New features I want EBII to provide

Hi

In order to make the game more historically accurate and the game-play more enjoyable there are some things I would like to discuss:

1- Limiting the number of super units. I've noticed that when playing RTW, RSII, MTWII, and Europa Barbarorum almost all the players (including me) tend to recruit only elites. For example while playing Epirrus in EB I made a full army of Kaonion and Moloss Agema supported by powerful Hyspaspistai and elephants. I don't think in reality Pirrus could do this (neither his successors) simply because the Molossos and Kaones couldn't field so many soldiers. So, on my opinion the elite soldiers should be limited only in huge cities and let us say no more than one superunit for each city (no more than one hyspaspistai, kaonion agema, moloss agema and elephant for that city). This thing would make the player use also some low quality units that he uses only for keeping order in cities.

2- Retraining should be done automatically (like in ShogunII) or you will have to pay for it (like in Empire Total War), but the player shouldn't turn back all of his decimated units to retrain them in their homeland. I don't think they sent their armies back for retraining (also it is very boring).

3- New wanders that were build after the beginning of the game can also be build in that place by the player (or AI) when the time is right (like in Roma SurrectumII). Let us say if a wonder was build in 160 BC the player (or AI) can build it when the year is 165 (if five years was the time spent for building it).

BR guys

1: Already implemented thanks to the recruiting pools.

2: Afaik this can't be done due to the M2TW's engine.

3: In a recent interview Foot explained how every settlement will be "unique", also about new wonders, the only one I could think of is the complex at Pergamon, which could be easily portrayed by a temple; maybe Pompeius Magnus' first stone theatre in Roma... I can't think of anything else that wasn't already present at the start date, beside bigger temples etc...

Hi there.

1. I agree with you on that 100% in Medieval 2 Total war if I remember correctly (Although I've been playing Empire, Shogun and Napoleon for too long...) that you could field only a limited number of certain units, with scripting this could be substituted for this reason.

2. The Medieval 2 Total War engine does not have the features unfortunatley of retraining automatically if I recall correctly this was introduced only in Napoleon (one out of many reasons why it was superior to Empire, even though being smaller in scale) therefore I believe (unless I am incorrect and with heavy scripting it is possible) you can do it the old fashioned (and btw historically quite accurate way) of merging units. For example, you have two units that have had heavy losses in the last battle, you may merge the two, however the game accounts for the problems with merging by losing several experience ranks when merging a persay gold unit with a non experienced unit.

3. It is possible to create wonders in the form of buildings in the city roster, however I believe currently the EB2 team is working on the visual representation of already created wonders in ancient times (the Pyramids to name one), thus it is possible, however you will not burst out in a shriek of joy once you realise your Roman empire has control of nearly all the wonders of the ancient world.

- Diodredai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illyric

Hi

In order to make the game more historically accurate and the game-play more enjoyable there are some things I would like to discuss:

1- Limiting the number of super units. I've noticed that when playing RTW, RSII, MTWII, and Europa Barbarorum almost all the players (including me) tend to recruit only elites. For example while playing Epirrus in EB I made a full army of Kaonion and Moloss Agema supported by powerful Hyspaspistai and elephants. I don't think in reality Pirrus could do this (neither his successors) simply because the Molossos and Kaones couldn't field so many soldiers. So, on my opinion the elite soldiers should be limited only in huge cities and let us say no more than one superunit for each city (no more than one hyspaspistai, kaonion agema, moloss agema and elephant for that city). This thing would make the player use also some low quality units that he uses only for keeping order in cities.

---

Already a part of the M2TW engine, we use it extensively.

Quote:

---

2- Retraining should be done automatically (like in ShogunII) or you will have to pay for it (like in Empire Total War), but the player shouldn't turn back all of his decimated units to retrain them in their homeland. I don't think they sent their armies back for retraining (also it is very boring).

---

Not possible and not historical.

Quote:

---

3- New wanders that were build after the beginning of the game can also be build in that place by the player (or AI) when the time is right (like in Roma SurrectumII). Let us say if a wonder was build in 160 BC the player (or AI) can build it when the year is 165 (if five years was the time spent for building it).

---

We haven't discussed such an idea but I doubt we would go down the path of letting the player construct specific wonders, they will probably be represented within the Civic Buildings that Foot talked about in his interview.

Thank you for your replies guys!

So I guess retraining should be removed after all!?

No, it is just unhistorical to be able to retrain units outside of the regions they were from. Eg It would be unhistorical to be able to retrain Triarii in Britain.

Seeing as we're all demanding things...

I DEMAND A RELEASE DATE!

I just want to see what the full Germanic unit Rooster looks like.

Quick question, units recruited per turn (i.e. Minor city 1 unit, Huge city 3 units), is that able to be edited or hard coded in the m2tw engine?

I'm not sure how it would function gameplay wise to be able to recruit 7-10 units per turn, that's not what I'm suggesting or wanting, but I'm just curious on the answer.

Can I ask if EBII will have multiple unit recruitment per turn (in each city...or only in some cities?) or the single unit per turn in rtw?

EDIT: Yes I know this wasn't really related to the thread, apologies.

I think it would make more sense if you could levy like 3-4 units each 1-2 years or so since armies were mass levied and not recruited piece meal over several years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I just want to see what the full Germanic unit Rooster looks like.

---

You're talking about this guy, right?
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...9_d_fjKxA4CwJM

LOOOOOOOOL XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

LOOOOOOOOL XD

---

+1!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

You're talking about this guy, right?
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...9_d_fjKxA4CwJM

---

That is only part of the Germanic Rooster. You cut off the legs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

You're talking about this guy, right?
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...9_d_fjKxA4CwJM

---

Where does this unit fit in the rooster pecking order?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Populus Romanus

That is only part of the Germanic Rooster. You cut off the legs.

---

Exactly, we wanted the full unit rooster :tongue:

This definately. It would be better to be able to recruit quite a large number of units at once. Of course the recruitment pools will balance out the numbers and frequency that we can do this.

EDIT: Thats odd, didn't post my quote. I was quoting antisocial about unit levying.

I knew that pic would be used again :D

Little known fact is that roosters only evolved legs after our timeframe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

Quick question, units recruited per turn (i.e. Minor city 1 unit, Huge city 3 units), is that able to be edited or hard coded in the m2tw engine?

---

I think it can be edited, if I recall correctly, in stainless steel, you can recruit 4/5 units from a huge city each turn.

Also, nice rooster :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Little known fact is that roosters only evolved legs after our timeframe.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Little known fact is that roosters only evolved legs after our timeframe.

---

Haha! Attachment 2492

I don't know if this is applicable to this thread, but I'd like to raise an issue that came to mind about a possible bug with elephants in EBII
This first came to my attention after playing Broken Crescent. In that mod, elephants are not used effectively by the AI, as their primary weapon is their ranged weapon, i.e. javelins/arrows. This was because in M2TW, elephant primary attack was ranged. This resulted in situations where I charged my elephants against theirs (using alt + attack), and more or less massacred them because they didn't fight back. All they did was to fire javelins while the opposing elephants simply stood there and took damage. It also meant that they rarely actively charge them into battle, greatly reducing their effectiveness. Hence, it would be wise for the EBII team to ensure that melee attack is the elephant primary weapon, as in RTW.
Another thing was that my elephants were near impossible to kill. I'm not sure how the combat system differs in M2TW from RTW, but in this case their high armour made it possible for one battalion of elephants to massacre entire battalions of infantry without taking any casualties. One user solved this problem by drastically reducing their armour and instead making them rely on hitpoints for survival.
As the use of elephants was clearly shown in the Taksashila preview, I hope that this means that the elephants of M2TW will not suffer from any of the issues above due to them already having been tested. In the event that this was missed out, just would like to point it out.
Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Little known fact is that roosters only evolved legs after our timeframe.

---

:book: Source? :laugh4:

Recruiting multiple units per turn is essential in that with M2TW retraining a unit takes a recruitment slot and uses up part of the recruitment pool. Its not like repairing a damaged building any more...

Also, it encourages the mod to use units that require several turns to train, an important feature I would have thought when that mod wants to create a slow pace of play and restrict elite units.

Hello. I would like to see some things in EBII. I will list them followingly:

1. In the chart where you see the graphs of the factions, the vertical axis grows as big as it has in order to accomodate the faction with the highest score. For example, if Pontus has a treasury of 100000000 and all the other factions are poor, the graph will dwarf the lines of the other factions, and they will all be squeezed together. That makes sence because the graph also includes Pontus. But even if you unclick pontus and exlude it from the graph, the graph remains unchanged. You still cannot see the situation of the other factions, their liens are still pressed down all togetehr at the bottom of the graph. So, mayme it is possible to make the graphs represent the relative and not the absolute values? Meaning only the factions chosen to be included in the graph should be calculated. I hope what I wanted to say was clear, i am not very sure i communicated what i had in mind clearly....

2. It would be nice to see actual hoplite formations. Tight together, and each man covering his left comrade with his shield. Also packed together depth-wise, since the ones in the back were pushing their front one forward with their hoplon. The way they fight in EB is like they are fighting individually....

That was what i could think now my friends!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaptainplanet

Hello. I would like to see some things in EBII. I will list them followingly:

1. In the chart where you see the graphs of the factions, the vertical axis grows as big as it has in order to accomodate the faction with the highest score. For example, if Pontus has a treasury of 100000000 and all the other factions are poor, the graph will dwarf the lines of the other factions, and they will all be squeezed together. That makes sence because the graph also includes Pontus. But even if you unclick pontus and exlude it from the graph, the graph remains unchanged. You still cannot see the situation of the other factions, their liens are still pressed down all togetehr at the bottom of the graph. So, mayme it is possible to make the graphs represent the relative and not the absolute values? Meaning only the factions chosen to be included in the graph should be calculated. I hope what I wanted to say was clear, i am not very sure i communicated what i had in mind clearly....

2. It would be nice to see actual hoplite formations. Tight together, and each man covering his left comrade with his shield. Also packed together depth-wise, since the ones in the back were pushing their front one forward with their hoplon. The way they fight in EB is like they are fighting individually....

That was what i could think now my friends!

---

The shield wall formation is availible in M2TW so that might solve number 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

You're talking about this guy, right?
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...9_d_fjKxA4CwJM

---

:p

I was thinking more of as a unit in the game that functions like an elephant but a rooster that pecks Romans to death and stuff.

And something more.. In EB II it will be very nice that the different soldiers will have a lot of options for clothing and face. So not all of the soldier in a unit will look the same. Great work:) I do not know if it is possible, but can their body types also be a bit different? Like, have more than one body type. So not all of them are similarly tall and build. Althought i have no idea abt the technical part, i guess that it is not that possible, since the skins get wrapped around the models? so more than one models will make the skins not fit correcly? Anyways, i thought to post it... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaptainplanet

Hello. I would like to see some things in EBII. I will list them followingly:

1. In the chart where you see the graphs of the factions, the vertical axis grows as big as it has in order to accomodate the faction with the highest score. For example, if Pontus has a treasury of 100000000 and all the other factions are poor, the graph will dwarf the lines of the other factions, and they will all be squeezed together. That makes sence because the graph also includes Pontus. But even if you unclick pontus and exlude it from the graph, the graph remains unchanged. You still cannot see the situation of the other factions, their liens are still pressed down all togetehr at the bottom of the graph. So, mayme it is possible to make the graphs represent the relative and not the absolute values? Meaning only the factions chosen to be included in the graph should be calculated. I hope what I wanted to say was clear, i am not very sure i communicated what i had in mind clearly....

2. It would be nice to see actual hoplite formations. Tight together, and each man covering his left comrade with his shield. Also packed together depth-wise, since the ones in the back were pushing their front one forward with their hoplon. The way they fight in EB is like they are fighting individually....

That was what i could think now my friends!

---

I don't think number 1 is possible, I guess the display of these graphs is hardcoded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaptainplanet

Hello. I would like to see some things in EBII. I will list them followingly:

1. In the chart where you see the graphs of the factions, the vertical axis grows as big as it has in order to accomodate the faction with the highest score. For example, if Pontus has a treasury of 100000000 and all the other factions are poor, the graph will dwarf the lines of the other factions, and they will all be squeezed together. That makes sence because the graph also includes Pontus. But even if you unclick pontus and exlude it from the graph, the graph remains unchanged. You still cannot see the situation of the other factions, their liens are still pressed down all togetehr at the bottom of the graph. So, mayme it is possible to make the graphs represent the relative and not the absolute values? Meaning only the factions chosen to be included in the graph should be calculated. I hope what I wanted to say was clear, i am not very sure i communicated what i had in mind clearly....

2. It would be nice to see actual hoplite formations. Tight together, and each man covering his left comrade with his shield. Also packed together depth-wise, since the ones in the back were pushing their front one forward with their hoplon. The way they fight in EB is like they are fighting individually....

That was what i could think now my friends!

---

1. That is not something we can change, it's a hardcoded aspect of the game.

2. Hoplites get the shieldwall ability which means they will fight in the proper way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaptainplanet

And something more.. In EB II it will be very nice that the different soldiers will have a lot of options for clothing and face. So not all of the soldier in a unit will look the same. Great work:) I do not know if it is possible, but can their body types also be a bit different? Like, have more than one body type. So not all of them are similarly tall and build. Althought i have no idea abt the technical part, i guess that it is not that possible, since the skins get wrapped around the models? so more than one models will make the skins not fit correcly? Anyways, i thought to post it... :)

---

Not possible, the model parts have to be aligned perfectly with each other, so if you were to make a taller body the heads would still appear in the position for the shorter bodies, ie somewhere in the taller ones chest. There are also animation problems too, as there can only be 1 skeleton per unit model.

Thank you for your time bobbin

You can probably make a slightly fatter Roman Equite body if you really wanted to. Width is easier to do than height. After all, I don't think every one had the same level of physical fitness especially if you are a rich guy who can sit on a horse all day. :creep:

Also, will Cilician Pirates get eye patches?

will the units have sweet details like the Ropes and climbing spikes tied around the Aragonians (?)

Princess...

You can't inbreed so they would be ahistorical for Ptoly.

I have played rtw, mtw2, etw, ntw(their mods). There are some suggestions I think would greatly helpful and effective for historical gameplay of EB2:-

(1)- When I was playing EB1.1 I saw that Romani faction(going under AI), which historically conquerd gallic provinces including much around medeterrarian sea, was destroyed by both gallic factions. this is a great historical inaccuracy. there should be some faction power parameters or programming which make factions(under AI)to go according to history.

(2)- Hoplites should be able to form some testudo like(made by roman legions) formation, as we saw in movie troy made by acklies(Braud Pit).

(3)- There should be weather fatigue(in winters) and area fatigue(for examples, for romans in far german nd british territories nd far eastern deserts. similarly for greeks in far scythian areas and indian territories). This fatigue factor is extremely necessary to make gameplay historically accurate.
Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khawar ramzan

I have played rtw, mtw2, etw, ntw(their mods). There are some suggestions I think would greatly helpful and effective for historical gameplay of EB2:-

(1)- When I was playing EB1.1 I saw that Romani faction(going under AI), which historically conquerd gallic provinces including much around medeterrarian sea, was destroyed by both gallic factions. this is a great historical inaccuracy. there should be some faction power parameters or programming which make factions(under AI)to go according to history.

---

As far as I know it always plays out differently and that's part of the fun. Of course there are some things that happen most of the time but balancing the AI and esp. autocalculated battles, which the AI uses all the time, is harder than balancing the units just for battles against the player. That's one reason (or at least it's widely believed to be a reason) for the Lusotannan to rampage all over Europe at some point in the game.
As for Rome losing to the Gauls, that's a rather rare sight, I usually see them pwning the Aedui early and the Arverni never grow very big. It's rather Carthage and later the Lusos who bring about the downfall of Rome.

That said, M2TW offers better possibilities to mod the AI so we might see improvement in that area :yes:

Quote:

---

(2)- Hoplites should be able to form some testudo like(made by roman legions) formation, as we saw in movie troy made by acklies(Braud Pit).

---

Give a good reason why they should. Hint: Don't say "because they did in the movie".

Quote:

---

(3)- There should be weather fatigue(in winters) and area fatigue(for examples, for romans in far german nd british territories nd far eastern deserts. similarly for greeks in far scythian areas and indian territories). This fatigue factor is extremely necessary to make gameplay historically accurate.

---

On the campaign map this was implemented as movement penalties in EB 1 and worked rather well imo. I'm not sure it can be implemented on the battlefield, which is probably what you're talking about.

welcome to the forums.

1) EB is not history on rails, if all things happened the same they did in history the game would be boring and predictable. The Game is only Historical in year 272 the further you progress the more likely faction progression stays historical.
+As Oh! TheLastDays! already pointed out it happens once in a blue moon that the gauls actually beat anyone up. Normally the Romans conquer gaul and get stuck in germania. Far more A-historical is the aforementioned Lusotani expansion who in most cases sweep across all of europe.

2) they get shieldwall, that is as close as the engine gets to the Hoplite Phalanx. Testudo would be silly.

3) if it's possible they WILL implement it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khawar ramzan

I have played rtw, mtw2, etw, ntw(their mods). There are some suggestions I think would greatly helpful and effective for historical gameplay of EB2:-

(1)- When I was playing EB1.1 I saw that Romani faction(going under AI), which historically conquerd gallic provinces including much around medeterrarian sea, was destroyed by both gallic factions. this is a great historical inaccuracy. there should be some faction power parameters or programming which make factions(under AI)to go according to history.

(2)- Hoplites should be able to form some testudo like(made by roman legions) formation, as we saw in movie troy made by acklies(Braud Pit).

(3)- There should be weather fatigue(in winters) and area fatigue(for examples, for romans in far german nd british territories nd far eastern deserts. similarly for greeks in far scythian areas and indian territories). This fatigue factor is extremely necessary to make gameplay historically accurate.
Thanks

---

1) As the previous posters have said we only try to set up an accurate situation for the start date (272BCE), after that the only things we stick to history with are events that happen off the map (Yuezhi invasion etc) and things that would have happened no matter what (like the increasing adoption of heavy armour). We might make the AI favour certain expansion routes that they were historically interested in to prevent illogical expansion (like the Romans shooting off towards the Baltics without touching Sicily) but it would never be something as strict as to force expansion to only happen as it did in history.

2) We want our units to be as historically accurate as possible, so we certainly would not use a film like Troy as a basis for anything in the mod.

3) Weather related fatigue has been there since EB, this varies from unit to unit and is based on where they comes from in the map and their armament, a Sabaean archer won't tired as quickly in hot regions but will suffer in cold ones. Also certain units get bonuses for different terrains, ie German or Celtic units generally perform better in forests than the Greeks or Romans. That area fatigue idea is not realistic though, a Roman soldier would not become more tired just because he was in Germany.

Besides the campaign AI on EB1 has bigger problems than gauls owning romani once in a life time, for example haysdan forging steppe empire is a lot more ahistorical.

I am confused. The EB team wants to make the game such that it begins in a historically accurate situation. After this, the player rewrites history (alongside the AI). But we also want the AI to create the extents of controlled territory that the factions historically did? A contradiction it seems. Is it that only the player should have a license to rewrite history, and not the AI? or is it something else?

If those steppe territories were in haysdans victory conditions it would be okay. Although that would seem strange, really who wants to own hundreds of thousands square miles empty landscape?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinnishedBarbarian

who wants to own hundreds of thousands square miles empty landscape?

---

Livestock breeders, especially horses...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

I am confused. The EB team wants to make the game such that it begins in a historically accurate situation. After this, the player rewrites history (alongside the AI). But we also want the AI to create the extents of controlled territory that the factions historically did? A contradiction it seems. Is it that only the player should have a license to rewrite history, and not the AI? or is it something else?

---

Not sure if you are replying to my comment but I wasn't saying that we would force the AI to try and control the territory they did historically, just that their avenues of expansion should be realistic. For example, we could make the Hayasdan prefer to expand into Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Crimea. These would be realistic movements, not because they are historical but because they are logical given the reality on the ground at the time. Having them head north into the Russian steppe is not a realistic move and certainly isn't logical, and so would be discouraged (but not forbidden). I should point out that this kind of approach is already found in the original EB, for example the central European megastacks or the fact that there are no roads connecting the Causasus regions with the steppe.

Some people want re-enactment; some want a "what if" situation.

And some people misunderstand when said: "We aim to be as historical as possible".

Luckily it's a "what if" mod.

I like that history doesn't just repeat itself endlessly - that is what makes it fun. I can, however, appreciate the AI having history-specific behaviour patterns (ex - Romans don't expand into gaul at the same time every game, but have a general predisposition to doing it at some point, while tending to make expansion into German territory as a secondary objective) Anything more than encoded tendencies and I think you would be ruining the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Livestock breeders, especially horses...

---

Yup and huge territory is also an military asset (logistic difficulties for the invader), but neither of them wouldn't really be a huge benefit to ancient armenians who were not nomads (well atleast not all of them), so why would they be intrested to start forging a empire by taking lands which are difficult to control/protect and are not economically profitable?

Main goal of AI factions should essentially be conquering territories which benefit them economically and boost their recruitment abilities, romans going for the baltic or carthiginians conquering towns in middle of sahara makes the game extremely unrealistic.

Well breeding heavy boned horses for cataphracts isn't that bad, but yes I'm not advocating for a desire to expand there...
And I'm quite happy that there won't be a road leading north from the Caucasus ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

I'm quite happy that there won't be a road leading north from the Caucasus ^^

---

But that's what makes EB great, although there won't be a road there, you have the choice to build one and take that area yourself. Same for the AI. Every game you play is your own unique experience of what history could have been or what you want it to have been.

That's my opinion anyways :thumbsup:

I was thinking something like a route going along the coast, making the trip a bit longer and hopefully discouraging the AI, but I don't know the ancient caucasian passes...
Re-writing history is one the most appealing features, but for the Hay, having an old achaemenid satrapy giving up and going steppe is sad :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Not sure if you are replying to my comment but I wasn't saying that we would force the AI to try and control the territory they did historically, just that their avenues of expansion should be realistic. For example, we could make the Hayasdan prefer to expand into Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Crimea. These would be realistic movements, not because they are historical but because they are logical given the reality on the ground at the time. Having them head north into the Russian steppe is not a realistic move and certainly isn't logical, and so would be discouraged (but not forbidden). I should point out that this kind of approach is already found in the original EB, for example the central European megastacks or the fact that there are no roads connecting the Causasus regions with the steppe.

---

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

But that's what makes EB great, although there won't be a road there, you have the choice to build one and take that area yourself. Same for the AI. Every game you play is your own unique experience of what history could have been or what you want it to have been.

---

How do you build a road there if the EB team made the game such that a road there won't be built? :inquisitive: Meaning if you build "roads" it won't show up there...right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

How do you build a road there if the EB team made the game such that a road there won't be built? :inquisitive: Meaning if you build "roads" it won't show up there...right?

---

I wasn't talking about building roads where they cannot be built.

I was talking about EBI and linking Uspe, Kabalaka and Mtskheta by roads. At the beginning of the game they are not linked but you can choose to build roads and link them together. Hence the choice aspect of EB and making your own and every time you play unique. I was trying to compliment and build up how good EBI was (and still is!).

Random question, EB uses a cylindrical map right? Is the EB2 map a equirectangular?

I'm not sure, the EBII map is the same projection though. In a later release we (ie me) might change it to a equal area projection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

I was talking about EBI and linking Uspe, Kabalaka and Mtskheta by roads. At the beginning of the game they are not linked but you can choose to build roads and link them together. Hence the choice aspect of EB and making your own and every time you play unique. I was trying to compliment and build up how good EBI was (and still is!).

---

My bad, I forgot that there is one road leading north, I do know that roads were prevented from going through some passes to stop the Hai expanding into the steppe. For the record I was talking about tactics that were used in EBI to direct faction expansion, we might not need to do that particular one in EBII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

I'm not sure, the EBII map is the same projection though. In a later release we (ie me) might change it to a equal area projection.

My bad, I forgot that there is one road leading north, I do know that roads were prevented from going through some passes to stop the Hai expanding into the steppe. For the record I was talking about tactics that were used in EBI to direct faction expansion, we might not need to do that particular one in EBII.

---

Because there's better ways to suggest certain things for the AI to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

I wasn't talking about building roads where they cannot be built.

I was talking about EBI and linking Uspe, Kabalaka and Mtskheta by roads. At the beginning of the game they are not linked but you can choose to build roads and link them together. Hence the choice aspect of EB and making your own and every time you play unique. I was trying to compliment and build up how good EBI was (and still is!).

---

What I'm saying is building roads and the roads still not linking these places together. Isn't that what the team did? Or does the modder have no control over what path the roads would take? If so, then the modder could make it such that such impossibilities would never occur. It's been a while since I've built roads there. I don't remember if they link those two or three places or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

What I'm saying is building roads and the roads still not linking these places together. Isn't that what the team did? Or does the modder have no control over what path the roads would take? If so, then the modder could make it such that such impossibilities would never occur. It's been a while since I've built roads there. I don't remember if they link those two or three places or not.

---

I think I read somewhere that road placements are hardcoded and the team has little control over where the road is placed, that could be rubbish but I think I read that. I'd imagine if the team wanted a road in a region to not connect with another region, they'd put up a physical obstacle to stop it ie A mountain or extra large river? I'm really not sure, Bobbin can you enlighten us?

There's another feature I've been thinking of lately. I'm not even sure if it's historical so my question is partly if it is historical and then only the subsequent question would be if it's possible to be included in the mod.

So, did barbarian warbands, when sacking/raiding a city, take the young boys/men and fill up their ranks with them? Would it be possible to bolster the numbers of a conquering army then, when choosing to exterminate a town?
Of course, even if it was done in reality, it would be hard to implement, because they could of course not replenish any elite units, rather levy units or the likes. Does any of this make sense? ^^

You mean during conquest of a city that belongs to same culture (aedui conquering gallic city) or any city no matter what culture the inhabitants belong to?

Only example I know of such practise is diadochi wars where soldiers from defeated side were conscripted to victors side, but such practise was caused by lack of ability to recruit hellenes. Had belligerent sides been able to recruit hellenes they likely would have not taken former foes to their ranks.

This leads to another possible implemention: desertion/switching sides, if say ptolemai were losing badly against seleucids and one of their armies was commanded by general who can't keep the order amongst troops anymore, this could lead to some troops deserting to seleucid side. Of course units that could switch sides could only be units that have no strong ties to their paymaster so no agema/hetaroi and such.

Well neither feature is likely to be implemented due to hardcoding/mtw2-engine caused limitations, but you can always keep dreaming...

Hi, how about new sort of Roman Legionary cohort when they invade Dacia. Let us say when the Romans lose a major battle against the Getai or some other faction that uses the rhomphaia they can recruit a new kind of cohort (only in that region) that has his right arm covered just as it happened in reality?

That's already technically possible (at least in EB1: the cataphract reform could be adapted for this), but a lot of work to implement a tiny detail. The adoption of armguards was a one-time occurrence, not a lasting reform. Also, I am sure that individual soldiers supplementing their armour to deal with specific threats was not uncommon. We just heard about it in this case because Roman writers wanted to emphasize the effectiveness of the Dacian weapons.