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

You think Triarii are nasty? Well, I recently disabled Elite African Pikemen (except for my Roman and Carthaginian campaigns) because there basically were several full stacks of them screwing everything in Italy. That happened in at least two recent campaigns. In fact, it happens all the time unless the Romans manage to throw Carthage out of Sicily early on.

---

In my campaigns Rome has taken Sicily every time I have seen, then they make peace and one or both of them comes after me (happened as AS, Lusso, Aedui, others).

Elite spam is a worry, although I'm less concerned when the AI screws the AI. Carthaginian pwnage of Italy was something the Romans feared and Hannibal almost achieved so if it happens, c'est la vitae.

I found it hard to swallow because I was carefully house-ruling it. I had stack limits (FL=14 units, FH 12 units, FM 10, allied general 8), "realistic" force mixes (eg a hellenistic allied general would lead a greekish "allied" stack, only the FL/FH got sacred band) so my armies were medium strength unless I shipped the FL up from Carthage where he lived.

I had to do this repeatedly from the start of the war with Rome sometime in the 250's (I never did get that Spartan general) because Greek allied stacks just held their ground vs Triari, and Italian allied stacks (pezoi Brutti-thingy, samnites and Leucanians) bled out rather quickly: after one battle they had to retire and refit.

My solution was a Hannibal-esque blitz around 230 up to the Po, using Sacred band cav elephants and mercenaries of all sorts (very Puni indeed). Roman stacks of mercenary celts and Lugoae were less of a challenge even for my "Latin" allies (3 roarii, 3 hastati, Campanian cav and an Allied general in a stack).

What I don't like in EB is the fact that lightly armed and unarmored skirmisher units without firm and stationary formations are not swept away easily by cavalry. Sometimes my cavalry has more casualties in close combat against knife armed slingers than against heavy infantry. I would also like when moving units of what kind ever struck by cavalry would be defeated very easily. I solved the problem more or less by changing the moral of many units, but that was for a cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Actually you're wrong about the formations being hardcoded... Rome Total Realism actually doesn't even have the default formations with exception of the single line formation... they have real, set formations such as triple apex, macedonian phalanx, etc... The reason I bring these things up is because I feel that if EB had the same type of Battle map style as RTR it would be nearly perfect. Also, RTR is much less laggy, which I think should also be improved in EB.

---

Battles were much more laggy in RTR than in EB. Eb I can play with everything on full, RTR I had to play with small unit sizes and everything off or on minimum.

Campaign is normal. I don't think any mod comes close to the scripts and other data that EB adds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

What I don't like in EB is the fact that lightly armed and unarmored skirmisher units without firm and stationary formations are not swept away easily by cavalry. Sometimes my cavalry has more casualties in close combat against knife armed slingers than against heavy infantry. I would also like when moving units of what kind ever struck by cavalry would be defeated very easily. I solved the problem more or less by changing the moral of many units, but that was for a cost.

---

They are swept away very easily by cavalry. Unless yor cavalry stops and begins melee, in which case they easily surrounded, dragged from their horses and killed.

I don't know why a moving unit, that's not running from battle, is not demoralized and is not occupied with another unit, would be much easier to defeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Actually, it's better. I've been playing TATW for some time and when I really started to beat up an evil faction, they came suing for peace despite still bordering me (didn't help them as their last settlements were taken by the AI Dwarven Empire, hehe).
M2TW's AI is still retarded but believe me it's an improvement over RTW's, at least on the campaign map.

---

You're right, diplomacy is slightly better in M2TW. At least factions don't fight to the death all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Actually you're wrong about the formations being hardcoded... Rome Total Realism actually doesn't even have the default formations with exception of the single line formation... they have real, set formations such as triple apex, macedonian phalanx, etc... The reason I bring these things up is because I feel that if EB had the same type of Battle map style as RTR it would be nearly perfect. Also, RTR is much less laggy, which I think should also be improved in EB.

---

Indeed, my mistake :(.

I think EB isn't laggy, just a bit slow, but that's due to the script and the fact it has a lot more data to process then the original game (don't know compared to RTR). Admittedly, it works a lot faster on the IB or ALX .exe's. I'd rather have a slower, full EB then a faster, stripped down EB though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

What I don't like in EB is the fact that lightly armed and unarmored skirmisher units without firm and stationary formations are not swept away easily by cavalry. Sometimes my cavalry has more casualties in close combat against knife armed slingers than against heavy infantry. I would also like when moving units of what kind ever struck by cavalry would be defeated very easily. I solved the problem more or less by changing the moral of many units, but that was for a cost.

---

Nearly all units break quickly when decently charged (in the rear, by medium-heavy cavalry), but I play on medium battle difficulty mostly (where AI morale isn't boosted).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

...They are swept away very easily by cavalry. Unless yor cavalry stops and begins melee, in which case they easily surrounded, dragged from their horses and killed....

---

I find light troops on loose formation resist cav charges longer than if they are on tight formation which seems counterintuitive.

I guess because the men are further apart they take longer to be killed so their morale holds longer? Dunno.

They also resist elephants and chariots better when loose which seems right.

Maybe thats the tradeoff? Anyway as you sensibly point out cav charges in EB are rarely decisive unless the charged unit is already engaged.

I'm definitely not asking for elephant charges to be changed, I love them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I find light troops on loose formation resist cav charges longer than if they are on tight formation which seems counterintuitive.

I guess because the men are further apart they take longer to be killed so their morale holds longer? Dunno.

They also resist elephants and chariots better when loose which seems right.

Maybe thats the tradeoff? Anyway as you sensibly point out cav charges in EB are rarely decisive unless the charged unit is already engaged.

I'm definitely not asking for elephant charges to be changed, I love them.

---

You are of course absolutly right.
Skirmisher with the skirmishing mode on often starts running in the opposite direction of the cavallery thus eliminating the charge and forcing the cavallery into melee. It is really a problem in Rome and unrealistic and very easy to exploit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Nothing broken in EB1 that isn't broken in RTW really, pretty much the best possible effort.

Happy to see the "experience problem" for militia units seems to be solved with seasonal/annual/whatever-it-is disbanding. I stil RP disbanding non-elites especially non-elite missile troops. Gold chevroned slings are the HMG of EB.

Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).

Maybe they will even be able to use the unique unit feature from Crusades for some awesome fun kick-ass historical units. Maybe AS stormtroopers could be souped up even more if there was just one of them innthe game at a time? Maybe an Iberian faction could have the Vasci shockers if it was just one unit in the world?

---

"RP" and "HMG" what do they stand for? Personaly, I like the veteracy system as it is in RTW, though I admit missile units beggin to act like AP once they are experienced enough. Still do you really think that realism and historical accuracy should outweight gameplay in what is a game?

Also it would be nice if recruitment of units drained the population. In M2TW it did not.

Also I remember in M2TW it was possible to capture routing troops. I assume this will be unchanged in EB II and I would like to see the option of selling POWs in slave markets in the case of the AI refusing to redeem them. As a matter of fact it should not be an option. I find it annoying that redeemed POWs would be returned with their full panoply. They should only be sold and never killed and their numbers adding to the population of the nearest friendly settlement.

RP = roleplaying
HMG = heavy machine gun

You may personally like the veterancy system in RTW, however we think that it breaks the delicate balance that exist in the base stats of our units, and so we would never return to those bad old days. For EB, history and realism inspire our gameplay, not the other way round. There is a mistake in thinking history and gameplay are two sides pulling against each other. They actually work together and for us there is no hard choice when it comes to it. History inspires gameplay, and so we feel that a balanced, realistic stat system (including veterancy) makes for a better game than some 300-esque stat where gold chevroned peasants stand as gods on the battlefield.

We disagree about the recruitment and population. The justification for recruitment draining population is just no there. Population obviously does not represent the full population of a province, yet a city can only develop if men of fighting age are not fighting. We much prefer recruitment to be constrained by the far more modifiable recuitment pools of MTW2.

Capturing troops is hardcoded into the game, and so will still exist. The options that are available at the end of the battle, however, cannot be changed. We can rename then, and we probably will, however the effects of each option will stay exactly the same (hardcoded).

Foot

Less crashing and a better AI would be nice.

Although it would take a lot of scripting, I would like settlements' names to change to the faction which conquered it.

For example, if Rome takes Taras, then Taras becomes Tarentum next turn. This could work for many factions, not just Rome, I'm thinking that Pahlava would benefit from this too.

Just a thought, though I understand it would be impossible to implement for certain occasions. (i.e. Luso taking Carthage)

EDIT: I realized this is more of a new feature than an old one being fixed.

Actually, it doesn't require scripting. In the MedII engine it is possible to change the name of a city depending on the faction that controls it.

Here's a question for y'all: What are the main things you want to see kept from EB1 in EB2? (note: only one question mark necessary, not three)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arkhis

What do you mean by this?


Diplomacy in M2TW is still as shit as in Rome: TW, so it won't be any better, I fear it's hardcoded. That's why people use that forced diplomacy mod.


The game is not about Rome alone ;). Besides, it already has over a thousand turns, that's REALLY long.


They're still working on the new factions, though I doubt any Illyrian tribe will be playable. You should look for the criteria for faction-inclusion on these forums and see if they fit any of those.


Again, they're still working on new factions, but you should read the previews, 'cause then you'd know that: Numidians are in, represented by the Kingdom of Massylia, and Dacians and Thracians are already in EB1, just check out the Getai.

Factions are political units, not cultural.


Hardcoded again, I fear.

Personally, the biggest issues I have are with the AI, and those should've been fixed by CA, but alas, the AI is still bad :(.

---

When in doubt... use :daisy:

~Jirisys (dang science fair project! come on college!:sad:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Here's a question for y'all: What are the main things you want to see kept from EB1 in EB2? (note: only one question mark necessary, not three)

---

It's general epicness.

An improvement of the naval warfare would be nr. 1 on my wishlist. More AI navy's and not just juggernaut ships from Ptolemaioi, and more naval invasions.

Also, it really takes the pleasure out of having an expencive navy when you know it has nearly no effect to blockade the enemys ports, so if blockading could be an effective weapon in EBII it would add a lot to the aspect of economic warfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisarius II

Its general epicness.

---

Could you be more specific?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Could you be more specific?

---

Your question was epic, that's what he meant

~Jirisys (i forgot to say 200th post! when i made my 200th post, dang i hate last minute work)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

Your question was epic, that's what he meant

~Jirisys (i forgot to say 200th post! when i made my 200th post, dang i hate last minute work)

---

Congrats. And not really. What do you mean you want to keep its epicness?

I want to see the Lorica Segmentata!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tux

I want to see the Lorica Segmentata!!!

---

Yeeeey and EB needs Imhotep from the Mummy movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Congrats. And not really. What do you mean you want to keep its epicness?

---

I think he means to keep the awesome immersiveness and brilliant gameplay of the EB1, transfered over into EB2.

I think this can pretty much be guaranteed considering it *is* the EB team were talking about.

Epic timeframe, epic immersion, epic realism, etc. Yes, and epic imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

... gold chevroned peasants stand as gods on the battlefield. ...

---

Yes there is a "resolution" problem with the improvement in a unit over 10 levels of experience, especially at the bottom end. A slinger witrh "1" attack, plus 9 for experience winds up being ten times as deadly, whereas a unit with 10 attack merely doubles its deadliness.

The proposed autodisbanding militia feature will go a long way to fixing this I'm sure.

I do like the idea of some experience being available. Military doctrine does recognise the value of veteran troops over greenhorns.

I see this as a factor when translating historically described units into game terms. Alexander's men kicked some, big time. The Romans managed to beat the later Macedonians who used a similar unit set-so do we rate Romans higher than the victors of Gaugemela?

I see part of this equation being Alexander's army included a huge proportion of veterans of Philllips many campaigns, whereas the Diadochi troops the Romans fought were probably less well lead but also less "professional", that is not having been in the field as a cohesive force for sustained periods.

IIRC there's an episode in the Gallic wars where Caesar hires a mercenary German cav unit which procedess to trounce all the Gallic cav it meets. Is this because the German cav is intrinsically better, or was it an experienced unit vs green ones?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Gallophile in me wants it to be the second option. As if germanic cavalry could defeat its gallic equivalent straight up! [scoffs ignorantly]

I'm confident there will be a sensible position reached in the way the game is presented. Pretty much every decision has been subject to examination.

On the question of Epic-ness (epic-osity? epic-centricity?), I think its there.

I think we're seeing at least the same attention to detail, respect for the sources, and love of the subject than in EB1. Certainly the excellent work already done meets the highest standard we could set. Its a luxury having dedicated people doing such a thorough job for free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

...The proposed autodisbanding militia feature ...

---

Something just occured to me. Could different groups of units be autodisbanded over different timescales?

EG all units with the militia tag get demobbed annually (someone suggested each Autumn).

And maybe there could be units tagged mercenary which get disbanded after 5 or 10 years? Elites could get 20 or even 40 years (like the white haired silver shields who fought with Phillip and Alexander and even afterwards). OMG OMG.

I haven't though it through but a sliding scale of unit lifespans might allow for some unit "maturity" but without them becoming elite zombie legions ("you see these chevrons I got? My Pappy earned them back in the First Punic War, but somehow it makes me a better soldier. Why? Hardcoded, sonny!").

edit-I forgot, the gobal disband would be at a fixed time, not a countdown for each unit. Damn.

What I want most is the "minor factions" introduced in ETW, they're not complete factions hence not playable, but they're independent AI factions.
So every Eleutheroi city would belong to their respective minor faction which fails to qualify as a major faction, rather than all belong to a bizarre huge faction called Eleutheroi.
However I know this feature is not in M2TW...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julianus

What I want most is the "minor factions" introduced in ETW, they're not complete factions hence not playable, but they're independent AI factions.
So every Eleutheroi city would belong to their respective minor faction which fails to qualify as a major faction, rather than all belong to a bizarre huge faction called Eleutheroi.
However I know this feature is not in M2TW...

---

That's what I like most in EB, and will be improved in EB II. It is also the reason I can't play any other mod out there.

In EB every province is unique and has its own character, whether you control it, an AI faction control it, or the Eleutheroi control it.
Many small independent factions would be nice indeed, but the EB team are doing a magnificent job within the limits of the engine to represent each independent region.

On the subject of veterancy, keep in mind that veterancy in M2TW is toned down quite a bit from RTW veterancy. In RTW and EB, it was +1 attack +1 defense skill with every single chevron, plus, I believe, a morale bonus that I am not sure about because it doesn't show on unit cards (I still cannot understand why morale is not shown on unit cards in both RTW and M2TW btw...).

In M2TW, the first chevron in each "level," aka the first bronze chevron, the first silver, and the first gold, all give +1 attack. However, there is no defense skill addition, and they only get +1 attack for these three chevrons, not for the rest. Again, I'm unsure about morale bonuses. But this definitely is not nearly as much of an overall bonus as in RTW. With all 9 chevrons, a unit only gets +3 attack, as opposed to +9 attack and +9 defense skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julianus

What I want most is the "minor factions" introduced in ETW, they're not complete factions hence not playable, but they're independent AI factions.
So every Eleutheroi city would belong to their respective minor faction which fails to qualify as a major faction, rather than all belong to a bizarre huge faction called Eleutheroi.
However I know this feature is not in M2TW...

---

the Eleutheroi were minor factions, jsut a colelction of minor factions. In EB I they all had different flags, colours, units and names

Yeps, and I can confirm that each province will be unige in EB II as well, though not whether more or less so then in EB I. That I shall leave to your guesstimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julianus

What I want most is the "minor factions" introduced in ETW, they're not complete factions hence not playable, but they're independent AI factions.
So every Eleutheroi city would belong to their respective minor faction which fails to qualify as a major faction, rather than all belong to a bizarre huge faction called Eleutheroi.
However I know this feature is not in M2TW...

---

Oh,wow, that would be awesome. Imagine all the Hellenic city-states, celtic tribes etc. being separate factions. :O But as we know, EB II will be closer to that than EB I, since the faction slot number for M2TW is much bigger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Here's a question for y'all: What are the main things you want to see kept from EB1 in EB2? (note: only one question mark necessary, not three)

---

I don't think it's moddable, but I would like to see units being able to fall off the walls. When I played MTW: 2 I always had the feeling as if there were invisible walls on top of the walls. I also found it quite funny when peasants commited suicide by jumping off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drunk Clown

I don't think it's moddable, but I would like to see units being able to fall off the walls. When I played MTW: 2 I always had the feeling as if there were invisible walls on top of the walls. I also found it quite funny when peasants commited suicide by jumping off.

---

Makes for some funny YouTube videos.

The main thing, the only thing even, that I would like to see "fixed" is the in game stability. I dont know how many times Ive given up an EB campaign after yet another CTD. The mod is brilliant and I recognise that it takes advantage of all the features available to it - but cant do anything about the AI. However, the CTDs are just too much in the mid to late game when you can often fight 5+ battles a turn, then have to log on again and replay them all - again.

CTD is the largest of all the EB1 problems, I just can't think of any others.

yeah sometimes you're going great in a campaign and then it CTDs, and every time you re-load the game, it CTDs again, so that whole campaign is wasted.

I've never got past 200 BC because of CTDs destroying my campaign.

I've come up with some other things I'd like to add to the discussion:

1) Seige Works Animation on Campaign Map blocks individual map towns next to the beseiged city and should be fixed.

2) True, 10 exp. peasants should not be able to beat silver chevroned cohorts. But, keep in mind, that, historically, the Rhaetian peaks were not subdued by the Romans until the Imperial Era because they were so vicious, warlike, and occupied a strong defensive position. They weren't particularly better warriors than the Romans, but the fact they were located geographically where they were (between Gaul, Germany, and the Alps) caused them to be conquered well after Gaul and Germany were subdued. Once surrounded, their demise was assured. In the game, you could easily defeat such armies straight up, because there is nothing that prevents u from moving across the alps with such ease (and loss of life and soldiers). Thus, there must be something to balance that out and such an issue actually might help. I'm not saying its perfect, just saying its an issue that can be put to good use.

3) About the "minor" factions, I agree that they should be their own, unplayable factions. Because there is nothing that makes me wonder more than: "If 3 Lusotanni Towns are at war with Rome, and Rome surrounds them, why would they not ally against Rome if they themselves are not at war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

If you can be more specific and post your evidence that we got it wrong, that would be great. Note that translating a world that is not flat onto a map that is never going to be correct. But if you don't tell us how we've got it wrong (and back that up with some good evidence) then how are we going to know we got it wrong. Its all well and good for you to say "fix it", but we need to know what to fix and also the reasons why you think it needs to be fixed.

Foot

---

Well, in some cases it wasn't that you guys got it wrong, they're simply errors that it appears were never corrected from the original RTW map when EB modded it. Mazaka, the capital of Kappadokia, for instance, remains unchanged from it's location in RTW, where it is depicted as being north of the Halys River, however, this is clearly inaccurate, as the city of Mazaka still exists to this day, albeit under a different name. Mazaka's name was changed to Eusebia during the reign of Ariathes V, and later to Caesarea Cappadociae. which became corrupted in Turkish to Kayseri. Now, if one looks at a modern map of Turkey, one can see that Kayseri is clearly south of the Halys River.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/bizar.../picture-2.jpg

Compared to the EB/RTW location, it would be the red dot on the EB map:

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/bizar.../picture-1.jpg

The other obvious error that sticks out, is the location of the city of Susa. This one appears to be a case where the EB team got it wrong. On the EB map, Susa is depicted as being located in the Zagros Mountains, which is inaccurate. Susa, like Mazaka, is a city that remains inhabited to this day, as the city of Shush in Iran, and it's location is easy enough to pinpoint on a modern map as being in the plains south of the Zagros.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/bizar.../picture-5.jpg

Compared to the EB location, it would be the red dot on the EB map:

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/bizar.../picture-3.jpg

These are my main quibbles with the EB1 map. If necessary, I can provide more evidence for these changes. There are also a few seemingly anachronistic city names, such as Asaak, or Arsakia as the Greeks called it, in Astabene, which, as far as I can tell, wasn't known as such until it was conquered by Arsakes I, roughly thirty years after the beginning of EB. The portrayal of the province of Atropatene, or Adurbadegan as it is called in EB, is also highly dubious to me, but I'd have to do a lot more digging in order to properly address that issue.

some new faction like Numidian, Bosporan, etc... and unit voice. hearing Hindus Pattiyodha speak greek accent is just weird. and Nomad Unit vioces. saka have their own language, many HA don't have voices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plutoboyz

some new faction like Numidian, Bosporan, etc... and unit voice. hearing Hindus Pattiyodha speak greek accent is just weird. and Nomad Unit vioces. saka have their own language, many HA don't have voices.

---

Two words: Germanic Voicemod!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Something just occured to me. Could different groups of units be autodisbanded over different timescales?

EG all units with the militia tag get demobbed annually (someone suggested each Autumn).

And maybe there could be units tagged mercenary which get disbanded after 5 or 10 years? Elites could get 20 or even 40 years (like the white haired silver shields who fought with Phillip and Alexander and even afterwards). OMG OMG.

I haven't though it through but a sliding scale of unit lifespans might allow for some unit "maturity" but without them becoming elite zombie legions ("you see these chevrons I got? My Pappy earned them back in the First Punic War, but somehow it makes me a better soldier. Why? Hardcoded, sonny!").

edit-I forgot, the gobal disband would be at a fixed time, not a countdown for each unit. Damn.

---

I beg to disagree on elites (in part); while its true that no unit lasts forever, it is however common for regiments to last longer; roman legions were known to last for centuries after being raised in the late republic. IIRC, LEG. XX lasted 3 centuries or so, and I recall one legion lasting 5 and a half centuries. and I am aware of Argyraspides being maintained by the selecids for extended periods of time.

the trick is to make experience effect less. luckily, M2TW is just that in regards to experience.

In EBI there were Germanic units which possesed swords but didn't use any spears. Personally think that owning a sword didn't equal using it at a primary weapon. Like the Cherusci being known as sword owners doesn't mean they don't fight primerely with spears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

In EBI there were Germanic units which possesed swords but didn't use any spears. Personally think that owning a sword didn't equal using it at a primary weapon. Like the Cherusci being known as sword owners doesn't mean they don't fight primerely with spears.

---

That's correct. But there is one problem. In RTW and in M2TW, as far as I know, units can only have two weapons: primary and secondary. The Cherusci swordsmen in EBI were given two thrown javelins (spears) as primary, and a sword as secondary. Certainly the Cherusci could (did* more likely) have a SPEAR that they carried with them, but in the aforementioned games (RTW/M2TW) the unit cannot have 1) javelins, 2) spear, and 3) sword, but rather only a combination of two of these. That is unfortunately why the Cherusci swordsman does not carry a fighting spear in-game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

That's correct. But there is one problem. In RTW and in M2TW, as far as I know, units can only have two weapons: primary and secondary. The Cherusci swordsmen in EBI were given two thrown javelins (spears) as primary, and a sword as secondary. Certainly the Cherusci could (did* more likely) have a SPEAR that they carried with them, but in the aforementioned games (RTW/M2TW) the unit cannot have 1) javelins, 2) spear, and 3) sword, but rather only a combination of two of these. That is unfortunately why the Cherusci swordsman does not carry a fighting spear in-game.

---

If only there was EB Mount and Blade.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal Khan the Great

If only there was EB Mount and Blade.....

---

Heck it'd be the best game ever

Too bad you need to carry projectiles as a weapon too

~Jirisys (Khergit Khanate:clown:)

Ever heard of the M&B mod "Hegemonia" or "Hegemony"?
PS: Where is it stated that the EB team will stop working after EBII?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

Ever heard of the M&B mod "Hegemonia" or "Hegemony"?
PS: Where is it stated that the EB team will stop working after EBII?

---

I already dowloaded it:grin:

~Jirisys (SIGNA FERTE!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

That's correct. But there is one problem. In RTW and in M2TW, as far as I know, units can only have two weapons: primary and secondary. The Cherusci swordsmen in EBI were given two thrown javelins (spears) as primary, and a sword as secondary. Certainly the Cherusci could (did* more likely) have a SPEAR that they carried with them, but in the aforementioned games (RTW/M2TW) the unit cannot have 1) javelins, 2) spear, and 3) sword, but rather only a combination of two of these. That is unfortunately why the Cherusci swordsman does not carry a fighting spear in-game.

---

I see, well this certainly answers my question. Thanks.


And yes Hegemon mod is nice and clearly EB inspired. Yet they put their own view in it which I don't always like. Like having Germanic pikemen without shields. Whiel its said some Germanics had overly long shields that doesn't equal no shields. Seeing the symbolic importance of shields in Germanic society as well...

I would like to see two key things fixed:

1. I would like to see a more robust Seleucid Empire. I don't like how Baktria tends to sweep across Asia at the expense of the AS, very innacurate in my opinion. Obviously don't make the Seleucids an unstoppable force but just less prone to collapsing within a ten year gap. I know this can be prevented with the add_money cheat but i would rather see the Seleucids have a fighting chance.

2. Most importantly! I would like to see Rome and Carthage actually fight. As a fan of Celtic factions I am sick of watching Sicily remain in peace whilst the Roman legions march towards the English channel. Yes I know I should use the force diplomacy mod but I would rather , as above, watch history unfold.

A few more factions to slow the Sweboz down would be nice but I will settle for the above happily.

I hope in EB2 the chevron flags on the battlefields won't be removed, so you can see which are the seasoned troops of your enemy. That was a quite useful feature in MTW2.

I remember that in some MTW2 mods the general's bodyguards units were different for those family members who where adopted or married to princess, it will be nice to see this in EB II with special units for family members with a particular ethnic trait...

I'd like to see a fairer distribution of boni amung Temples and the like. In EB1 you've always got those not working morale/layality boni and the pitifull tax bonus limiting your choice of temples. Or (as I think the EB team planned it) rewrite the building tree to some extent. I know that M2TW has other boni but I'd just like a bit more focus on this(the balancing not temples as such) than in EB1.

question: will there be as much "health" buildings in EB2 as in EB1 or more like in M2TW?

apart from that I don'T know much to improve :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

I hope in EB2 the chevron flags on the battlefields won't be removed, so you can see which are the seasoned troops of your enemy. That was a quite useful feature in MTW2.

---

Yes that was a useful feature, but did armies in antiquity use different banners for different unit types (I have no idea).

I want EBII to continue to be the best Total War game ever made.... EBI still reigns supreme right now, and I have no doubt in the general awesomeness of everyone on the EBII team. Seriously, my respect and admiration for everyone on the team. That said,

Perhaps the number-one thing I'd like to see the EBII team keep or enhance is the occasional presence of aggressive eletheuroi armies. Like the one that goes after Ippone early. I think in one Sweboz game I had one attack my capitol in the first 10-15 turns (and take it, lolz). However these are created, I'd like more of them. Makes the eletheuroi seem less passive. It seems to me this could be scripted. I don't know how that works, but perhaps something like:

1) (every 4th spring-staggered between provinces so the invasions don't all happen at once) the script checks to see if (aggressive province X - places like Dalmatia or Galatia, but not perhaps places like Greseoallra [Massilia]) is controlled by the Eleutheori. If no, end script.

2) If yes, check to see if province x (the province most likely to be invaded from the aggressive province, say Illyria_Helenike for Dalmatia; Phygria or Bithynia for Galatia) is occupied by the player (or if necessary, any playable faction). If no, check next most likely province to be invaded (less-preferred or wealthy neighbors). If all no, end script.

3)If yes, spawn eletheuroi force allied with home province tribe at map point x [just within the borders of the target province] consisting of (list of units customized according to invader. Galatia, say, could send a general with Gallic Mercenary Light + 3 short swordsmen + a heavy spear unit. Dalmatia could send 2 Illyrian Thereuphori and 4 Coastal Levies with no general - whatever would seem best for gameplay/historical size of region's raids or invasions). Most importantly, whatever trait makes an eleutheroi band aggressive (willing to attack a city), this is assigned to the spawned army.

This seems like it could be a great way to simulate the vigor of eletheuroi-represented factions and the problems with barbarian raids on civilized borders Also, scripts could cause one of the Illyrian provinces to counter-invade if a player takes the other one. Maybe even a few years after, when the main army has moved on to Dacia :). Probably not possible - but if it could be scripted, the EB team would have the experts that know how!:2thumbsup:

The second biggest thing I'd like to see is a truly significant penalty for burnt fields, blackened ground, whatever you want to call the foraging or ravaging of the countryside by an invading army. As it is now, most of the countryside can be blackened and it barely even dents the farming revenue. (Although this sounds like one of those things that might be hard-coded.)

I want EBII to keep the excellent mercenary recruitment system (allowing for tweaks in AoR, spawn rates, etc). While in EBI I sometimes felt that there were too many mercenaries available at any one time, what mercenaries were available where was generally excellent.

I would like to see phalanxes be considerably less invulnerable to missile fire from the front. Taking 2-3 shield defense (depending on elite level of the unit) and adding it to armor or defensive skill (again, depending on the unit, but mostly armor) would vastly improve the realism of arrow fire doing moderate damage to phalanxes - rather than next to nothing. I realize that the shields are probably as strong as they are to enhance the general invulnerability of the phalanx frontally and the vulnerability of the back for MELEE combat, but I think the unreality of the effectiveness of missile fire is a real problem. I currently have no specific battles to reinforce that description, but I think one of the primary purposes of peltasts and psiloi in diadochi combat was to protect the phalanx from being disrupted by enemy missiles - not for the phalanx to be sent forth to absorb the foolish AI's javelins.

I would like to see elephants be more powerful and fewer in number. Currently on huge settings, the "historic" size of an infantry unit is 10-20 times larger than the in-game unit size... except for elephant units, which are more like 2-1. I also think their base melee attack, armor, maybe hit points (maybe just more armor again) should be upped considerably, so that they are dangerous even if slowed. I don't think that fewer, more badass elephants would be unrealistic (especially Indian elephants). I think Bush elephants should probably be removed from the game, unless historians more expert than I have a solid source for their actual use in combat. It would also be nice to see them better at adopting a chariot-like tendency to continously charge and move through the enemy lies - making them more useful for a frontal attack.

I would like to see the Mauryan empire represented as a faction, rather than the independent cites along the Indus + independent Kophen, Alexandropolis, and Pura. I don't think the map needs to be extended to do so. I think the three Indus provinces + the 3 greek or eastern-culture cities west of the Indus region would do a fine job representing the resources the empire could bring to bear on that front. And perhaps a capital in the southern most Indus province+culture and religion problems (and maybe diplomatic preferences in favor of Baktria/AS?) should keep the AI from expanding too much. I realize, however, there are limited faction slots available and the lack of a Mauryan push west post-305BC is an issue, as is the collapse late in the EB time frame.

Similar preferences for a Nubian faction based out of Meroe.

I would like to see the M2TW trade revenue system make more sense - best of luck with that :).

Once again, my thanks to the team.

Some comments:

- Rebel incursions would have to be random, not every 4 years or so.
- All in all, this would add an enourmous amount of scripting to the game.
- Burned fields looks hard coded, although I too am in favour of more economic repercussions of an invading army.
- Mercenaries were abundant in the classical world, so I imagine the system will only be improved and perhaps even expanded.
- The problem with phalanxes in EB was their hard-coded bonus. I don't know whether M2TW has such a bonus. In any case, hitting them up front with missiles was a waste of missiles anyway. And attacking them from the sides or rear with missiles is very deadly, so you do need peltastai and psiloi to make sure fast, light skirmishers don't get around the flanks or rear of the phalanx and practise hit and run tactics to disrupt your formation (game and reality are rather similar here IMO)
- The continuous charge of chariots and elephants is something you have to micro-manage. If you don't do that they'll get caught in melee and become rather vunarable.
- Faction slots is not so much the problem. Culture slots and the fact that their most important provinces are off the map, are. You could argue that those 3 cities are enough for a Western Mauryan front, but you cannot escape the fact that that would be a very arcady representation (and thus something that absolutely doesn't belong in EB). Strong (defensive) rebels and provinces with a unique character (like in EB I) are the best solution here. The same goes for Meroe.
- Trading system, as long as it isn't hard coded.

It would be an enormous amount of scripting, but most of it (I assume) would be copy-paste with a change in years. I should reiterate that I don't have modding skills, so if what I suggest seems ridiculously unreasonable - its because they're just concepts bouncing around my head without serious effort or thought behind them.

As for the constant motion of chariots and elephants - it isn't something you have to manage, in some situations. For instance, charge in chariots against a unit of Akontistai and watch them do their wacky dance forever. They may actually be "pursuing" rather than charging, but the formation disruption if not the mass death is continuous. I'm assuming they only manage against light troops because of a mass-ratio that's necessary for that kind of thing. But if it that kind of thing could be encouraged without getting outlandish effects otherwise, it seems beneficial.

I agree that having 1/4 the Mauryan empire and not the rest is a bit arcady, but so is being able to conquer bits of the Mauryan Empire piecemeal without a collective response. If Eleutheroi counter-invasion scripts are possible, this could be an excellent solution to the Mauryan problem.

Nubian Meroe's problem as a faction doesn't seem to be much of a parts of the empire off the map problem to me. I'm not an expert, but I doubt their control over settled territory extended south of the Sudd for any lengthy period of time. The bigger problems with Meroe seem to be they didn't (successfully) expand all that much in area during EB's time frame, and that I'm guessing seems little basis for an expansion of their unit roster to the level most other factions enjoy (the most I could picture off the top of my head is ~4 missile types ~3 infantry types ~2 cavalry types, 1 elephant type). None of which keep me from thinking they'd be fun. :laugh4:

And like I said, the biggest problem with Maurya and Meroe is that they would require a new culture slot, each!

Not necessarily. Meroe would probably have to be barbarian or eastern, the Maurya eastern, or even roman if you want to focus more on gameplay than labels.

But wait you say! That's ridiculous! The Nubians shared no common culture with the Arverni, the Maurya are obviously a different culture than Pontos...

Well yes, but there's a clear EBI precedent for far-flung factions sharing culture because its convenient and unlikely they'll meet each other on the game map. Remember both Carthage and the Saba were of "Semitic" culture, based only on the thinnest of possible ethnic ties, ignoring differences in economy, government, language, religion, military tactics, and probably EB-timeframe ethnicity. To say nothing about the "Semitic" buildings that the eletheuroi in North Africa had. Meroe sharing whatever culture the Numidians get is no more far-fetched than the Casse, Lusotann, and Getai all sharing the same culture label.

I enjoy the historical focus of EB more than most. But just like in EBI, fudges will have to be made for the greater accuracy of the whole mod. Luckily, I get the sense that those more dedicated and knowledgeable than I are on the job. [Edit - And I'm also assuming the faction list is already set.]

BTW, I enjoyed Never near Argos, thanks.

Meroe were ethiopians (black africans). We can't very well portray them as North African in the family tree portraits now, can we? Meroe are out, and so is the Empire of Maurya. They will have a presence on the map, but that is best represented by Eleutheroi given the limitations that we face. Culture slots are not divvied up according to the ethnicity of a faction, but whether it is possible to represent that faction in that fashion. The family portraits for the carthaginians could be used again for Saba, and wouldn't look to inappropriate. The fact that they both spoke semetic languages was neither here nor there.

Foot

I'm a little shocked I didn't realize family tree portraits were tied to culture slot. Heh, learn something new every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterFred

BTW, I enjoyed Never near Argos, thanks.

---

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for reading.

---

Yeah, it was great! I read it on TWC. (I'm Imperial Eagle there)

Hey guys... Have no idea if this is hard to modify or not but i'd like an option to allow my troops to give ground while fighting... kind on what Hannibal did at Cannae... This would allow a much greater control over the battle and allow for a player to either make risky but potencially devastating blows and also to try and disengage with the enemy in an orderly manner without giving a huge hit on morale by having the troops turn their backs on the enemy... I supose this option should come with penalties, maybe to morale and damage dealing...

Apart from frequent crashes i think EB1 is a brilliant game and would like to congratulate all at the modding team for their brilliant work.

Sadly we can't mod the game in that way.

Its called gaurd mode in RTW. I think it was somewhat removed in M2TW.

I want not-ridiculous all terrain phalanxes that can spin around and do 180 degree flips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Its called gaurd mode in RTW. I think it was somewhat removed in M2TW.

---

That just ensures your troops stay in formation (and its still in M2TW), what he was asking for was an orderly withdrawal, which is not possible.

Quote:

---

I want not-ridiculous all terrain phalanxes that can spin around and do 180 degree flips.

---

No longer a problem.

Wasn't miguel talking about back pedalling? Well guardmode units slowly move backwards since they don't counter push when engaged as opposed to a non-guard unit which expands out and pushes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Wasn't miguel talking about back pedalling? Well guardmode units slowly move backwards since they don't counter push when engaged as opposed to a non-guard unit which expands out and pushes.

---

They aren't really retreating, though, merely being pushed back.

BTW, welcome to the .Org, miguelalmas.
~:wave:

Shift + right click behind your own line?

Throw in reserves, set guard mode on your original troops so they ignore the bad guys, and then them to run back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Shift + right click behind your own line?

---

I believe Alt + Right-Click is what you mean, because Alt makes them run back, and reform facing the same direction they did originally.

I'd like somewhat tweaked victory conditions for some factions. For example in EB I, those for Saba were more Islamic than actually related to ancient Sabaean politics. Perhaps there could be more subtle goals in some places instead of "conquer the following provinces" or "squash factions x, y, and z".
Hopefully the recruitment of sedentary auxiliaries for nomadic factions will also be facilitated. In EB I you have to rely on exploits to properly play the Sauromatae.