Fan ideas for your new MOD.

1. I have read that city on the battle map will NOT resemble a classical city. Apparently because its too much work or other work takes priority. My suggestion: is it possible to just overlay the cities of RTW onto M2TW? I am certain most fans will trade off the new/better graphics for more realistic cities.


2. One of the great additions to M2TW to me was militia and free upkeep. It makes perfect sense and is historical accurate to garrison your cities not with professional soldiers, who are much needed elsewhere, but with local levies/militia.
I have a few reasons why the EBII team should include this:

2.1. Because EBII strives for historical accuracy, it is acceptable that some factions don't have archers available to them, except as mercs. But that you have no archers to defend your settlements is a real pain in the but. Also this is highly unrealistic, because in all of history, whenever there was a walled city, men wielded ranged weapons to help defend it. Otherwise you would go the 'Spartan way', have your enemy run in to your spears, without bothering about walls.

I understand that all factions then would have ranged weapons, which EBII wanted to avoid in the first place. But I think/hope I have a solution for you. Is it possible for all militia to have their movement points taken away so they can only act as garrison or preferably, allow them to act/move in their province of recruitment only. They will then only be able to help defend their home territory (dealing with invasions or rebellions) and not go on some distant campaign.

2.2. The other reason I advocate militia (as described above) is for the AI. How many times have we played Total war games where your enemy is attacking you with all his might and leaves his heartland and rear settlements almost completely undefended to be picked off by another AI. This because the AI is completely devoted on defeating the human player. Its also nice to make it extra challenging for the player not to conquer nearly garrison-less cities.

You could make 2 militia units for each faction type (barbarian, roman, greek, african, eastern) so as to save skin works, say one ranged unit and one melee. Which type I leave up to your superior historical research. Also as not to 'flood' the game with militia, you could put a cap on them, as was done with merchants and priests, say 6 per city. Or have it progressed as the free upkeep system already works in M2TW. These units should at their best be of the 'medium' type.


3. I read that the armor upgrading system will NOT be included in EBII, as again it would spare a lot of skin works. If it so, I can live with that. That said, if you do find the time to include on some key units (top of my head: generals bodyguard, mainstay infantry units,...). It kinda sucks to lose the experience of your units, especially your hardcore infantry, as this is harder to accumulate then ranged units or cavalry.


4. Regarding experience, I always thought it would be great to have a more rewarding experience bonus system. For example: win a heroic victory and your entire army will get +1. Win 2 clear victories and your army gets +1. This for the same reason as said above. In my experience (have finished RTW & MTW2 with every playable faction, some multiple times, in lesser extent the expansions, don't care too much for the other TWs, sorry guys) infantry ranks up much slower as they inflict less casualties/take prisoners then ranged units and especially cavalry.


I really hope this will start some debate or at least to get some answers to these questions. To be honest the only MOD I ever, I repeat EVER, played was Rome Total Realism. I was impressed with this but never explored it further. Some years later I regained interest in Total War and to get a new experience I decide I would check out the MODs.
After some research EBII caught my eye because I think the first version for RTW looked stunning, ergo what can be done with M2TW can be even better. Oh yeah this is also my first ever participation in one of these forums, so you will have to excuse the length of it.

Keep up the good work.

1. Afaik cities will look ancient, but they won't be "unique", as in customized Athenai, customized Roma etc.

2. Garrisons and free upkeeps will be in EBII.

3. The armour system will be used to represent "eras", but the first release will only have the early era.

4. I don't know if it can be modded and frankly I dislike the idea, a victory, especially an heroic one, usually was due to the incredible work of units within the army.

regarding modeling ancient cities; most of our modelers are working on units atm. I have done a little work on building models, but its not at the top of my priority list right now. Have a working mod that feels right on the campaign map is a first goal.

Thanks for the quick reply. All sounds cool.

But I think you can not deny the fact that cavalry units gain much quicker experience than infantry. Mainly because they are perfect for running down fleeing units. Whilst infantry hold the main line and take the brunt of the attack. And in 99% of battles infantry don't rank up in a heroic battle but cavalry 'skyrocket'! Don't you think it would be fair to somehow give the infantry their due, by letting them rank up faster? Ranged units are fine in my experience, as are cavalry.

Even in real life experiencing a battle gives a soldier experience, you don't necessarily have to kill someone to get it. Look at our vets from Iraq and Afghanistan. You think all of them killed people? No, they didn't, but they are still vets.

Its up to your team and it will not ruin the game a bit if its not in it. But I am just proving my point.

Thanks again tho for the reply. I hope other fans will add to this post with some cool/reasonable ideas.

I meant in real life, ingame there are exploits and it's up to the player whether to use them or not...
If your infantry isn't chevroning it just means that it's doing poorly :P
Can think for example in EB of phalangitai or hoplitai in guard mode getting silver chevrons in a couple of battles...
Same goes for archers; all in all, which units get chevroned in your games reflect your playstyle and which units do most of the killing, hence why they become the most experienced...

What I was saying is that chevrons give more than better morale, and being an experienced soldier is different from being a veteran...

Because this was a question thread anyway...

- How will you use the cities vs castles system in medieval 2? Will we only see cities or will there be castles as well(were there any in the ancient times?)

- Are you going to use the captives mechanic of medieval 2? Like being able to deploy the captives as slaves which temporarily boost farming and mining income.

City/castle system has been changed into settled/nomad system, I don't know whether only certain factions will be able to switch between the two or every faction will...

The captives event I never read about it, but I'm pretty sure it's something hardcoded and the team will be able to rename the options, like what they did with the capturing of cities in EB...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VivaSalsa

1. I have read that city on the battle map will NOT resemble a classical city. Apparently because its too much work or other work takes priority. My suggestion: is it possible to just overlay the cities of RTW onto M2TW? I am certain most fans will trade off the new/better graphics for more realistic cities.

---

We won't have custom settlement battlemaps for the first release of EBII, they are just too hard to make for M2TW and we don't have time to do them, We intend to have them in later on though.

Quote:

---

2.1. Because EBII strives for historical accuracy, it is acceptable that some factions don't have archers available to them, except as mercs. But that you have no archers to defend your settlements is a real pain in the but. Also this is highly unrealistic, because in all of history, whenever there was a walled city, men wielded ranged weapons to help defend it. Otherwise you would go the 'Spartan way', have your enemy run in to your spears, without bothering about walls.

I understand that all factions then would have ranged weapons, which EBII wanted to avoid in the first place. But I think/hope I have a solution for you. Is it possible for all militia to have their movement points taken away so they can only act as garrison or preferably, allow them to act/move in their province of recruitment only. They will then only be able to help defend their home territory (dealing with invasions or rebellions) and not go on some distant campaign.

---

Errr...all of our factions in EBI had ranged units that fill this role, this isn't even counting the numerous local units that are available to every faction. So this is kind of a moot point.

Quote:

---

2.2. The other reason I advocate militia (as described above) is for the AI. How many times have we played Total war games where your enemy is attacking you with all his might and leaves his heartland and rear settlements almost completely undefended to be picked off by another AI. This because the AI is completely devoted on defeating the human player. Its also nice to make it extra challenging for the player not to conquer nearly garrison-less cities.

You could make 2 militia units for each faction type (barbarian, roman, greek, african, eastern) so as to save skin works, say one ranged unit and one melee. Which type I leave up to your superior historical research. Also as not to 'flood' the game with militia, you could put a cap on them, as was done with merchants and priests, say 6 per city. Or have it progressed as the free upkeep system already works in M2TW. These units should at their best be of the 'medium' type.

---

We haven't really considered garrison scripts yet, but they come with a hell of a lot of issues that means they might not be included.

Quote:

---

3. I read that the armor upgrading system will NOT be included in EBII, as again it would spare a lot of skin works. If it so, I can live with that. That said, if you do find the time to include on some key units (top of my head: generals bodyguard, mainstay infantry units,...). It kinda sucks to lose the experience of your units, especially your hardcore infantry, as this is harder to accumulate then ranged units or cavalry.

---

No idea where you got that from, it isn't true anyhow.The armour upgrade system is being used to represent the changes that happened to certain units armour and equipment through history, an example being the increasing use of armour by Gallic soldiers.

The armour system also has nothing to do with experience, I think you have confused it with something else there.

Quote:

---

4. Regarding experience, I always thought it would be great to have a more rewarding experience bonus system. For example: win a heroic victory and your entire army will get +1. Win 2 clear victories and your army gets +1. This for the same reason as said above. In my experience (have finished RTW & MTW2 with every playable faction, some multiple times, in lesser extent the expansions, don't care too much for the other TWs, sorry guys) infantry ranks up much slower as they inflict less casualties/take prisoners then ranged units and especially cavalry.

---

Not possible and not realistic, why should soldiers that did little of no fighting in a battle get experience upgrades just because their side won? The current system is fine as it is.

Quote:

---

After some research EBII caught my eye because I think the first version for RTW looked stunning, ergo what can be done with M2TW can be even better. Oh yeah this is also my first ever participation in one of these forums, so you will have to excuse the length of it.

---

Welcome to the forums!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickinator9

Because this was a question thread anyway...

- How will you use the cities vs castles system in medieval 2? Will we only see cities or will there be castles as well(were there any in the ancient times?)

- Are you going to use the captives mechanic of medieval 2? Like being able to deploy the captives as slaves which temporarily boost farming and mining income.

---

Castles and cities will be used to represent the differences between nomadic and settled populations.

We are still deciding that, you can't really change the mechanic only rename the options. So in the end we might just allow you the "kill captives" option.

I read on this forum somewhere, that in your first version whenever your reforms happen (4x as Romans), you cant retrain your units and have to start rebuilding your armies. I generally like this idea but 4 times is kinda excessive don't you think?

I know this happened 1 in vanilla and is was fun, but 4 times.... I just don't know. So that's why I asked if the armor system is in there, so you can keep your units. And it is!

About the archers, so in the territory of Rome, you can build Roman archers? (example) If so, I have no complaints. But if I have to get Toxetoi to have archers in the 'eternal city', I find that highly unrealistic. Not even Roman legions where allowed in the city (for a long time anyhow), let alone Greeks or others. As I said, I never played EB, so don't get back to 'hard'.

As for the experience, its fine, its your decision. But don't presume to tell me being in a battle or war without killing some one doesn't give you experience or veteran status. Clearly none of you have ever known it... Just saying.
But my point is, and always has been, that infantry level up much slower than cavalry or archers. Perhaps your phalanx units do, but as I remember from both games, regular melee infantry level up much slower. And its not because a lack of fighting. But as I said, its your decision.

Thanks for your views, and hopefully more desires/questions will be raised on this 'Thread' as you guys call it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VivaSalsa

As I said, I never played EB, so don't get back to 'hard'.

---

Well, just play EB dude, you won't regret it I assure you

Well, the reason legions weren't allowed in rome was because they weren't needed. No enemy in the late republic would have even remotely the strength to assault rome itself.

Also, there are 3 transitions with rome : camillan->polybian, polybian->marian, marian -> augustan. And in my opinion there is plenty of time between them, so it doesn't bother me at all to see these reforms and having to train new troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fireblade

Well, the reason legions weren't allowed in rome was because they weren't needed. No enemy in the late republic would have even remotely the strength to assault rome itself.
.

---

Well there was algo this tradition of Legion not being allowed by law, if a Legion entered Rome that would make it a Rogue Legion.

On the other hand I totally agree with you, I don't mind either, besides this type of changes (historically) don't happen overnight, so they might have been Marian Legionaries, while some provinces were still arming/disarming their Polybian Hastati and Triarii

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VivaSalsa

I read on this forum somewhere, that in your first version whenever your reforms happen (4x as Romans), you cant retrain your units and have to start rebuilding your armies. I generally like this idea but 4 times is kinda excessive don't you think?

---

Just another viewpoint:

Retraining has never been a problem for me, because personally I never do it. I never retrain units in EB, not for any faction. All I do is raise new units, and merge them into depleted veteran units. That's like a veteran unit getting some new rookies to fill the gaps in the ranks. Yes, the veteran unit's overall experience level goes down because of the new rookies not having any experience, but that's realistic IMO, so makes me happy.

When the Roman reforms come for me, I just keep on merging depleted units from the previous reform together until they are too small to fight effectively anymore, then I disband them in the nearest Roman town. New units of the latest reform are recruited to replace losses to the old-style units. For a while, I might have armies with units from both reform eras - veteran units with old style equipment, and rookie units with the new equipment. Change was likely to be a gradual process anyway, there's no reason for a legion to throw old style equipment away until it wears out.

I trust u guys know what you are talking about (reforms). But I like the idea of not losing your experience with the armor reforms as they are doing it this game. I took a look at the units of EB, and I thought the first 2 and the last 2 are really similar and don't justify a complete haul-over. I think they got it right in Vanilla. That said, EB made it much fleshier and cooler.

I don't play games anymore, but sometimes the urge to play still surfaces, and that's why I looked into MODs for RTW and M2TW, cause they are probably my favorite games ever. I always loved RTS games.

As for Roman Legions in Rome, as *** said, before Sulla, no legions ever entered the eternal city!!! They were not allowed, cause it would give the ruling consul an 'edge' to say the least. But that was not my point.
I just want to be able to train ROMAN archers in Rome! Is this possible? Cause I know historically the Romans used auxiliary soldiers for this role on the battlefield. But in the cities, certainly in Rome, there would be Romans manning the walls.

You can recruit roman archers...
No legions in Roma is nice and all, but there was the Campvs Martivs just outside and during emergencies legionaries were posted where needed...
Also this idea gets easily overstretched in time, it evolved during the middle/late republic and actually Sulla outlawed any legion in the city...
That was during a time there wasn't any threat in the italian peninsula, except for Romani themselves...

Reforms are fine and the inability to retrain is more than justified: there were new people or completely different equipments used, so the training and arming processes were different...

Finally, thank you for that answer!
Maybe I could have avoided this by simply asking for a faction unit list.... is there one?

About the reforms: if that's the way it is, that's the way its is. But is does give other factions an edge over the Romans doesn't it? I know EBII is all about historical accuracy, but the game has to be balanced out to. Then again, I am sure the EBII people are doing their best to make it so.

In EB I, Roman archers only come with the second reform and IIRC only in some provinces. Seeing as there are Roman slingers though, I don't think there is a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VivaSalsa

But is does give other factions an edge over the Romans doesn't it?

---

It gives the SPQR, better troops and a bigger AoR, if anything it favours them :P

Here is the factional units list for the Romani and here you can find a complete unit list for all factions...

I think you overestimate the power of archers in EB. In EB the most important unit type is heavy infantry a category where romans are quite good. Then again The availibility of lots of mercenaries and several local archers trainable just like regular troops makes up for most holes in the factional roster.

Thanks guys!

Like I said: never played MODs before (except RTR, tried it) and in vanilla, if I remember Carthage had no archers. I thought this was a huge pain in the but for city defense games. Somehow slingers and skirmisher did not quite do the job.

And in RTR it was always local troops you could hire, but in the whole peninsula of Italy you couldn't get an archer unit. Which I found ridiculous. That is where my concern came from on this topic.

I hope some people bring up some other topics in this thread.

Actually, you will find slingers very useful in this mod. They have armor piercing, although I don't find it that historical that the slingers don't have unlimited ammo. Those little stones they use should be able to be found anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VivaSalsa

Thanks guys!

Like I said: never played MODs before (except RTR, tried it) and in vanilla, if I remember Carthage had no archers. I thought this was a huge pain in the but for city defense games.

---

Rome has factional slingers until the Marian reforms (where they're replaced by scorpions and auxiliary archers). Also, you can hire Nuraghi Archer-Spearmen on Sardinia, Celtic Archer-Spearmen and Celtic Slingers in Northern Italy and Hellenic archers (bad) and Hellenic slingers (great) in Kalabria and Sicily.
Quite apart from Kretan and Balearic mercenaries being available in the region. Also, try out the recruitable Kretan Archers.
Carthage can recruit Numidian archers and slingers as auxiliaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VivaSalsa

I read on this forum somewhere, that in your first version whenever your reforms happen (4x as Romans), you cant retrain your units and have to start rebuilding your armies. I generally like this idea but 4 times is kinda excessive don't you think?

---

We are just following what happened in history, that is always our primary focus.

Quote:

---

I know this happened 1 in vanilla and is was fun, but 4 times.... I just don't know. So that's why I asked if the armor system is in there, so you can keep your units. And it is!

---

Sorry I should have been clearer, the Romans will probably not use the armour system to represent the evolution of their troops, this is due to technical limitations of the armour upgrade system (can't change weapon stats, hardcoded armour increase etc) which don't fit with the changes that happened to those troops over time.

Quote:

---

About the archers, so in the territory of Rome, you can build Roman archers? (example) If so, I have no complaints. But if I have to get Toxetoi to have archers in the 'eternal city', I find that highly unrealistic. Not even Roman legions where allowed in the city (for a long time anyhow), let alone Greeks or others. As I said, I never played EB, so don't get back to 'hard'.

---

Some people just didn't use certain weapons much for what ever reason. The Romans were a good example of that, archery wasn't something they bothered with, when they did use archers it was almost always in the form of foreign troops, if there was evidence for native Roman archers being widely used they you could bet that they would have been made into a unit. Its not being unrealistic, its being true to history, which is what EB is all about.

Quote:

---

As for the experience, its fine, its your decision. But don't presume to tell me being in a battle or war without killing some one doesn't give you experience or veteran status. Clearly none of you have ever known it... Just saying.

---

You asked a question and I answered it, there is no need to get defensive. Experience in the game works by improving the attack, defence and morale of a unit, these improvements do not make sense if they are applied to soldiers that do not actually fight. A soldier gets better at physical combat through actual fighting, if he is just sitting there behind the lines he does learn much about how to kill an enemy or defend himself from attack .You could reasonably argue that his morale might improve due to being exposed to battle and thus hardened against it in future, but then experience doesn't just improve the morale of a unit so it can't be used for that.

Quote:

---

But my point is, and always has been, that infantry level up much slower than cavalry or archers. Perhaps your phalanx units do, but as I remember from both games, regular melee infantry level up much slower. And its not because a lack of fighting. But as I said, its your decision.

---

Experience works the same for all types of units in TW games, the differences you see are to do with the kill to loss ratios, units like cavalry and archers kill a lot more soldiers than they lose so their experience grows faster.
For archers it is because they suffer relatively few casualties while being able to inflict large amounts due to their ranged weapons.
For cavalry it is because they usually rack up huge numbers of kills when they are chasing down routing units.
Normal infantry usually takes the most casualties and don't move fast enough to kill the huge numbers of router that cavalry does, hence they take longer to level up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Just another viewpoint:

Retraining has never been a problem for me, because personally I never do it. I never retrain units in EB, not for any faction. All I do is raise new units, and merge them into depleted veteran units. That's like a veteran unit getting some new rookies to fill the gaps in the ranks. Yes, the veteran unit's overall experience level goes down because of the new rookies not having any experience, but that's realistic IMO, so makes me happy.

---

But veteran units also lose exp when you retrain them, and I think its just as much as merging them with fresh troops. I might be weong on that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickinator9

Actually, you will find slingers very useful in this mod. They have armor piercing, although I don't find it that historical that the slingers don't have unlimited ammo. Those little stones they use should be able to be found anywhere.

---

so it would be like a basktball game when slingers runned out of proper stones they would ask for a time out run to the nearest river or stream to try and select the best stones and then return for the 3th period (most slingers used special stream stones or where supllyed with lead bullets by their polis ) in case of emergency they probably cut their stones to make them fit but slingers do run out of ammunnition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

But veteran units also lose exp when you retrain them, and I think its just as much as merging them with fresh troops. I might be weong on that

---

I don't think they do, its one of the exploits that the player can get away with in RTW, basically the new troops have the same level of experience as the unit had before being retrained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

I don't think they do, its one of the exploits that the player can get away with in RTW, basically the new troops have the same level of experience as the unit had before being retrained.

---

Yes, but only sometimes! It seems to vary from time to time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VivaSalsa

Thanks guys!

Like I said: never played MODs before (except RTR, tried it) and in vanilla...

...but in the whole peninsula of Italy you couldn't get an archer unit. Which I found ridiculous. That is where my concern came from on this topic.

---

Ok.

You haven't even played the mod but you are getting all these 'ideas' on what needs to be done to improve the mod; most of them seem to be making it like vanilla. Furthermore, the vast majority of things you have suggested are already in the mod or are, quite frankly, wrong. I really suggest you download and play EB1. Its a very fun game and you will not be disappointed in it.

Furthermore, this will really give you the chance to appreciate some of the things that happen in the game and the reasons they were done. Rome doesn't have dudes with bows, it has dudes with slings and some javelins. Also, if you don't like native roman troops you are very easily able to recruit many of the units from surrounding lands that you can occupy. This allows you to use another factions bowmen if you REALLY need them. On top of that the unit descriptions can tell you a lot about why certain things occur. You will notice that the majority of archery is in the east. Mostly due to the weather conditions and the technical innovations that allowed composite bows. These bows do not hold up well in damp/humid weather.

Once again, I suggest you play the first mod, if only because it will allow you to be a little better informed about the things that you comment on. Please, for all our sakes!

Yeah you are right, why bring anything up for discussion...

You are acting like I don't like whats going on or something, that EB(II) is a bad idea! I just put some ideas/questions out there, and hoped other people would also post their ideas/questions here. Which is why I started this thread in the first place. So take a pill, relax and give us your views on the game, what you think can improve, or would like to see different.

That goes for everybody actually, fans can have a positive input on the making of a game.

PS: you might notice I said FAN, the word pops up a lot this thread. Try looking it up what it means....

Most of your suggestions are invalid because of historical accuracy reasons, or invalid because you don't know what you're talking about. Play EB, then come back to this thread and suggest new things, but don't suggest anything by just going off of various previews. Besides, you've already admitted that you don't play games anymore, so you're not even someone in a position to make suggestions like these. You probably won't even play the mod that you're suggesting things for. Let people who actually played the original EB and who are interested in someday playing EBII make suggestions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VivaSalsa

PS: you might notice I said FAN, the word pops up a lot this thread. Try looking it up what it means....

---

Yes it comes from fanum, which denotes some sort of temple, and therefore fan, being the short form of fanatic, means "religious zealot". Which is why I usually don't utilize that word when referring to myself.

Very appropriate though for football enthusiasts.

VivaSalsa,
welcome to the .org!

I think the reason people are reacting negatively to your comments is because threads such as this one pop up constantly where people request things that are either insufficiently research (historically) or just impossible to do in modding the game. This grates on nerves and probably causes the reaction to be harsher than people really mean it to be.
The other issue is that you have not yet played the original EB. A number of the things you have brought up would have been addressed if you had played that mod.

As to the discussion of infantry experience. I think VivaSalsa is making a valid point that soldiers do gain experience from being in a battle, even if they them-self do not fight, and I think this could even be extended to saying that soldiers gain experience from being on a campaign, even without battles.
That said, the experience system of the TW engine does not reflect this type of experience. As far as I know there is no feasible way for the TW engine to properly represent the greater discipline and moral of veteran soldiers. Realistically, I think experience would be more likely to affect things such ass movement rates, ability to maneuver and deploy in battle, ability to hold a formation, etc... However, since in game experience only makes a unit better at fighting, I think it is logical to award it based on how much fighting that unit has done, rather than on other factors which would, in reality, make one a better soldier in other ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VivaSalsa

Yeah you are right, why bring anything up for discussion...

You are acting like I don't like whats going on or something, that EB(II) is a bad idea! I just put some ideas/questions out there, and hoped other people would also post their ideas/questions here. Which is why I started this thread in the first place. So take a pill, relax and give us your views on the game, what you think can improve, or would like to see different.

That goes for everybody actually, fans can have a positive input on the making of a game.

PS: you might notice I said FAN, the word pops up a lot this thread. Try looking it up what it means....

---

Heh, you don't want to argue with me. And I have no intention of arguing with you. But you should play the original mod. Its a very fun game despite its shortcomings and the team has done some incredible work. The breadth of information is truly staggering, when you consider these are just normal people working on a hobby of theirs then it becomes even more amazing. The love and care and detail that has been put in to every little aspect, even down to little snippets of humour hidden around the place.

I whole-heartedly, without any malice, suggest you give it a shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blxz

Rome doesn't have dudes with bows, it has dudes with slings and some javelins. You will notice that the majority of archery is in the east. Mostly due to the weather conditions and the technical innovations that allowed composite bows. These bows do not hold up well in damp/humid weather.

---

Good info.

If early Rome had factional archers, IMO they would have been like Hellenic Toxotai - i.e. crap. Accensi slingers are better than Toxotai archers.

But if someone wants Rome to have archers (crap or otherwise) instead of slingers, it is possible to mod them in yourself.

Roma afaik used only auxiliares for archery...
Saw now the OP was interested in recruiting them specifically in the city of Rome, as Blxz pointed out you have slingers there, but for the whole of the peninsula you have both Toxotai and Sotaroas...
Plus in Sardinia you even get Dorkim Shardanim...

trust me i was in that position and odysseus was always breaking my balls the schytians and the syracusans granted me a few ridiculous situations and for most of my sugestions they where never adopted simply because the game doesn´t allow it i mean the game engine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

In EB I, Roman archers only come with the second reform and IIRC only in some provinces.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Rome has factional slingers until the Marian reforms (where they're replaced by scorpions and auxiliary archers). Also, you can hire [...] Hellenic slingers (great) in Kalabria and Sicily.
Also, try out the recruitable Kretan Archers.

---

athanaric, are you sure of these two statements?
In all my roman campaigns (and I played - though never finished - a lot of them, stopped counting after about 10 :laugh4:) I never got factional archers with the marian reforms (only the Augustan ones - a shame that I only reached them once).
And I never was able to train a single hellenic slinger.

I absolutely agree about the Toxotai Kretikoi though. I always make sure that every legion has a unit of them (one of the very few occasions where I neglect history - they are just too good to not hire them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowwalker

athanaric, are you sure of these two statements?
In all my roman campaigns (and I played - though never finished - a lot of them, stopped counting after about 10 :laugh4:) I never got factional archers with the marian reforms (only the Augustan ones - a shame that I only reached them once).
And I never was able to train a single hellenic slinger.

---

I forgot to mention that the factional dudes are only recruitable somewhere in the eastern Levant. Maybe they're Augustan and not Marian (I've never reached the Marian reforms yet). Being "Eastern Auxiliaries" and all that. Also, I just remembered that Rome can't recruit Sphendonetai. Which sucks, but then again you have Celtic and Numidian (IIRC) slingers, which are decent enough. Also, Numidian archers. You can also bribe units of Rhodian slingers, though you can't recruit them yourself.

One thing I think should be included in the mod, is a fix for installing client rulers. In EB right now if you set up a client ruler their ethnic trait is picked seemingly randomly from the types of ethnicities the Faction can have as a trait. So it's pretty weird when the Carthiginians put a celto-punic in charge of a newly conquered Numidian province. Or a when a Pontic king puts a Skythian in charge of Cilicia. Maybe for some nations like the Seleukids, and Ptolomai it makes sense cause they are so multinational. But I still think that it would make sense if a Pontic king could put an Egyptian in charge of an Egyptian province or a Jewish King in charge of Jerusalem

You can say that again!!! It's just soooo Annoying to have Pontic celtae vollorix in upper italy Kimbroz Hellenic Merc generals in greece and so on.

Tho I think there has yet to be a path to a solution. :(

herm herodes was an arab and not a jew (altough he was married to a jewish princess)

so it makes sence for the basileus to put people they trust and have shown both their worth and their loyalty to them and besides everyone knows that cilicians only make good pirates and they never amount to much else in other areas

EB 2 wäre der Hammer! Ich vergöttere dieses Spiel und spiele den Mod Europa Barbarorum immer noch gerne. Was ich mir für einen zweiten Teil wünschen würde, wäre eine Anlehnung an Europa Barbarorum mit Seeschlachten, der Möglichkeit in der selben Stadt mehrere Einheiten gleichzeitig auszubilden und mehrere Gebäude gleichzeitig zu bauen, alle Götter gleichzeitig in einer Stadt mit Tempeln ehren zu können, mehr Einheiten in die Schlacht führen zu können, Wiedereinführung der Kriegshunde, mehr Möglichkeiten bei der Ausrüstung der Soldaten mit verschiedenen Schmiedetypen, Schumachern, Helmmachern, Bognern, Schwertschmieden etc. und dass diese Ausrüstungsgegenstände sichtbar sind oder eben nicht, wenn nicht ausgerüstet. Ich würde mir mehr Möglichkeiten beim Handel wünschen, so dass zum Beispiel Schuhe die beim Schuhmacher in Capua gemacht werden per optionaler Handelsroute nach Rom geliefert werden können, um dort die Legionäre mit Caligulae zu versorgen, mit Schwertern aus Noricum, Kettenhemden aus Gallien etc.
Ich würde mir auch wünschen, dass es wie im Bello Gallico beschrieben, möglich wäre die Getreideversorgung einer feindlichen Armee zu kappen, deren Tross anzugreifen oder die Wasserversorgung einer Stadt zu kappen. Legionslager sollten zu einer Stadt ausbaubar sein, wie so viele Stadte, wie Köln, aus Legionslagern entstanden sind.
Last but not least wünsche ich mir spannendere Belagerungen wie weiter unten bereits beschrieben, die Möglichkeit zur Kapitulation und übergabe einer Stadt, noch mehr Realismus in den Schlachten, und dass die eigenen Fernkämpfer ein bisschen intelligenter sind und nicht stur eigene Einheiten in der Schusslinie ignorieren und töten!

Mahlzeit Tauern.

Da bräuchte man aber nen anderes Spiel weder rome noch medieval 2 bieten da hinreichend Möglichkeiten. Das mit den Hunden ließ sich sicher machen aber Ick glob dat die herrn von EB die aus gutem grund aka mangelnder historischer relevanz rausgenommen haben. Grundsätzlich solltest du dich aber hier im forum versuchen in englisch auszudrücken, ick bin hier zwar nich die forums-polizei aber allgemein sehn die leute es nich gerne wenn jemand inner fremden sprache postet und die sprache überdies noch gesprochen wird :D

I'm just telling him that most of his suggestions are not possible due to the TW engine. That dogs were removed on purpose and that he should refrain himself to english on these forums.

Historic generals showing up to help their faction, also could their be historical uprsisings but they should be tied to certain conditions not a date :)

I'm liking the ideas on the thread. i would like to see one thing added in the next game, although I don't know if its possible.

i am talking about the ability for secondary gernerals to be able to receive experience in battles. For example, my faction leader's brother's unit did very well in a battle, killing about 500 units with endless charges to the flank and "commanding" a battle group in my army. It was a let down to see that he was still Green. Its only realistic that secondary generals gain traits that show they have been in battle.