Fans suggestion thread for future releases

Hi guys,

as some of you might know, i've been enrolled as the EB team's liaison (secretary sounds girly :S), and as you might assume my work will basically be to be a link between the fans and the EB developers; one way i'd like to achieve this, is to open this suggestion thread, where fans can give their suggestion on improving the mod.

So feel free to give your suggestions in this thread; i'll be happy to read through them and forward them to the team members responsible for that part of the game; while these won't be in the next release, good ones will have a good chance of being implemented in the future, if of course we will have the manpower and time to actually make them work. Unfortunately sometimes an idea can be really good, but it would take too much time for too small results.

Ok, so please post your suggestions and ideas in this thread;

Regards,

Anubis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

Hi guys,

as some of you might know, i've been enrolled as the EB team's liaison (secretary sounds girly :S), and as you might assume my work will basically be to be a link between the fans and the EB developers; one way i'd like to achieve this, is to open this suggestion thread, where fans can give their suggestion on improving the mod.

So feel free to give your suggestions in this thread; i'll be happy to read through them and forward them to the team members responsible for that part of the game; while these won't be in the next release, good ones will have a good chance of being implemented in the future, if of course we will have the manpower and time to actually make them work. Unfortunately sometimes an idea can be really good, but it would take too much time for too small results.

Ok, so please post your suggestions and ideas in this thread;

Regards,

Anubis

---

Thanks for putting up this thread, please allow me to begin my 'nagging' right away. :p

*Perhaps this thread could be stickied?
*Perhaps a similar thread could be opened over at the TWC?
*I'm not sure if it's realistic (or even possible), but I'd like to suggest giving cavalry armed with lances and swords (or axes, maces etc.) an animation that allows them to attack other units in front of them once they have engaged said unit with their melee weapons. This because they're currently at a huge disadvantage against cavalry armed with spears, since those can attack an opponent directly in front of them, whereas the sword-armed cavalry can't strike back, leading to such situations as the early Roman equites beating the much heavier Carthiginian noble cavalry in a protracted melee.
*Creating the government option of an allied (and closely allied) monarchy, adding to the options of the allied democracy and oligarchy. This to demonstrate for example the allied/client kingdom the Romans backed in Thrace in the late first century B.C. / early first century A.D. If such an option is already available in the game and I've simply missed it, I hereby apologize.

Again, thanks for putting this up and I hope we get to see some interesting ideas posted here in the near future. :)

Stickied.

And what's girly about the term "Secretary?". e.g. Secretery General of the xxxx Party.

@Adalingum

See, those are all relevant ideas that i'll definetly talk to the guys about. I will open a thread on TWC tommorow; i'm at a different computer and i don't remember the login :D.
@Brennus

Secretary of defence might work too :D But yeah i don't care what i'm called. As long as it's not expected of me to have an affair with my boss :D

Just something small
If you receive a colonization point (for building a polis or colonization building) you get a message that you can build a polis or colonization building but if you can not build one you get that message every turn which is very annoying. It would be great if this could be changed to a single message when you earn the colonization point.

Keep up the good work

Hi people! I have a suggestion and a request,

First of all, I don't know if this will be achievable at all: Would it be possible to have an emergent message, just like that one from "faction announcements", that informs the player of earning a colony point, or some other mechanic like that? I find annoying that this message from the advisor do not appear for some factions, as the A.S.

Relating to the culture conversion bonus, I've observed that the message in the building description (1% culture conversion bonus) only appears in winter, is this intentional? Can you offer some kind of guide to fully understand those strange mechanics? I understand that clerics are inaccurate, but some light over this matter would be great. My reference buildings are: "KATOIKIAI LAON" and "PHROURIOI LAON".

EDIT: Oh, and other thing I have noticed, the first TIER of farming, brings "Forest Tribal Culture" conversion bonus, is this intentional?

Sorry if I'm not clear with my message, if something is wrong I'll do my best to explain what I meant, thanks team!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Attachment 15301

It's a screenshot to show what I meant in my last edit

I think that cultural conversion is due to Galatia belonging to the Aruernoi...

Iirc neighbouring provinces are part of the equation...

But then appear two more questions, Aruernoi in Galatia are a relatively recent event, and they are European Tribal States, if I'm right.

Thanks anyway

Will point it out to coders and scripters, they definitely know more on this than me :)

Maybe the Aruernoi built something that increases Forest Tribalism, or they aren't the cause at all XD

My suggestion is actually different from others:

The EB team has made recently a very good move of hiring a secretery, it will definitely make the contact with fans easier. But I believe there is another position that should be created and manned and this is:

A RECRUITER - a person (or best 2 or 3 persons) that will post from time to time on every: 1. mod-related, 2. history-related 3. total-war related 4. skinning and modelling-related 5. histrorical paintings-related website. I mean like really from time to time which means regulary. I believe that only in this way enough volunteers may be found to still polish this beautiful mod. Maybe actions like this are already undertaken by the team, I do not know, but regular search on numerous Internet forums and websites just have to end with finding of dedicated modders. Not all people visit org and tw. Maybe there are people out there who would make a great contribution but do not even know yet that the EB exists? Maybe the posts that have already been posted are too old for people to notice? In other words it would be great if EB team team created a small unit just for recruting purposes and let them work for 3 or 4 months - I believe the results would be great

If you can suggest such sites I believe this is already one of Anubis' tasks. The problem is finding relevant sites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshmahurin

If you can suggest such sites I believe this is already one of Anubis' tasks. The problem is finding relevant sites.

---

Precisely. It's very hard to find free help. If you'd pay them, you'd get 1000 people in day :D. But that's something the community can also help on its own; if you know of any such sites, please feel free to post them here, and i'll make an official EB request for help :)

One suggestion I have for a future update is possibly to make the colors of the factions' territory on the minimap darker or more saturated. Many of the factions like the Seleucids have light colors and are difficult to differentiate from rebel territories on the minimap and sometimes from each other.

i started to notice this during my latest KH campain.
many ai missile units keep shooting their missiles when engaged in melee combat even against other units than the one thy are currently in melee combat with. This mostly end u with heavy cassulties for the receiving unit.
this wouldn't bother me if my own units could do this to but it seems only the ai can

maybe something to look into?

I will try to search for such sites then! IT will be difficult for me as I work 12 hours a Day but still I will do what I van. I believe more people should be involved in this. Do you mind if I open another thread for this on tw ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisarius II

One suggestion I have for a future update is possibly to make the colors of the factions' territory on the minimap darker or more saturated. Many of the factions like the Seleucids have light colors and are difficult to differentiate from rebel territories on the minimap and sometimes from each other.

---

This is something I've raised already, white in particular is a bad colour to use.

*same post as on TWC

Many personal sugestions have already been posted or they are long term objectives so not going to insist on those.

Hoever I wonder if there are possible the folowing tweakings of the strategy map UI that will improve a bit the control the player has it over its expansion/progress:

Radar Map
-adding better contrasting colour shades between some factions (ex Epeiros-Macedon)or/and
-adding subtle region borders


Faction Ranking Scroll
-adding better contrasting colour shades between factions chart lines or/and
-make the lines a bit thiker so the colour be more visible (I know it can get crowded that why I said "a bit")
-faction symbols are not highlighted enough/equally when selected so you cant easily tell which are the ones displayed on the chart and which are not (combined with the colour problem this is a bit distressfull)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://7lapnq.dm2303.livefilestore....ngs.png?psid=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rien

i started to notice this during my latest KH campain.
many ai missile units keep shooting their missiles when engaged in melee combat even against other units than the one thy are currently in melee combat with. This mostly end u with heavy cassulties for the receiving unit.
this wouldn't bother me if my own units could do this to but it seems only the ai can

maybe something to look into?

---

This would be something to report in the bug threads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orphydian

*same post as on TWC

Many personal sugestions have already been posted or they are long term objectives so not going to insist on those.

Hoever I wonder if there are possible the folowing tweakings of the strategy map UI that will improve a bit the control the player has it over its expansion/progress:

Radar Map
-adding better contrasting colour shades between some factions (ex Epeiros-Macedon)or/and
-adding subtle region borders


Faction Ranking Scroll
-adding better contrasting colour shades between factions chart lines or/and
-make the lines a bit thiker so the colour be more visible (I know it can get crowded that why I said "a bit")
-faction symbols are not highlighted enough/equally when selected so you cant easily tell which are the ones displayed on the chart and which are not (combined with the colour problem this is a bit distressfull)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://7lapnq.dm2303.livefilestore....ngs.png?psid=1

---

We are actually talking about changing faction colors, though mostly just talking. I believe AS and Ptolemaioi as well as the rebel color will be changed in the future but others we are still trying to decide what would make sense, with a bias towards colors that actually reflect some aspect of that faction. Thus if you have any suggestions feel free to advise.

For attuned governor... With romans when I send my guy back to Rome for elections he loses this trait then gets it back only to lose it again when he goes back for elections, ant chance you could change the switch to lose it to two turns outside the city? Then he could go back for elections and come back the next season and not lose his governor abilities?

@josh mahurin Where can I find the faction color codes that are displayed on the radar map?

@QuintusSertorius would know better than me I believe :P

They're all in the data\descr_sm_factions.txt

Something I thought of since the Jewish spearmen have recently been previewed: is there a chance we could see a Maccabean or Judean revolt script in future releases? I'm not too familiar with modding Total War games, but here's what I thought of:

You could perhaps do something like create a script that increases unrest in the province Judea is included in (don't remember exactly which one it is atm) for certain levels of the 'Hellenistic Polities' 'religion' for as long as the Second Temple remains standing as a unique building, to simulate the tensions between hellenizing and traditional Jews at the time, with several rebel units spawning should public order drop below a certain threshold. Whereas destroying the temple could trigger another scripted revolt of several units, both to deny the player an easy way out the situation and to simulate that likely a lot of people would be pissed off if their most sacred site would just be desecrated like that. Finally the script could perhaps keep track of a counter which documents for how long it has been active, with tensions dropping and public order increasing once more after a few decades have passed, to reward the player for his/her provincial management and to simulate that a modus vivendi has been found between the hellenised and traditional factions. Something similar could possibly be implimented for the Roman faction (through Western Mediterranean Polities and the requirement of it firing only for the Romans), though the Roman-Jewish wars were largely outside of EB II's time-frame IIRC.

I'm not entirely sure how realistic or historical this idea would be or even if it's possible to script something like this. Also, my apologies if something similar is already (planned to be) accounted for in EB II. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

P.S. I used the term 'Judea' for the area because I'd like to avoid the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict in this matter. Please don't think I'm suggesting this out of pro-Israeli sentiments or something, I just wanted to propose an idea which I think would be beneficial to the historical feel and gameplay of EB II (managing a real, divided population, rather than simple numbers).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adalingum

Something I thought of since the Jewish spearmen have recently been previewed: is there a chance we could see a Maccabean or Judean revolt script in future releases? I'm not too familiar with modding Total War games, but here's what I thought of:

You could perhaps do something like create a script that increases unrest in the province Judea is included in (don't remember exactly which one it is atm) for certain levels of the 'Hellenistic Polities' 'religion' for as long as the Second Temple remains standing as a unique building, to simulate the tensions between hellenizing and traditional Jews at the time, with several rebel units spawning should public order drop below a certain threshold. Whereas destroying the temple could trigger another scripted revolt of several units, both to deny the player an easy way out the situation and to simulate that likely a lot of people would be pissed off if their most sacred site would just be desecrated like that. Finally the script could perhaps keep track of a counter which documents for how long it has been active, with tensions dropping and public order increasing once more after a few decades have passed, to reward the player for his/her provincial management and to simulate that a modus vivendi has been found between the hellenised and traditional factions. Something similar could possibly be implimented for the Roman faction (through Western Mediterranean Polities and the requirement of it firing only for the Romans), though the Roman-Jewish wars were largely outside of EB II's time-frame IIRC.

I'm not entirely sure how realistic or historical this idea would be or even if it's possible to script something like this. Also, my apologies if something similar is already (planned to be) accounted for in EB II. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

P.S. I used the term 'Judea' for the area because I'd like to avoid the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict in this matter. Please don't think I'm suggesting this out of pro-Israeli sentiments or something, I just wanted to propose an idea which I think would be beneficial to the historical feel and gameplay of EB II (managing a real, divided population, rather than simple numbers).

---

Problem with this is that it would single out this rebelion, which was just one of many. You could argue almost every part of the map had seen a rebelion in our timeframe; the maccabean revolt was just one of them. Rebellions were prone everywhere, not just in judaea. Sure it was more drastic when religions were changed, but again this didn't just happen there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

Problem with this is that it would single out this rebelion, which was just one of many. You could argue almost every part of the map had seen a rebelion in our timeframe; the maccabean revolt was just one of them. Rebellions were prone everywhere, not just in judaea. Sure it was more drastic when religions were changed, but again this didn't just happen there.

---

Fair enough, it was just a suggestion. That said, I remember something being posted or mentioned about an 'Arvernian Revolt' event way way back. Wouldn't that be equally in violation of your argument above?

Just my thoughts on this: the problem there is that rebel units spawning (therefore acting against the polity in power) makes little sense. Those tensions resulted in killings among the Jewish communities and not against Hellenistic citizens, or even coordinated actions against the power in place...

The Maccabean Revolt happened because the Hellenising faction thought held enough power to implement reforms and acting as local representatives informed the Seleukid Basileus that these could/should be enacted...
Even when this revolt took place, again iirc, most of the violence was directed at other Jews, in order to terrorise them into not siding with the Seleukidai, while of course what forces were mustered fought the armies sent to end the rebellion...

However this resulted from a very specific combination of events, overall in the general religious freedom of the Hellenistic period, especially under the Seleukidai, also keeping in mind as I said that those tensions were of an internal factional nature, I think that script wouldn't be as accurate...

Already the destruction of temples cause the loss of public happiness, making a unique building solely in Ioudaia would be rather arbitrary (any community would revolt whenever sacred grounds would be violated and temples destroyed). I suppose that considering the Zeus temple in Syria kai Phoinike as the temple to Zeus Ouranios already works along those lines...

Then of course, a sub-mod, or scripts for historical revolts could be definitely a possibility. Unfortunately lacking slots for emerging factions, some of these would just be Eleutheroi armies running around and taking at best one settlement...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adalingum

Fair enough, it was just a suggestion. That said, I remember something being posted or mentioned about an 'Arvernian Revolt' event way way back. Wouldn't that be equally in violation of your argument above?

---

If you are referring to the revolts of Celtic tribes in Northern Italy then I would say they make far more sense because they are involving two separate defined factions, the Roman aggressors and the defending Arverni/Boii/Aedui, so while they are starting as rebel settlements the scripted event gives an opportunity for them to be annexed by a specific faction. We don't have a Jewish faction for Judea to revolt to, even if Arjos' well explained point wasn't the case. So historically and from a game play perspective it makes less sense. Not to say we couldn't eventually figure out something to simulate this but it is a low low priority if you understand. Your suggestion is appreciated for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Just my thoughts on this: the problem there is that rebel units spawning (therefore acting against the polity in power) makes little sense. Those tensions resulted in killings among the Jewish communities and not against Hellenistic citizens, or even coordinated actions against the power in place...

The Maccabean Revolt happened because the Hellenising faction thought held enough power to implement reforms and acting as local representatives informed the Seleukid Basileus that these could/should be enacted...
Even when this revolt took place, again iirc, most of the violence was directed at other Jews, in order to terrorise them into not siding with the Seleukidai, while of course what forces were mustered fought the armies sent to end the rebellion...

However this resulted from a very specific combination of events, overall in the general religious freedom of the Hellenistic period, especially under the Seleukidai, also keeping in mind as I said that those tensions were of an internal factional nature, I think that script wouldn't be as accurate...

Already the destruction of temples cause the loss of public happiness, making a unique building solely in Ioudaia would be rather arbitrary (any community would revolt whenever sacred grounds would be violated and temples destroyed). I suppose that considering the Zeus temple in Syria kai Phoinike as the temple to Zeus Ouranios already works along those lines...

Then of course, a sub-mod, or scripts for historical revolts could be definitely a possibility. Unfortunately lacking slots for emerging factions, some of these would just be Eleutheroi armies running around and taking at best one settlement...

---

I remember there being a unique building for the Second Temple, which is was I was referring to. Could be something that was in EB I that didn't get carried over in EB II though. Anyway, thanks for your explanation, I now understand why my suggestion wasn't as great as I made it out to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshmahurin

If you are referring to the revolts of Celtic tribes in Northern Italy then I would say they make far more sense because they are involving two separate defined factions, the Roman aggressors and the defending Arverni/Boii/Aedui, so while they are starting as rebel settlements the scripted event gives an opportunity for them to be annexed by a specific faction. We don't have a Jewish faction for Judea to revolt to, even if Arjos' well explained point wasn't the case. So historically and from a game play perspective it makes less sense. Not to say we couldn't eventually figure out something to simulate this but it is a low low priority if you understand. Your suggestion is appreciated for sure.

---

I was referring to a term that was used on these forums a few months or even years ago. I'm not sure what it referred to, so it might indeed be what you described. And yes I understand it's low priority, but I thought I might suggest it anyway.

Anyway, I rest my case. You guys have made your point abundantly clear. Thanks for that. I hope you didn't mind my ramblings.

No not at all and I wanted to point out that I appreciate your suggestion and it may end up influencing something eventually just yeah it isn't anything we could put priority on currently. Please keep suggesting anything you can think of :)

Any chance we see recruitable generals like eb1 had? Seems like it would be a way for computer to have an officer in charge of armies and also makes it more enjoyable having something that really seems like a puppet leader

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madmatg

Any chance we see recruitable generals like eb1 had? Seems like it would be a way for computer to have an officer in charge of armies and also makes it more enjoyable having something that really seems like a puppet leader

---

Thing is there's a new concept for bodyguards in EB; if you look closely, they are almost free. The idea is to give the small factions a better chance by them having cheap elite units.

I think it's tied to the fact that the recruitable generals would also be very cheap, and spamming them could become a huge issue. Someone correct me if i'm wrong :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

Thing is there's a new concept for bodyguards in EB; if you look closely, they are almost free. The idea is to give the small factions a better chance by them having cheap elite units.

I think it's tied to the fact that the recruitable generals would also be very cheap, and spamming them could become a huge issue. Someone correct me if i'm wrong :D

---

Seems like you could just set a hard cap like you do now with spies so you could only have like 1 or 2 per settlement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madmatg

Seems like you could just set a hard cap like you do now with spies so you could only have like 1 or 2 per settlement

---

If they were going to be available anywhere, it would be in Allied Governments, not factional ones, I'd say.

recruitable generals would be great. A very low repletish rate and hard cap would prevent any spamming.
maybe make the amount (hard cap) dependant on the amount of allied gov you have. So if you have a lot of allies you also get a few allied generals to lead their armies (or go rebel with them :p)

So, another thing I've been thinking about: the workings of the predecessor government buildings (regional pacification).

First off, it's working is inconsistent: the Roman version, for example, provides a 10% law bonus, a minus 20% happiness penalty and a third effect I can't think of atm (I believe an agricultural effect), whereas in most other factions (perhaps even all others) it only provides a happiness penalty (of 15%, if I'm not mistaken).

I don't know if the Romans were more effective in pacifying a region militarily than others, but to me this seems like an unfair advantage or at least a case of inconsistency. This is, however, not the main point of my suggestion.

Since regional pacification only provides a negative stat in most cases and money is usually tight in the early stages of an EB campaign (meaning more advanced forms of government are at times unavailable for some time, I tend to hold off on setting up regional pacification until I've got the funds immediately start building the next government building. In practice, this can mean keeping the region in what is effectively a state of lawlessness for what can amount to several years. Not very realistic imo, which is why I suggest the following changes to the current system:

1 For the sake of consistency I propose adding a minor law bonus (in the vein of the Roman one) to at least the regional pacification buildings of the 'civilized' factions, if not to those of all factions. In my mind at least, 'regional pacification' represents the forceful restoration of (at least the semblance of) civil order amongst a resentful and unhappy population (one can imagine soldiers patrolling the streets at night, their movements followed by civilians with anger and hate in their eyes...) Thus, even though the natives are still very much upset, order has been restored after the chaos that follows a governmental breakdown and military conquest. This leads me nicely to my second point...

2 In my previous remark, I spoke of 'the chaos that follows a governmental breakdown and military conquest'. The issue I see here is that, in my opinion, EB II doesn't actually represent this situation in its current state. As noted before, setting up regional pacification is actually worse in terms of public order compared to leaving the region in a state of governmental limbo (leading to issue I noted above). Therefore, I propose the creation of a building that represents a state of civil chaos. This building could be tied to script that checks whether there is a government building in a settlement and if there isn't, spawns one of these buildings in said settlement (also destroying it if a goverment has been built). Effects could include a law and happiness penalty or even a minor population growth penalty (to represent people fleeing, migrating or moving away) or a taxation penalty (such as can be found in RS II, where it represents the maintenance cost of, for example, roads) to represent that effective collection of tribute or taxation isn't possible in such situation. I believe this would be a good incentive for the player to begin restoring order to a province either by pacifying it or handing over power to the local elites.

So, I hope this has been enough to present my idea. Once again, I'm interested to see what you people think about it (perhaps my view of what things follow after a military conquest is wholly inaccurate). Please do not think this is a critique or meant to be condescending towards the mod.

Also, please ignore any spelling and grammar mistakes I likely made.

Quote:

---

A RECRUITER - a person (or best 2 or 3 persons) that will post from time to time on every: 1. mod-related, 2. history-related 3. total-war rel

---

Have you guys ever thought about outsourcing some work to students that can be used for both their project/thesis and EB?

Here some examples to clarify my idea:
- A history student does research for some EB related stuff and publishes the results in a seminar thesis
- A designer creates 3D models for a university project that can be used in EB

They would be more inclined to do the work since they have to do papers/projects for their degree anyway.

So the recruiters duties could include getting students to propose stuff like that to their professors or even better, getting professors to put that kind of work on their "list of possible topics/projects".

Would that even be possible/make sense or is the idea completely stupid?

Playing as the Gandharans was really easy until i refused to submit to authority then Mauryans came! The capture of cities was really easy as all the rebel army normally in Settlement was outside roaming the province so i went around (they did surpirse me sometimes and i lost a general) and captured the Cities as there was only 1 unit a general defending most of the Settlements are like that it's a great idea but didnt work as the army outside wouldnt ever attack the settlement just wait outside?
Yeah recruitable General good idea then schools would be even more useful

Would it be possible to exploit the medieval 2 totals war jihad mechanic to add the possibility of a coalition of states with similar culture against an enemy province for those regions something like that used to happen at some point in history?
If it can be made really hard to achieve and wants good reputation with other factions for them to join it could be a nice thing. And it's 1 province so won't end up defeating everything with a decent cooldown.

Like let's say someone has a Greek power and has good relations with other Greeks so when the Romans invade he calls for a counter-attack of a coalition of city states. But if they are infighting the chance is very slim for that.

Just adding the idea, but I'm not a historian so I don't know if it would really fit in.

I have a couple of suggestions: :)

1) Is it possible to link Mercenary recruitment more closely to factions or restrict the replenishment levels more selectively so that for example KH can't simply recruit Mercenary Phalangitai to meets its shortfall in that area? IIRC there was mention in the Hellenic reform thread of a Hellenic faction only being able to recruit 2000 phalangites at some point. ties. With a modicum of money however, the player can simply top up his faction limits with the inexhaustible supply of fairly easily replaced mercenary equivalents. Or maybe just make them a lot more expensive to recruit/maintain?

2) Is it possible (or desirable?) to have each faction capital capable of retraining but not recruiting all/most of the initial starting army. For example the Macedonians start with a nice unit of Hetairoi which is usually ground down in a few battles. It is then several decades before Macedonia can build up its cities/associated buildings to recruit or retrain them, which leaves much of the early-middle part of the game bereft of these colourful units.

Thoughts?

Regards
Vermin

.I also hope that you can introduce one important things to the military.The logistics.If your army are too far away from your basis.It should run out of food.There should be deserters and lower morale.The cost outside the country should be far higher inside it.I think this will help balance the nomad and permanent faction

Hi,

you already get penalties when you leave your territory; unit attrition is not possible in the mtw engine though

If that is not possible.Could you lower the training cost and the upkeep of the nomadic faction.A nomadic leader did not need to pay to train his warrior.He just sumon them and share with them the trophy when he win a war.There should be more reble in nomadic region.They will represent other nomadic tribe oppose the nomadic faction .They will attack nomadic faction as well as any other invader..But if you are powerful enough you can buy them out as your mercenary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕

If that is not possible.Could you lower the training cost and the upkeep of the nomadic faction.A nomadic leader did not need to pay to train his warrior.He just sumon them and share with them the trophy when he win a war.There should be more reble in nomadic region.They will represent other nomadic tribe oppose the nomadic faction .They will attack nomadic faction as well as any other invader..But if you are powerful enough you can buy them out as your mercenary.

---

No, all unit costs and upkeep are based upon the unit's status, equipment, training and size. There is no way to distinguish what faction has recruited a unit, meaning if nomadic units are cheaper then they are so for everyone. In any case, they generally are cheaper because they have less armour and are often levy or semi-professional.

I am hoping this is the right place to put this (if not please advise me)
Two criticisms

OK – hoping that you guys can take some heartfelt criticism without going all defensive on me:

I really like EB II, but I have two beefs with it that prevent me from playing it.

Beef 1:
The latest versions – I will not install EB II 2.1b simply because you make the already too complex installation much worse. First I have to move my old installation, then download the 2.1 patch and install it, then the 2.1b patch and install that, all the time checking that through very slow loads that everything is going right! – Give me a break, guys, I retired from programming years ago, and I don't want to take it up again just to get a game to run. I would stick to EB II until you guys produce a unified version with an installer that can figure out which directories it wants to put things into. At least , I would play EB II, if not for the following major annoyance:

Beef 2:
No Swapping of Ancillaries
Yes, I have read the discussions, and the reasons that at least one of your developers gave for this choice. I am sorry but I can no longer find that thread, so I hope he forgives me if I miss-quote his reasoning here.

Basically, he said that you don't allow the Swapping of Ancillaries because it is not realistic. In real life, if you get a “Drunken Uncle,” or a “Bad Dog,” or whatever, you are stuck with him – you can't just pass him on to someone else.

The person who wrote that sounds like a really nice person, but he must live in a family quite different from mine, or those that I have experienced. If he has never had to pack of a Slubbergudgeon Uncle to go live with some distant cousins that he did not like very much anyway, then he is a better person than the members of my family, and other families I am acquainted with. If he has never unloaded a bad dog on an unsuspecting sucker, then he is a good and honest fellow, but I must confess that I am not so good, and have done this very thing. Heh! – I am Celtic, dog trading is in my blood!

As for other types of Ancillaries – slaves, servants, scribes, military and political assistants and so on – there is a fine tradition of trading these people from ancient times right on to present.

In Roman times, there was active trading in slaves. If your wife got furious about a slave who had become an Embarrassing Mistress, perhaps you could manage to placate your wife by trading her for a good cook. In the complex political/social interactions of Roman households, a good cook could advance your status and career. So could a good scribe or political adviser, and there was active trading in and competition for such servants. So much so, that remarkable were the instances where a prominent Roman managed to keep a good servant for life, perhaps only manumitting them by death will – such as in the case of, say, Cicero and Tiro.

As for military assistants, tribunes and the like, was not the cursus honorum a complex social convention that designed specifically to ensure the regular swapping around of such ancillaries?

The active trading and swapping of slaves, and later servants, was a tradition that was carried on well into modern times. If you read the stories of Jeeves and Wooster by PG Wodehouse, you will find many of the plots revolve around the trading, or attempted poaching, of some favored cook or maid or manservant. These are humorous tales, but they reflect the reality that there was active competition for good servants in feudal households.

I do know that Vanilla Med TW (unlike Rome TW) does not allow the swapping of ancillaries. I regretted this change, because I thought the careful strategic swapping of these servants was a fun and valuable part of the game. So the first thing I did with Med TW was unpack and edit the export_descr_ancillaries.txt to allow the swapping of all ancillaries (and make the changes in other files that this change requires)

With some work and some jiggery-pokerry, I have finally managed to get the same edits done on the export_descr_ancillaries.txt file of EB II. So now I CAN swap around ancillaries, without some irate Roman yelling in Latin at me. “Non Possibli” indeed! I guess it damned-well is possibli if you are determined enough!

However, I stand by all my other statements and arguments. Ancillary swapping should be allowed in EB II, so that a player does not have to go through all the jiggery-pockery to get it to work. Perhaps, it could be offered as an option (although I fear further complicating an installation process already too complex).

And if you ever fix the installation procedure, I might get on to version 2.1x (although, more likely, I would wait for a debugged and tried version 3.0, if you ever get round to making such a thing.

I do think that the making of EB II is an incredible achievement, one that you should all be proud off. I am sorry that this beef annoys me enough that it makes the game unplayable to me.

With great respect,

Cruin MacGriogair.

Just one other thing. I have not tried EB II in terms of the effectiveness of slingers yet, but if it is like the original EB, then I have a tiny wee Beef with that too.

As a slinger and an archer, I can assure you that sling bullets (at least over medium ranges) are in no way as penetrating as arrows. There is also a lot of good research available on the web about arrow penetration, it is not hard to find. Just because one Roman historian said that slingers were mowing down armored men, it does not make it true. If you doubt me, go get a sling and try it. Sling bullets can do some damage, but arrows do much more, and that is before we even look at bodkin arrow points.

The advantage of slings over bows is cost (they are much cheaper) and ammo (you can carry many more bullets than arrows, and if you run out, you can always use stones).

Regards,

Cruin MacGriogair.

Ancillary-swapping for most (but not all, there are a handful you can't get rid of) was something I implemented in the test builds ages ago. It's in 2.1 and 2.1b.

Well good, -- see there I go, always a couple of versions behind the times, suggesting changes that have already been implemented in the latest version -- well, good for you!

I also have managed to play for a while now, and the slingers do not seem to overpowering here (they were just way over the top in EB I).

I do have another question/suggestion though:

In the description for a Free State, it says that you get 3 upkeep-free units. But it does not say which units! (The longer description suggests that locally-raised troops are only for local defense, and I think that is a neat idea, but none of the local troops seem to be upkeep-free). You should mention which troops are meant (which are they, by the way?)

If this is another thing you have implemented already in Version 2.1b I will laugh. You are like Microsoft, always trying to urge me along to the latest version!

le durachain

Cruin.

What you get depends on where you build it, and the building browser and indeed description of the building should tell you when you look at it what's available in any particular place. It'll be a list of unit names.

A few other EB II bugs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

What you get depends on where you build it, and the building browser and indeed description of the building should tell you when you look at it what's available in any particular place. It'll be a list of unit names.

---

Hmmm....?
This confused me, so I went back and looked.

Lets take, for example, Aleria, a Free City (actually a town) or we could take Caralis, which is the same:

The description lists the following units as available:
Persian Archers
Eastern Axemen
Eastern Medium Cavalry
Libyan Infantry *
Libby-Phonician Hoplites *
Libby-Phonician Cavalry *
Hellenic Levy Hoplites
Hellenistic Medium Cavalry (is there, btw, a difference “Hellenic” and “Hellenistic”?)

* The ones with the * are the only ones actually available in the recruitment roles, I am assuming because the town is only a town yet.

I had tried, unluckily, Libyan Infantry, and Libby-Phonician Cavalry before I left you my last note, and had not seen any “upkeep free” on mousing over them.

After you replied, I went back and tried the last unit availiable to me, Libby-Phonician Hoplites, and they do come upkeep free.

As a scot-pict I love to get upkeep-free units.
As a scot-pict I hate having to buy other units just to find out which ones are free.
If you want to avoid annoying scot-picts (and believe me, you do) you should mention in the descriptions which units are upkeep-free.


A couple of more small bugs – which you have probable fixed by ver 2.1b, but just in case not, I will list them here for you:

Bug 1

Almost all the “coming of age” family members have the same attributes: sharp/uncharismatic/languorous and selfish/pessimistic. This is despite having fathers that were sharp/charismatic/vigorous.The few exceptions (I think) were worse, being dull/uncharismatic/languorous

This would make it it hard to train up good fighting generals, but it gets worse, see Bug 2, below.

Bug 2

When a general wins a fight, he gets the a good-general stat, but does not get a general star. In fact he loses a star if he already has one. I have a “great tactician” – still no star.


Bug 3

In the battlefield interface, when trying to mass select units with hot keys:

Control-I selects both infantry and slingers
Control-M selects just archers (not slingers)


I hope this info is useful to you (I am really not nagging, I am trying to help).

Slainte,

Cruin.

BTW
I have now discovered so many bugs and quirky things that I think it unfair to keep posting them about an older version. So I have broken down and decided to go through the labor of getting the latest version installed, before I report any more problems. So if you think some of this is magically fixed in version 2.1b, then ignore it. I will report on any that persist in the new versions.

Slan liebh

Cruin.

Someone from the Mechanics Department will know this better than me, but none of those are bugs...

1 - Unfortunately you are just being unlucky, still those traits do not preclude in any way that those FMs will turn out as great/competent generals. In fact those traits are used to increase the likelihood or not of gaining other traits...

2 - That chain of traits increases line of sight and ambush, as it progresses, but all give +1 command star. Another trait caused your FM to lose stars. There are several other traits that increase stars and having the aforementioned chain increase progressively would be quite the broken feature...

3 - Cannot be helped, if we give the missile unit trait to the slingers they will fire over say 30° or such, which is not proper for slings, whose trajectory is different than that of a bow...

OK -- I am loving Ver 2.1b by the way -- is is sharp, beutiful, and works much better. Also you have adjusted unit stats way for the better -- things are much better balanced now (in EB II ver I, for instance, Hastati were actually stronger than Principes, for instance).

Graphics are lovely, and everything just seems to work better. Some of my earlier objections have now disappeared. For instance, generals seem to be getting their stars now (however, what has happened to triumphs? I have a General who has won 10 battles, and he is still not being offered a triumph!)

Some things are still a problem, though.

You really do need to write in the government descriptions what units will be free upkeep.

As for the missile trait to slingers -- since when do sling bullets and arrows fly with a different sort of trajectory?
Both fly a parabola. Arrows are a wee bit different because of the fletching, which causes them to slow down over long ranges due to air resistance and loss of energy to anti-spin friction (just another air resistance, really), but both projectiles fly a parabola. Slingers can (as easily as archers) achieve range by firing in a high arc -- maximum range is achieved at 45 degrees -- what is to stop a slinger firing a bullet at this angle? I do it often when shooting out to sea (in Alaskan forest, I don't get much chance otherwise).

By the way, I practice two different kinds of sling shot -- the "double-loop" or "figure eight" sling throw, or the simpler, faster, overhand "Apache" sling throw (when hunting small game) -- either one will allow me to fling a bullet at any angle, but there is not much point when using the Apache throw, which I use for short range, fairly flat-trajectory shots.

Slainte,

Cruin.

Another note on slingers:

I have been thinking about why you want to make slingers and archers different in the game -- other than the differences I pointed out in an earlier message (slingers are cheaper, more mobile, and can carry more amo). The problem comes when you put slingers behind infantry. In real life, this would be bad -- the sling bullets would hit the backs of the infantry causing them to howl.

This has nothing to do with trajectory. It has to do with accuracy over short range. Or, actually, it has more to do with having flexible control of the projectile's release point. An archer, can, with some care, hold his bow, sight through the arrow point, and shoot between infantry men standing in front of him, or otherwise avoid them (although, archers do, sometimes, make mistakes in the heat of battle -- and English infantry often howled about archers behind them during the 100-year war). Most slingers are not that accurate -- and have that wild sling thing going on -- it is much harder for them to "thread the needle" and put a sling bullet between close standing infantry.

So it is realistic to have the problem of slingers hitting friendly troops who are standing close in front of them. To accurately represent this in a game, you would need some new mechanism to distinguish archers and slingers. Some sort of transparency or protection for friendly troops from arrows, but not from sling bullets.

Watching the direction of development of TW game engines, I doubt we will ever see that.

Le durachdain,

Cruin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cruin

Watching the direction of development of TW game engines, I doubt we will ever see that.

---

Yes, and that's really the clincher. We're limited by what the engine allows. (And also by what the A.I. can handle. A completely realistic mechanism that leads to A.I. stupidity isn't going to be implemented either.)

Slingers do hit the men in front when you put them behind infantry.

Start Battle AI? -- How?

OK, here is a problem -- whenever one enters a battle, a handsome Nubian general says "Remember to start the AI before the battle" (I love that -- "remember" like you have told me sometime before!). Problem is, our handsome fellow does not say *HOW* to start the AI. From searching these forums, I saw someone say you start it up by clicking on the general's portrait. If this is correct, then he should say something like "Good job: by clicking my smiling face, you have started up the battlefield AI." If, on the other hand, you start it by dismissing the portrait, then he should say, "By Golly, you need to click on my portrait again to start up the AI!"

If this is wrong, and you start up the AI in some other method, then by Zambula's Arse he needs to *SAY HOW* to do this!

With a smile,

Cruin.

I had a question about the indian city.Is it a mayan city?I can see no indian specialty in it?I hope you can not only focus on the army model but the architecture.Thanks

Could you Add more army and reble to nomadic faction and province?In nomadic area,There are loads of tribe.How could one outstand the other.Only when the nomadic faction defeat all the other competitor or rebels.They can held the whole province and lot of money and manpower.Otherwise,Nomadic faction should be poor to death

Will you make unit model for kushan and Han dynasty.As far as I know both this 2 country invaded the central asia in the time frame。Central asia is in the EBII map.Kushan and Han are 2 of the 4 greatest empire on earth at that time.It is a shame that they could not show up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕

Could you Add more army and reble to nomadic faction and province?In nomadic area,There are loads of tribe.How could one outstand the other.Only when the nomadic faction defeat all the other competitor or rebels.They can held the whole province and lot of money and manpower.Otherwise,Nomadic faction should be poor to death

---

True, but it would make for a very frustrating game when you play the Nomads. And if you don't play the nomads, the rebels will cripple the nomadic factions so they will never grow strong to threaten the player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕

Will you make unit model for kushan and Han dynasty.As far as I know both this 2 country invaded the central asia in the time frame。Central asia is in the EBII map.Kushan and Han are 2 of the 4 greatest empire on earth at that time.It is a shame that they could not show up

---

Unfortunately, there is a limit too how many factions M2:TW can have. If EB included Kushan and Han, they would have to drop 2 others. Since the Kushan and Han were only occasionally interested in Central Asia, and didn't stay there, the team decided not to include them.

A question of courage:

OK – here is a wee problem (you guys are probably starting to hate me right about now):

When I am in a big battle, I like to withdraw my slingers and archers after they are out of amo, especially if they are more expensive mercenary types (Balletic or Rhodian). This gets them out of the way, and also frees up slots for reinforcements, if I happen to have any.

But in EBII, if I do this, my general gets a black mark (a “doubtful courage”) for running away from a battle, even though he himself has not withdrawn.

If you are trying to say he lacks courage for bringing in reinforcements, then I say “fie” – that just means he is a good general who knows how to maneuver and marshal his forces. In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark – again, it shows he is a smart commander who know when to run so he can fight again.

I know vanilla Rome TW and Med TW tended towards rewarding bravery over intelligence – and that's all very well, winning against the odds should be rewarded – but careful and smart play should not be penalized. Historically, it is the general who wins that gets the triumph, and if he wins while avoiding losses, even better.

Slainte,

Cruin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cruin

A question of courage:

OK – here is a wee problem (you guys are probably starting to hate me right about now):

When I am in a big battle, I like to withdraw my slingers and archers after they are out of amo, especially if they are more expensive mercenary types (Balletic or Rhodian). This gets them out of the way, and also frees up slots for reinforcements, if I happen to have any.

But in EBII, if I do this, my general gets a black mark (a “doubtful courage”) for running away from a battle, even though he himself has not withdrawn.

If you are trying to say he lacks courage for bringing in reinforcements, then I say “fie” – that just means he is a good general who knows how to maneuver and marshal his forces. In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark – again, it shows he is a smart commander who know when to run so he can fight again.

I know vanilla Rome TW and Med TW tended towards rewarding bravery over intelligence – and that's all very well, winning against the odds should be rewarded – but careful and smart play should not be penalized. Historically, it is the general who wins that gets the triumph, and if he wins while avoiding losses, even better.

Slainte,

Cruin.

---

That's a strange thing. I figured "doubtful courage" only applied to to generals running away.

@Gigantus: any way of fixing this?

That's how the game mechanic works when you press the 'Rout' (run away in uncontrollable panic) button. If that didn't lead to a penalty then I would consider it a major cheat - use your expensive missile units and then let them rout once they expended their ammunition, like he cited, is such an example.

Quote:

---

In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark

---

Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gigantus

That's how the game mechanic works when you press the 'Rout' (run away in uncontrollable panic) button. If that didn't lead to a penalty then I would consider it a major cheat - use your expensive missile units and then let them rout once they expended their ammunition, like he cited, is such an example.

---

But I think he is talking about the "withdraw" option, not the "rout" one. And withdrawing troops that cannot contribute to the battle further is a sensible precaution, not a sign of cowardice. It only becomes cowardice if the general himself leaves, or lets the entire army fall back before the battle is decided (but I get that the M2:TW trait engine cannot recognize the latter situation).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gigantus

Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with)

---

Yes, it's a sign of poor tactics, not lack of courage.

You cannot 'withdraw' single units during battle - you can just force them to rout. What's the problem with marching them to a quiet or hidden spot? That's what I always do.

Withdrawal before battle (refusing to engage) does not cause a penalty afaik.

Yes -- I am talking of a simple withdrawal of some missile troops (using the "withdraw" button) -- that in itself (or the bringing in of reinforcements, I don't know which) triggers the Coward increment, and gives the general a "Doubtful Courage".

As for withdrawing entirely, Gigantus responded to:

"In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark"

with:
"Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with) "

Well... you have the right to think that, but it is pretty common military tactics for a force to sometimes engage with the intention of withdrawing before the battle is "over" (whatever “over” means here). For instance, one might want to weaken the enemy, or delay him, or draw him out, or provoke him, or simply probe his forces.

You might think engaging a strong force without clear hope of winning is dumb, or poor tactics, but sometimes it is, simply, the best option open to a General.

And, inevitably, it can happen due to things beyond a General's control – the enemy has reinforcements or some tactical advantage that was hidden by the fog of war, or expected friendly reinforcements did not arrive on time, or, as often as not, the General simply underestimated the enemy's strength. And, here finally, you can call it “dumb” – but all the best Generals in history have done this on occasion. So what would you have him do under these circumstances – bravely fight it out until all his men are killed or routed? Or recognize the situation, and withdraw his forces in the best order he can manage?

In the simple terms of TW games, I know a lot of the above situations (of truncated engagements) do not apply -- and game battles are "won" or "lost" by a count of numbers, or by which army routs -- but that only sometimes reflects how battle are fought in the real world -- where battles have a mission, or purpose, which often goes beyond these simple terms. And that was also true in the classic world -- think of Thermopholie, where the Spartans entered a losing battle to delay the enemy, or if you want negative examples, think of Pyrrus, who bravely won battles but lost the war, or even Hannibal who could gain a victory but "did not know what to do with it."

Anyway, interesting as the discussion is, in this case, that is not the EBII problem I am talking about. Trust me, I did not hit any "rout" button, I just withdrew missile troops and brought in some reinforcements, and the General was tagged Coward (this has happened a few times). As for whether doing this is a “major cheat” – don't be silly, it is part of the game, it is the only way you can bring in reinforcements (it is how the enemy brings in reinforcements too). It is also described in the TW manual as an “ordered withdrawal of troops” as opposed to a disorganized rout.

Regards,

Cruin.

OOps -- I see our replies were sent in together, so we missed each other.
Gigantus you said-
You cannot 'withdraw' single units during battle - "

Sorry, yes you can. There is a withdraw button on the wheel, when the unit card is selected. And if you are fielding large armies, it is the only way to clear a slot to bring in reinforcements.

Regards,

Cruin.

That "withdraw button" is a "rout button" really, game engine-wise you are forcing the selected unit to panic off the battlefield...

Historically missiles troops were infamous for skirmishing, sitting the battle out and coming back to cut down heavier and slower opponents. Already choosing to "withdraw" them away from the battlefield is ahistorical and gamey...

About the delaying tactics, harassing etc. Perfectly agreed, but silly CA made an engine not based on actual tactics and warfare. The game will always consider those as routs, for example nomadic factions cannot shoot all their arrows, withdraw and call it a victory. That's the system we have to work with...

As for such functions "being part of the game", well the actual design behind the game isn't about accuracy, so in our mod those are cheats really...
You have the freedom to use them, but the mod is not tailored for their use...

Regarding the need to get reinforcements in, M2TW allows them to be led by the AI and you can even select their behaviour between defensive and offensive. Thus fielding more than 20 units on the battle map...

Even if in the manual it is called ordered, the workaround they used with the engine is to force a rout. Thus when we script that routing causes the General to have the possibility to gain the doubtful courage trait. The scenario you've described can happen...

Had they made that button an actual ordered retreat, then we'd have no issues here as the engine would register it as something else...

Quote:

---

That "withdraw button" is a "rout button" really, game engine-wise you are forcing the selected unit to panic off the battlefield...

---

That's what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear.

Quote:

---

Well... you have the right to think that, but it is pretty common military tactics for a force to sometimes engage with the intention of withdrawing before the battle is "over" (whatever “over” means here). For instance, one might want to weaken the enemy, or delay him, or draw him out, or provoke him, or simply probe his forces

---

Sorry for being blunt: trying to apply that to a game engine one knows that it doesn't (can't) support it and then complain about it is what eventually led me to the 'dumb' response. Guerrilla tactics simply are not supported by the game, never have, never will. It has got 'Total' in the name = if you engage in a battle be prepared to be decimated, routed, annihilated. Expecting to be able walk away when it doesn't go well for you is a 'common' desire but utterly unrealistic in this game. You either win a battle, get annihilated or rout. And leaving the battle field during the battle is routing where the game engine is concerned - regardless what the reason is.

You want to weaken the enemy? Then you annihilate his armies and\or take his settlements.
You want to provoke him? Then raid his settlements (raze and leave to revolt).
You want to probe his forces? Send a spy, or sacrifice a cheap unit to reconnoiter.

If you wish to use more realistic tactics then I can recommend the 'Order of Battle' game series (I totally enjoyed the 'Morning Sun' DLC) - Total War is the wrong choice for it.

Once more - sorry for being blunt. But this is not an advanced combat\strategy simulator - ignoring the limitations and expecting otherwise is simply willful ignorance.

When does a withdrawal become a rout?

I guess most of this is in reply to Arjos, but some is also to Gigantos. You guys are starting to circle the wagons, so I am having hard time seeing who is firing back from behind the wheels.

No– the withdraw button is what it says: a withdraw button – I know it uses the same icons (the white flags) but it is different from a a panicked rout.

For one, the unit will not, by itself “rally” or come back (they have been ordered to go)

Neither will they run off in crazy directions. They will head strait for the border.

It is reversible – if the unit has not left the field, you can change your mind and call them back.

Lastly, it is described in the TW manuals as serving this purpose, so obviously, that was the original intention. Rewriting or re-interpreting that intention might be your choice, but that is what you are doing here.

“Historically missiles troops were infamous for skirmishing, sitting the battle out and coming back to cut down heavier and slower opponents. Already choosing to "withdraw" them away from the battlefield is ahistorical and gamey...”

I'm not so sure about this – it was sometimes true during medieval times, where archers had some armor and carried swords, and I'm sure it happened during classical times, but I don't see some poor Greek slinger going into the fray to take on a roman legionary.

Anyway, that is not its purpose. Withdraw simply tells the unit to get itself out of harms way, so I (the general here) do not have to worry about it anymore. I expect them to go away and avoid trouble – it does not always work, sometimes they can get caught by some cavalry unit or other while withdrawing, and that is quite historical.

Whether CA made a game based on more complex strategy and tactics or not, I can still attempt to use them in play (can't stop myself really). As for whether it gives a bad mark for withdrawing from a battle or not, it does not, as far as I know (although, as I said, it tends to overemphasize a simplistic view of heroism, by, for instance, rewarding heroic victories, even if the general stupidly lost practically all his men).

But that does not mean EBII has to go further and penalize a general for withdrawing some troops. Forgive me if I am wrong here, but I believe the “Coward” attribute (level 1 being “Doubtful courage”) is an EBII attribute. Is this not so? If it is, then it was your decision to penalize withdrawal, not CA's.

As for bringing in reinforcements as AI-controlled armies – I know one can do this, I just prefer not too (they are just too stupid). But obviously if the game gave me a mechanism not to have to do this, and to bring in reinforcements (slowly) as I clear slots for them, then it is not a cheat for me to do so.

The enemy, AI armies, may actually need to rout some of their units to get in their reinforcements, I think the mechanism is a wee bit different, they seem to get all their reinforcing units at once. But anyway, the enemy AI gets reinforcements too – so it's all fair, there is no cheat here.

Lastly, as for enemies withdrawing, you said:
“nomadic factions cannot shoot all their arrows, withdraw and call it a victory”

Are you talking about withdrawing some archers to get their reinforcements? Or withdrawing all their army to save from losing too many men. They do both, often, at least in Vanilla TW. They have to withdraw (or in the simplified AI options, it might actually be rout) some of their forces before they can get reinforcements. They can then easily continue to a “victory.”

As for withdrawing all their forces, they don't get a “victory,” but neither do I get one if I withdraw all my forces. But as to them not doing it – don't kid yourself! In vanilla TW they do it all the time. Actually, I was always impressed by the way the Hun and Timmerid armies in MedII TW would attack fearlessly, and then, if the battle went against them, reverse and get the hell out of there. They seemed to care as little as I did as to whether the scroll said it was a “victory” or not.

You can't have this both ways. You claim that it is the CA game engine that actually considers withdrawals as routs, but then you go on to assert that “as for such functions "being part of the game", well the actual design behind the game isn't about accuracy, so in our mod those are cheats really...” Which is it? It is that they don't have a “withdrawal” function, or is it that they do, but it was not accurate, so those are cheats.

And as for saying “You have the freedom to use them, but the mod is not tailored for their use...” This misses the point: the whole intellectual discussion about what constitute good or bad generalship is interesting in terms of game design but is not the real issue – the problem of tagging generals with “doubtful courage” is an EB II problem, it does not occur in vanilla TW. If you are desciding you want to change the game and start penalizing what you percieve as some kind of cowardice, then so be it – but you must be ready to accept criticism from people who question that decission.

Also, it's a bit like saying – “Well maybe this mod is not for you. You should just like it or leave it.” Then why invite criticism at all? Even more blatent were statements from Gigantus such as:

“Total War is the wrong choice for it (deeper strategies). Once more - sorry for being blunt. But this is not an advanced combat\strategy simulator - ignoring the limitations and expecting otherwise is simply willful ignorance.”

The phrase “willful ignorance” is interesting. Let me assure you, I can be plenty ignorant without any act of will on my part. But the way I chose to play my games (whether rugby, chess, checkers, MMO Siege Wars, or TW) are how I chose to play them. If I have a keen sense of strategy, then that's how I play, and I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)

I don't expect otherwise of the vanilla TW game engine – I expected otherwise of you – the creators of EBII. I expected if I told you of a problem, that you would say “Yup, that's a problem, we can fix that.” Which you can, quite easily, by changing export_character_attributes or whatever the file is called and fixing it. Instead you give me all this guff about the limitations of the CA game engine.

I thought these forums were about us users giving feedback? I kind of feel like I'm having to pull teeth here – I tell you of a problem, I explain why it's a problem. First you say my idea is “”BS and (by extension – seeing it it really me who is controlling the generals) that my strategies are “dumb” and “poor tactics.” When I gently are carefully explain that y ideas are quite fitting with historical military strategy, you agree, but then say that the TW engine is not built for historical accuracy – even though the whole point here was to try and improve on the TW engine. Then finally you start sort of ganging up and saying, “move on then, this game, and this mod, is just not for you!”

I think, perhaps, I have rubbed you the wrong way, or perhaps I have just found way too many faults in your baby, but like I say, it really feels like you guys are circling the wagons.


Look guys, I was for years a programmer, and I did a fair number of those years working in quality assurance. I am now a professional writer and editor. I am used to editing, and giving and receiving criticism.

I know that EBII is your baby, and you have every right to be proud of it. It is a marvelous piece of work. But it does (obviously) still have a few... uhem.... problems (I have seen, already, how you react to the word “bugs”). You have invited feedback (the battlefield general I mentioned before invites feedback every time one enters a battle). I am giving you just and honest feedback. But if you fight me so hard on these (what I consider) small and obvious problems, I fear to get into some of the deeper, but more subtle, historical inaccuracies in EBII.

So, I beg you all, try and accept the criticism I give as an attempt to help you improve EBII, and not a direct attack on your baby.

With fond regards,

Cruin.

You've missed entirely the discussion...

The engine itself forces, mechanics-speaking, units to rout when you click the "withdraw" button. They might tag it as a withdraw, but they are mechanically routing...

We have a trait that triggers when there are routs, real routs. However since the engine registers those "withdrawals" using the button as routs, it can happen the scenario you've experienced...

As for historicity, I already said how missiles, nor any unit, left the battlefield while others kept on fighting. Unless of course generals ordered a retreat and rearguards or others slowed down the opponents. Soon as the opponent routed the missiles were again on the scene and killing routers. This is what I was referring to, not what you understood as slingers attacking legionaries...

The feature of single units leaving the field, running away, is indeed a gamey one. We'd remove it even, but it comes from the vanilla infrastructure we are working on...

We welcome feedbacks and continuously work on that, the whole Mechanics department is at it basically 24/7...
When there is a problem or sensible feedback on broken behaviour we do work on it. Right now yours was a "I prefer/want it like this. Make it so" and not an objective problem...

The point in this specific case is that you are using what we consider an exploit (removing units to have player-led reinforcements come in), but of course we cannot tell the players how to play, hence my statement that you have the freedom to use them. However that is not the playstyle, which is tailored to this mod...

As Gigantus pointed out units not engaged in combat were kept at a distance, it would even be crazier to order units to go home basically as their comrades kept on fighting. Having even missiles as reserves could be a life-saving precaution. Nor did it ever happen that units simply run off the battlefield. Nor those units would want to leave the army themselves, lest they either became deserters, or were left to themselves to survive...

As for the tangible problem at hand: the doubtful courage due to "withdraw". I tried and apparently failed to make you understand that for the engine, after you click that button, the unit is routing. Hence it can trigger the trait. Since for the engine all of that is routing, real routs and withdraws/retreats, we cannot script in a way that the engine distinguishes them. Thus since the doubtful courage due to actual routs is something we want in the game, we cannot change the collateral result due to withdraws...

This is an example of the engine's limitations...

Also we do not consider it as a problem, because the scenario you're talking about (using ammo and withdraw missiles) is to all effect an innacurate and exploitative playstyle in our opinion...

Quote:

---

I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)

---

Nope...

Quote:

---

I expected if I told you of a problem, that you would say “Yup, that's a problem, we can fix that.”

---

The process is: we look at a feedback, we recognise what is going on, see whether it is a problem or not, see if "fixing" it would result in unwarranted consequences in other mechanics or not and then we fix it...

In this case there wasn't a problem and even if we acted on it, it would result in broken/undesired behaviour with the trait in question (since we cannot tell the engine, that if a player uses the withdraw button, he's not routing). The solution as we see it on our part, is to avoid exploitative playstyle on this one...

Using a fresh source of units, outside of the battlemap, which the enemy cannot interact with until the player himself decides, is indeed an exploit. Which again you are free to use, but the mod and its features isn't going to be edited for such scenarios. For example here we'd have to remove the trait, since the engine treats them all as routs...

Finally – someone says “we like that trait, so we want to keep it!”

Arjos:

your tone was a bit better in that last one, if I ignore the slightly pejorative:
“You've missed entirely the discussion... “

As a matter of fact, I had understood entirely what you were trying to say about the TW engine using the “rout” mechanism to withdraw troops. I'm not entirely convinced it does, though – If you watch units routing and withdrawing, they act differently, especially when you watch AI run enemy units withdraw – it is much more ordered than when they rout. If you've disassembled or otherwise seen the code I will bow to your superior knowledge of this, but I would then be curious how they achieve the differences.

When I pointed out some of the more obvious differences to you before, I was trying to make clear the “intent” of the withdraw command, no matter how it is actually implemented in code.

But yes, I do understand that the game engine could be setting a flag that looked the same whether a unit was routing or withdrawing. And I did understand that EBII was then picking up that flag and using it as a trigger for the Coward trait. I had, in fact, suspected as much from the beginning.

My point was that this was a decision you made, to have the Coward trait in the first place, it has nothing to do with how it is implemented, or how limited or sophisticated or unsophisticated is the TW engine. and that is where enters the argument about what constitute cowardice on the part of a general (whether he withdraws some units, or withdraws his whole army).

I thought the fact that it had unwanted consequences, penalizing players who played the game in a way obviously intended by the original manufacturers (who included this mechanism specifically so reinforcements could be brought into a battle), would tip the balance of the argument in favor of removing the trait. Frankly, I am surprised that you would fight so hard to keep such and unrealistic and ahistoric trait – “cowardice” – really? I wonder if anyone would have dared call Caesar a coward for all the times he retreated?

As for your value judgments about withdrawing troops being an inaccurate and exploitative play-style, well... I would not be wanting to tell you how you should play your games. I do agree, though, that entirely removing units from the battlefield is unrealistic. I would love to tell my archers to go off and hide somewhere, only there is no option for doing so. But worse is that the battlefield interface only contain 20 unit cards, so the only way to have bigger armies, is to bring them in somehow. Trust me, I would be happy to keep those lazy slingers and archers in play to help mop up the battlefield – and despite what I said before, when I don't need the reinforcements, I usually do.

Then you say, that bringing in fresh troops is an exploit. I'm not sure how you figure this, seeing as the AI can, and does, bring up to three armies of extra troops. But I guess, if you want really “brave” generals, who fight armies that are up to three times the size, then you can try penalizing the player who tries to bring in reinforcements by giving his generals a Coward point (and its -1 moral penalty) every time he dares to try this.

Or you can insist that if he brings in reinforcements, he lets the AI control them (though, I'm not sure why this is not exploitative play, while if the player controls them himself it is).

But I hazard that all this talk of what is exploitative play-style is a bit of a superior stance that you are taking in order to tell me how I should want to play my games.

Or when I say:

“I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)”

and you answer “Nope...” That is a cute, but nasty sarcasm (I assume you knew I was talking about finding ways to enjoy a game, despite its limitations, and not me asserting that one should exploit or cheat to win a game).

And all this superior moral stand on how a game should be played for what – exactly? You defend all this so that you can maintain the right to slap a coward sticker on generals who withdraw from battlefields – or are you going to claim that that is, somehow, realistic or historic?

Anyway, I did rather like your last answer. At least now I feel we are now having the discussion we should have been having all along, about why you want to keep this trait (and why I feel it is unjustified) – and not blaming it all on the TW engine.

Off course it is your design (or that of the EBII collective), and you have every right to take it in whatever direction you want. If you decide you really want this “coward” trait, and it is worthwhile despite it's unforeseen consequences to exploitative players like myself, then that is all fine.

Le Beanachdain,
With Blessings,

Cruin.

PS – this is nothing – wait till we start really talking about archers versus slingers.

Again no, the trait "Doubtful courage" is there for when the units and the general actually rout, ie they engage and run away. We want that trait in...

Due to the engine limitations, we cannot discern the withdraw button and units withdrawing. As I said the engine thinks they rout. If you even listen to them, they start shouting run away etc (the audio files of routing units)...

The latter behaviour of the trait (when you click withdraw and get the trait) is collateral, since it occurs during exploits for us it is a non-issue. Also as I said the only solution, since the engine cannot discern, would be the removal of the trait. Which is there to work when the units actually rout...

I cannot for the life of me make this any clearer...

The trait is for routing, real bonafide routing. If you use the retreat vanilla feature, which is forced routing on the engine, the engine understands that you've routed...

We want the trait to trigger with real routs, unfortunately it gets triggered by the withdraw button, because for the engine it is a rout...

Quote:

---

I assume you knew I was talking about finding ways to enjoy a game, despite its limitations, and not me asserting that one should exploit or cheat to win a game

---

Actually no, the way you posted that paragraph sounded that you use such quirks of the system to gain advantages and suit your tactics...
Still I'm in no way saying your playstyle is wrong or right, I merely stated that in our opinion using fresh reinforcements from withdrawn slots is an exploit and we do not tailor the mod around that...

There is no right or wrong playstyle, just we have to pick one to edit the mechanics around it...

When the player avoids the AI-led reinforcements, specifically to micro them, gains an advantage and he's exploiting the engine. Since even the AI's reinforcements get in the battlefield from the start (although on this point it might depend on the PC running the game)...

Still it isn't affected in anyway by the mod, as I said there is the freedom to use them. However in cases as this one, where a working trait has a collateral behaviour during an exploit, we won't remove the trait (had we had the engine tell the difference between rout and withdraw we'd edit that in already: we simply cannot do that)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

True, but it would make for a very frustrating game when you play the Nomads. And if you don't play the nomads, the rebels will cripple the nomadic factions so they will never grow strong to threaten the player.



Unfortunately, there is a limit too how many factions M2:TW can have. If EB included Kushan and Han, they would have to drop 2 others. Since the Kushan and Han were only occasionally interested in Central Asia, and didn't stay there, the team decided not to include them.

---

First，can you lower the upkeep of nomadic tribe.Can you lower the difficulty of buy the rebel of.If the nomadic faction win a great battle.They can get dignity .If they have the dinity so high that they and bribe the rebel into their troop with nearly no cost .But they may also rebel away easily when they were defeated in battle.In this case they may held 10 stacks of army in no time.With it,they can :daisy: the settled faction :daisy:.This is the most funny and historical way I can think of .
Second.I dont means that they show as a faction in the game.can they appear as rebels.Large hords of rebles.this will be most funny.I hope the rebel will be the focus of this game.Not a occasionally small rebel.But huge hords of rebel.This is more historical

what about the architecture of the taxila?Could you make it more historical?An Aztec city is unbearale.

Let me just toss some technical stuff in here:

Withdrawal before battle can be monitored independently from withdrawal in battle, linked to the withdrawal button of the prebattle screen:

Code:

---

  WhenToTest PreBattleWithdrawal

  Condition WasAttacker
        and I_WithdrawsBeforeBattle
        and BattleOdds > 0.7
        and BattleOdds < 1.3

  Affects IndecisiveAttacker  2  Chance  100
  Affects IndecisiveAttacker  2  Chance  60

---

The condition Routs tests if a unit has left the battle field during battle - regardless of the reason. The docudemons claim that it is only related to the commanding character but it would appear that it applies to all his units, eg a routing archer seems to trigger that condition. I'll set up a simple test to confirm if that is the case, eg have a one sided battle with the attacker having overwhelming odds in their favor and then forcing a regular unit to rout.

One of three triggers using the routs condition:

Code:

---

Trigger UnhingedByDefeatAndFlight
  WhenToTest PostBattle

  Condition Routs

  Affects Deranged  1  Chance  8
  Affects Insane  1  Chance  6

---

The other two are the opposing sides of "counter" traits, using trait level ranges as secondary condition:

Code:

---

Trigger battle5_brave
  WhenToTest PostBattle

  Condition Routs
        and Trait Brave > 0

  Affects Brave -4  Chance  100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle5_coward
  WhenToTest PostBattle

  Condition Routs
        and Trait Brave < 1

  Affects Coward  4  Chance  100

---

There are five more triggers that test the absence of the condition (and not routs).

Did that testing by using this simple script in Bare Geomod:

Code:

---

    monitor_event PostBattle CharacterIsLocal
        and Routs
        historic_event FIRST_WINDMILL
    end_monitor

---

First stage was to test the triggering without the Routs condition: the message fired in autoresolve, regular end of battle and forced exiting.
Second stage was to rout a unit and then conclude with a forced exit: only the commanding officer triggered the script and only if he had exited the map completely. A simple exit from the battle (pic gone from line up) was not sufficient - the green pip had to leave the radar map completely. This can presumably be used as a minor exploit to preserve the general of an annihilated\totally routed army from picking up that trait: the battle will stop if he is the last unit over the battle line, but will not count as routed as he did not exit the map completely (requires testing).

Summary:
Forced withdrawal\routing (clicking that button) triggers the condition
but only for the commanding unit (very likely for other named characters as well - not tested)
and only if it has left the map completely

Which means that the claim of regular units being withdrawn was the reason for obtaining the negative trait is not valid.
Not valid as well is my assumption that the condition would fire for any unit within an army.

Which means the exploit of expending a missile unit's projectiles and then withdraw it completely for protection (or replacement) will live on, or whittling down a unit to minimum numbers and then force withdrawing it so that fresh re-reinforcements can replace it. But then it's a prerogative of every player whether he really needs to perform actions that are not available to the AI, so let me not harp on about it.

I am getting concerned about the confrontational tone of this exchange. I believe I get where the EB team are coming from:

1) The M2:TW engine, or at least the part that deals with traits, considers "ordered withdrawal" the same as "rout", and therefore cannot distinguish between the two.
2) The EB team feels that because the A.I. starts with 20 units and doesn't withdraw troops (whether to get reinforcements or not), the player should do the same. Otherwise, it's an exploit, as the A.I. cannot do this.

Both are perfectly reasonable arguments (the second is arguable, but I see your point). The problem is that they weren't explained, initially. Gigantus simply assumed we knew this, and reprimanded us for wanting to use this exploit (and messing up the real use of the 'doubtful courage' trait as well). That's not what either myself or Cruin asked for, and that's what prompted the irritable responses.

I hope we can continue this discussion; I am very interested in Gigantus' findings about the rout mechanic. But first:


Let's take a deep breath and try to see where the other is coming from before accusing him/her of not listening. This applies to everyone.