MIA for now while I work on a new version, to avoid confusion.
Printable View
MIA for now while I work on a new version, to avoid confusion.
Very cool, thanks. Do you know if these are save-game compatible perchance?
Should be, far as I know. Or at least unit stat and description alterations have thus far always been, as were for example the slight recruitement changes to the Hai top-level barracks at Armavir when I tested that one (with add_money and process_cq in the course of a campaign; I often run that test just to see what troops a province can potentially produce so I know what kind of gov I really want there and what levels of MICs I'll be wanting to dole out the dough for down the road). Can't say I have actually *tested* the added health/healer buildings, but logic dictates they should be equally kosher.
Cool mod. Any chance of asking MarcusAureliusAntonius if you can incorporate it ino his city mod?
Ehh... it so happens I forgot one wee little detail about my personal edition of the EDU - namely the altered projectile type I gave certain three missile units. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa; Ich bin ein Berliner Würst.
:sweatdrop:
EB comes with a neat lead slinghsot model which for some reason isn't used you see, and I thought this was a waste and modded the Sphendonetai and Shuban Fradakshana to have it - these two because AFAIK they used lead shot historically, and because aside from the Balearics who specifically use bigger rocks than the norm they're the best two types of slinger (albeit the crazy range of the Celtic slingers weirds me out - maybe they're just big and strong enough guys to get that kind of mileage or something?).
Now, getting this to work required adding entries to the export_projectile.txt and export_projectile_new.txt (I modified both because I frankly had no clue which one would have been enough), a fair bit of trial and error through -show_err CTD messages, and ultimately making renamed copies of the missile model files.
I also made the Goidilic dart guys use the BI plumbata model for their projectiles. I've yet to actually test it in practice, but as I followed the same steps that worked with the lead shot it should be OK.
Anyway, unless you have the appropriate modified files you're going to get a CTD the second you start a battle involving any of the three unit types mentioned. I know this from experience.
:shame:
*sigh* Time to make a revised edition I guess. Might as well fix a few things I forgot from the EDU (like warcry to the Bastarnoz) and add the modified descr_sounds_units_fire.txt I made after reading Dol Guldur's clever slinger sound fix idea.
That aside, Marcus can freely use it in his minimod as far as I'm concerned. It's not like I owned any part of the game or something, or that the modifications I've made were particularly complicated or demanding - more like tedious really. If my obsessive nitpicking over details saves someone else time and effort, so much the better. :beam:
Right, version 2 is up. :2thumbsup: Bigger and better than before too.
I tested the Laecha and their fancy darts. Well, an sich it worked well enough - except they threw the damn things butt first. :dizzy2: As what the models have in their hands when they prepare to throw look mostly like javelins, I altered the unit to just toss those instead. If nothing else the fletching of the arrows would be a bit jarring contrast when it suddenly appears.
Have fun, and if something odd comes up do tell.
Interesing mod.Very similar to my mod but a lot of difference.
Right now I'm trying to run some tests to see if some of the worrisome things I've read concerning unit terrain bonuses are indeed true, and also for BI 1.6. If they are I'll probably have to make a v3...
Also, I've been wondering if the "power_charge" unit attribute in BI could be useful for something. We'll see.
Hey, this looks interesting, but I have a few questions.
1) Is this save game compatible? I already use the first cohort minimod, but if any additional units beyond those were added, I suppose it would not be.
2) Are the stat changes done in a specific pattern? I generally avoid stat change minimods because they tend to be unbalancing, and the EB stat people apparently worked from a specific system that assigned points.
3) Does the addition of shield wall unbalance hoplite type troops? I've read somewhere that shieldwall adds to the defense of a unit, so if unit stats remain the same, the units now become more powerful, in the same way that the phalanx attribute makes units more powerful in melee.
Thanks for any answers:whip:
I don't recall adding any units, and as mentioned before simple alterations to the EDU and EDB should be compatible.
Stat changes followed certain specific patterns in my head and what amounts to common sense for me (ie. YMMV), but I won't vouch a thing for what they might do for balance. On the other hand, the Klerouchion Agema were still a crap deal for more money than regular Pezhetairoi IIRC which was one thing I altered so... :shrug:
As for shieldwall, well, it mainly seems to add a fair bit of frontal resiliency but what I've observed, and makes the unit very good at maintaining its overall integrity even under tremendous pressure. Individual soldiers have a weird tendency to wander away from it though - indeed, there was one occasion when I saw a shieldwalled hoplite unit charge an unit of early Hastati and then fan out with this tight clump of soldiers in the middle and a thin half-circle of their comrades fiercely battling the Romans several meters away... looked kinda weird. I almost suspect it somehow hampers the troops' offensive ability though, as shieldwalled troops sometimes seem to both die and cause damage rather less readily than otherwise. But, no, I haven't particularly tested it for balance or tried to make other alterations to "compensate" for it so to speak. That'd also rather go against the philosophy I assigned it with; it is, after all, supposed to be a beneficial ability or one that helps an unit fill a certain tactical niche, and a way to try to gain that elusive bit of extra edge over the opposition warriors are always looking for. In a sense it is a means to deliberately try to upset balance (that's what soldiers train such techniques and drills for after all), although of course for some poor militia whose main military merit is forming a tight clump bristling with spears and holding their ground as long as they can it is also a very welcome trick to help foil the unwelcome attentions assorted nasty proper warrior types seek to subject them to... from the front anyway.
Ok so this mod and city mod's file will overwrite eachover. Can someone tell me a way to incorporate these two mods together without them overwriting eachover?
Kinda depends on what the citymod actually contains and what you'd like from each. If it's export_descr_buildings.txt though all I've done to that, as mentioned in the summary above, is add two entires of Nakhararan Aspet recruitement (so the Hai can recruit them in Armavir and some other place I've no clue about) and add "romans_scipii, saba, " to the health and healer buildings' faction ownership sections. Well, and "saba, " to the desert irrigation thingy. Should be quite elementary to copy-paste those bits manually or just edit them in yourself (although I've no idea how the citymod treats these buildings in to begin with).
Other than that the citymod seems to be nigh exclusively concerned with the EDB and, I assume, descr_strat.txt, so the main content of my alterations - unit stats - should cause no particular conflict but I haven't checked.
Just one quick question.
You mentioned that one should use Cunctator's First Cohorts mod with this one.
So here is my question:
Are you using V.1.2a of the "First Cohorts" mod?
The "only" difference is, that the improved fix is included, which actually allowed me to play my Aedui campaign without any EB related CTD for 200 turns :beam:
But since I use your mod, the rebelling cities CTD seems to be there again!
Or at least it appeals to me this way.
So my idea was, that this could be, because of your EDB undoing the changes done by the improved fix.
Would be a shame though, love what you did here :yes:
Especially shildwall.
Wouldn't wanna play without it anymore :2thumbsup:
I think I used the latest one. At the moment I've a slight problem checking though, as I've managed to bugger my mobo and need to get a new one before the old wormbox deigns to even boot up again... :sweatdrop:
Valuable lesson, kids: don't try upgrading your BIOS unless you actually know what you're doing. :wall:
Thx for the answer :beam:
Hm would somehow be glad to hear, that you didn't used the newest version. Would be an easy solution to my CTD problem :sweatdrop:
Just to be sure, that these thinks aren't just happening in my current campaign i will start a new one these days and check.
Edit says: Damn typos.
Just out of interest: why did you decide to give Lugoae the shield wall ability? They're only militia and their description says nothing that would imply that they used the shield wall formation.
Shieldwalls were AFAIK common enough "quick and dirty" defensive techniques among militia spearmen of all qualities - and heavier troops too for that matter. It doesn't take that much complicated training to get a bunch of guys stand close together in a phalanx bristling with spears after all, and it's a good way to use numbers and formation to compensate for possible shortcomings in individual skill and war gear (both of which are fairly obvious in the case of the Lugoae).
It is hardly a coincidence that militia soldiers in military traditions highly concerned with decisively confrontational close combat were always such avid users of that kind of formation - the farmer-soldier Greek hoplites and similarly part-time Viking warbands being both cases in point. And even rather low-quality conscripted levies could usually at least form a decent approximation of a defensive shieldwall for all the good it now usually did them.
Plus, I figured the Lugoae were the more "static defensive" one of the two Celtic close-combat militia types, the other being the shortsword guys who are clearly more offensive loose-order light infantry. Or to put it this way, I always picture the Lugoae as the guys to whom it falls to "hold the breach" when a hostile warband assaults their home village and there aren't enough of the serious warriors around for the job.
Ah, I see. Very well, then I have only to thank thee for sharing this. I appreciate it. :bow:
You're welcome.
I'll offer my take for Watchman to his defense;
That's probably how a Celtic militia would defend their home. Mind, it'd not be very organized, by a man by his nature probably realizes standing behind a makeshift 'wall' of shields knows his chance of survival are better than that of a man alone.
Now, of course, the 'wall' of a phalanx, Greek, Celtic, Germanic, or otherwise (the first being the most reasonable) would probably understand it better, and have tactics if he is a trained, regular soldier. However, even a poor, non-warrior, hastily equipped with a cheap local shield and spear, would know, "If we stand close and put our shields together, there is less of an area for the enemy to hit us, lest they hit our lowest legs or our neck and face'.
The shieldwall is not some complicated tactic; it doesn't require a lot of 'research'. It's a simple realization of a human. 'We have protection in our shields, combine it, we can resist the charge of our enemy'. It's a very basic idea of a local group of warriors.
Of course, trained warriors (Neitos, in the Celtic sense, and other Celtic 'phalanxes', in that idea, like Mori Gaesum, Rycalawre, etc.) would do this better, but, within stats, lower warriors will still die quicker, because, in a real world sense, they're not as better trained, not as well-equipped, etc.
The shieldwall is not a Germanic thing; it is not remotely unique to the dark age Germans. Danes invading Christian dark age Ireland saw it again, combined with dark age Irish cavalry, which tore them apart and convinced them to focus on Britain, and left Ireland to the Norse, who fought longer, but ultimately met the same fate.
Shieldwalls are clearly older. The Greeks, the ancient Celts (at least in the more disciplined regiments) and the Germans (likewise) knew the true value of the shieldwall. The Greek phalanx is little different than Germanic shieldwalls that fought the Romano-Celtic Britons, and sometimes Gaels (like the Dalriada), minus the cavalry support (since Saxons and many Germans didn't use ANY cavalry in battle, which is a major part of the Greek hammer and anvil, and was certainly part of a similar Celtic motion).
If you're playing Celts in this mod, use a Greek-style 'hammer and anvil' (phalanx and cavalry) if you can, supplemented by your shock infantry. It should be sufficient to break most enemies, including early Romans even in EB; it's how the Celts beat them, and Brennus sacked Rome.
The Romans and Greeks exaggerated numbers, certainly, cause we know from archaeology, not so many warriors and soldiers could've inhabited their lands and attacked. Likely, they used a tactics we can't often (not always) interpret exactly (rolling under the phalanx, like the Spaniards did later to the Swiss), and defeated the Romans and Greeks on such grounds. It wasn't hordes or swarms.
The Romans adopted Celtic standards for a reason. Celts were not disorganized hordes, but capable armies, who truly had a grasp of discipline. Even their enemies knew it. At Telamon, who's account says the Romans feared their fine order and discipline? It was a Roman.
Celts were not hordes, not barbarians, but disciplined armies of soldiers and warriors. And it is a pity not till modern days it has been examined. I don't apologize for the Celts. I am a Catholic, and Celts did sacrifice humans to their gods, which I view, as such, as monsterous. However, it is plain that these weren't savages, but simply another civilized people who did not view the world in the civility of the Greeks and Romans, but another civility. I mention to avoid accusations of being PC.
Celts were, in their religion, at times cruel, and monsterous, but they were not 'uncivilized', and complex tactics were well in their power. Shieldwalls were nothing; simple 'human' tactics, but Celts knew how to draw into opposing lines quickly by hornblows if ambushed. In such a case, it must be realized, a shieldwall was nothing to such people. They knew how to flank, how to draw tight formations, how to march, how to distract, how to use regiments and units, and whole seperate armies.
Don't underestimate how skilled Celtic war was. It inspired Greeks and Romans alike, in great amount. A Roman legionary was little more than a composite of Italic, Greek, Iberian, and Celtic war tradition; ingenious? Yes. But unique? Hardly. Simply the ones who won. Celts knew how to fight. It's why the Romans were horrified of them for so long; they weren't hordes on the border, they were skilled warriors who knew how to win, and had defeated countless enemies before.
Even the Romans knew their discipline, military strength, and respected them. Caesar's campaigns in Gaul used countless Gallic soldiers, not Romanized but fighting in their manner, to overcome Gaul. Later Roman accounts speak ill of them, but Caesar rarely says so, because he had Gallic friends, and knew who they were. My main example is; where did the modern term 'soldiers' come from? From ancient Gallic Aquitanians (and others) who called their royal guards 'Soldurii'. 'The Devoted Ones'. It is beautiful in a militaristic way, and it came from these so-called 'barbarians', who were more civilized than most modern people realize; just militaristic.
Just to nitpick, but the modern term "soldier" also stems from the gold coins widely called solids (or some variation of the term) which soldiers were paid as their enrollement fee during certain periods...
Oh yeah, and the shieldwall phlanx goes back at least to ancient Mesopotamia - some of the surviving pictorial sources clearly depict infantry advancing in close order with spears projecting from between their large shields. A common argument I've seen is that such a style of fighting was particularly characteristic of settled, at least reasonably agricultural societies that out of the simple necessity of needing to defend their fields and homes had to develop a decisively confrontational style of warfare and whose populaces learned close cooperation with their peers in both the fields and the workshops of the settlements; conversely for example pastoralists could usually afford to yield ground (although not forever) and wear the foeman down with hit-and-run attacks, and the warfare of more "primitive" agricultural societies as well as those still in the earlier hunter-gatherer mode of production were nigh invariably of more "skirmishing" nature anyway - partly because they rarely had the sort of population base needed to raise the troops for and absorb the casualties of linear shock warfare.
Sorry if I reply poor, I'll be honest, a touch drunk to personal problems, so probably shouldn't be doing personal things, lest my mind clear, but only want to help. However, Soldurii could have had as such an impact; the influence of words is not typically as well known as we wish it would be.
Obviously - that's why I wrote "also". Some Medieval officer titles whose descendants are still in use today were also derived from comparable (Late) Roman ranks, after all.
I would dearly like to try this mod, but when I download from the link you provide the folder is empty: there are no files. I tried this yesterday and today. Confused.
The link says it's "temporarily unavailable". Dunno why, it checks OK in the management program link test. Try again later - if it still hasn't started working by tomorrow I'll make another link.
Well, I seem to be able to DL it now. Strange. :dizzy2:
Can you add an install step by step. I downloaded to my main RTW folder I have EB in and extracted to there as well. Where should I have extracted them to? The EB folder or BI or RTW data folder? :dizzy2: On a nother note. I saw that the city mod and your mod use the first cohort mod as a base. Would it be possible for me to incororate all three? I really like the city mod and really want to try yours as well. Thanks in advance!
:inquisitive:
EB mods tend to go into the relevant EB folders for fairly obvious reasons - that's where the "-mod:eb" switch tells the program to look.
My mod's mainly about the export_descr_unit.txt, the rest being just a bonus. If you want to combine this with the citymod just install the citymod as normal, and then manually replace the EDU with mine - that should do the job, since AFAIK the citymod has no alterations to that file beyond the First Cohorts ones which mine also includes.
It isn't as odvious as you would think for someone who doesn't know one thing about modding. :shame: So all the files I should be able to extract to the EB folder over the citymod and it should work? What do you mean manualy replacing the EDU?
No. Since our mods contain a fair few same files, the one installed later naturally overwrites those of the earlier.
"Manually replacing" as in opening the .rar and dragging-and-dropping the desired file (in this case the export_descr_unit.txt) into the target location, in this case the main EB folder so it replaces the Citymod EDU already there.
Any known issues with Casse recruitment with this mod? I have installed this over Cunctators latest, and in the Casse campaign I started I cant recruit anything other than Luguoe, Iosatae, Garaoas, Botaroas and Cidanh. Even in my capital, type 1 gov, fully upgraded MIC (and all the other buildings built just in case), I still cant build anything else. No Calware, no Rycalware, no Cwmyr, no elites of any description...
The only changes I have made was to change the rebel spawn rate to 999, but that should not affect recruitment...
The Celtic factions can't recruit too much else before the reforms, can they ? And the Cwmyr are Midlanders - you need to get away from Camulosadae (specifically, to the provinces of central Britain - sic) to recruit them and later on many of the other "hero" units IIRC.
The only recruitement alteration I did was the minor one with the Hai catas.
My bad. I have now reached 220 BC and they are all available. I assumed that at least the Calware were early units. Its a bit annoying, as I managed to unite the British Isles using only militia units. Now I have my elites, I have no one left to fight... Except the gauls...
I feel your pain brother! I want to invade gaul with some nice elites, but I'm stuck with the same 4 troop types.
I believe installing this mod first and the city mod second would work, there should be no problems. The couple of changes to the EDB made in this mod would be lost, but some are included in the city mod anyways...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfshart
Hmmm well I may have to reinstall then. Here is what I did. I installed EB on clean RTW. Then installed the first cohort mod and the city mod. I just extracted then to the main RTW folder so I think it worked. Unless I should have installed them into the EB folder. :dizzy2: Then I installed watchmans mod and extracted into the main RTW folder which seems it should be extracted into the EB folder instead but since watchman pointed out the manual install of the EDU file it may have worked out fine since I was able to just drag and drop from the RTW folder to the EB folder. The only side effect is that I now have all watchmans files just just chilling doing nothing in the main RTW folder. :juggle2: It appears to be working but I can't really tell if the mods "took" or not. I'm new to all this modding stuff so sorry for my noobishness.
I think you extract the files into your EB data folder. I did the same thing as you, then I say the EB data folder had the same stuff in it, and that's the folder that counts...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfshart
Well, putting them files in the main RTW "data" folder alone would mean they'd only have any effect if you fired up the vanilla campaign. Which more likely than not should promptly CTD.
If you start the game through one of those whatchamacallit shortcut thingies with the "-mod:" switch (in this case, "-mod:EB") in the command line syntax, the game will look first in the specified sub-folder (in this case "EB") for whatever it needs and only default to searching the main data folder if it can't find the file it's looking for there.
So, basically, unless you've extracted our mods' files into the EB folder they shouldn't be doing you one bit good as the game won't be even looking at them, but the plain EB files there.
I think I did it right, because I see the changes ("Can Swim" and "Can Form Shield Wall" as well as some stat changes).
Sounds about correct, that.
Aye I get all that but I don't plan on playing Vanilla at all so no worries there. I installed it as I posted above and it works i.e. installed 1.)First Cohort Mod 2.) City Mod 3.) Drag and dropped your export_descr_unit.txt into the main EB folder (yes to all). Now I have not gotten any CTD at all however I did notice that some of my units got shield wall but the button graphic for it is messed up but it still work though. I didn't notice if anyone got "can swim" but I haven't been near water yet for a battle. :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
"Can Swim" should be listed on the unit info panels. Anyway, you can fix the issue with the shieldwall button graph by copy-pasting one BI file over its equivalents in the EB folder, but right now I admittedly don't feel like looking it up. It was mentioned in one of the "EB with BI"-type threads lying around here though.
*scratch head*
Wonder if I should include that in a v3 if I make one some day ?
Ah, found it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
That's a lot of shield wall units. I assume that by "a fair few militia/levy type spear units with decent-sized shields" you mean units like the Lugoae and the Frankamannoz. I think they don't deserve the shield_wall, the fact that the EB team gave them rabble formations should indicate that they're basicly el-cheapo infantry good only for stalling and fighting off the lightest of cavalry, not locking shields and taking the brunt of an attack.Quote:
- the shield_wall formation has been added to a fair few units. These include all the "classical" hoplites and their ilk such as the Carthie heavy spearmen and the various versions of Hypaspistai (the Pheraspidai, who if I've understood correctly are really Hypas in different gear, also get it by this token as they'll anyway have been trained for it), a fair few militia/levy type spear units with decent-sized shields (as this sort of formation is fairly easy to use and perfect for relatively poorly trained infantry whose main job is lineholding), and quite a few "barbarian" units whose description suggested they should be able to form a very solid front to blunt enemy charges or similar such as the Belgae Milnaht and Gaisazharjoz. I've also given it to the Eastern "sparabara"-type spearmen as well as the more capable Babylonian heavies and Armenian royal guard types, as both have hoplite-type shields well suited for it and the descriptions suggested they should be able to present very solid fronts as necessary.
I'd approach it negatively, that is, wich units would do fine versus frontal attacks but would do significantly worse if flanked or on walls?
Yesterday I got BI working with EB but I haven't played around with the formations yet. The following I'd consider giving this ability, in descending order:
-hoplitai, and its various derivatives and copies*
-Frámáhárjoz, Háruskoz-Swáiut and Gáizáhárjoz and the Arjos (Arverni unit)
-Neitos, Rycalawre and the Solduros
-Belgae Batacorii, Milnaht, Cemmeinarn (Midland spears)
-Noricene Gaecori, Aljáz-Gae, Gaeroas, Gaelaiche, Hábuko-z Swáiut
Then there's several units wich fought in a dense formation, but for reasons mentioned and unmentioned don't qualify for the shield wall IMO. This includes most legionaries, thureophoroi and thorakitai and rabble units like the Lugoae.
*includes the triarii, the Libyan imitation-hoplites, Hypaspistai and probably the Pherispidai. I'm not sure about the Babylonian infantry and the Armenian royals.
Locking shields and forming a dense solid mass was one of the more common ways for el cheapo infantry to serve as decent lineholders, AFAIK. A basic static, defensive shieldwall is easy enough for even poorly trained troops to do, and tended to take some effort even for elite troops to break frontally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Rather like the pike phalanx really.
The normal Roman infantry order was only "dense" compared to for example most Celtic longswordmen; hoplites and phalangites for example were massed more densely, and in a straight clash AFAIK tended to have the same sort of "three to two" local numerical advantage the Romans had to the more freewheeling "barbarian" warriors. Thureophoroi and their heavier colleagues follow the same tactical philosophy (ie. relatively open order for flexibility and particularly cross-country maneuverability).Quote:
Then there's several units wich fought in a dense formation, but for reasons mentioned and unmentioned don't qualify for the shield wall IMO. This includes most legionaries, thureophoroi and thorakitai and rabble units like the Lugoae.
That seems to apply more to cheap semi-proffessionals like Gaeroas and Batacorii. Not every unit that carries a spear and a large shield would be disciplined enough to mantain a cohesive shield wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Of course.Quote:
The normal Roman infantry order was only "dense" compared to for example most Celtic longswordmen; hoplites and phalangites for example were massed more densely, and in a straight clash AFAIK tended to have the same sort of "three to two" local numerical advantage the Romans had to the more freewheeling "barbarian" warriors. Thureophoroi and their heavier colleagues follow the same tactical philosophy (ie. relatively open order for flexibility and particularly cross-country maneuverability).
Unit choices aside, do you agree that units wich get the shield wall should get a minor decrease in their defense value?
Cool! So just copy pasting that will fix the graphic? Hmm thats easier then I thought it would be. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
In my experience, yes. No unwanted side effects either, far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfshart
It was pretty standard "spear levy" stuff AFAIK. Keep in mind that the likes of Lugoae are from the relatively "heavy" and static end of the tribal levy, the equipement suggesting they're trained to fight in relatively close order and fairly defensively. The shortsword guys and missile troops are examples of lighter, open-order infantry, the former presumably rather aggressive too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
As for discipline, well, I didn't do a thinkg to the morale values of most units (ie. low-class militias still crack pretty fast in a tight spot) and IIRC the Lugoae are Impetuous so they may indeed fail to hold their position properly. AFAIK this kind of getting carried away was a fairly common problem with even levies in warrior cultures like the Celts, although the exact psychological pressures behind the impetuousness were a bit different from those of the warrior class proper.
Feel free to modify your copy if that's what you feel like. As mentioned I haven't made any real efforts to check the alterations for balance, and due to some hardware problems haven't been putting in too many playing hours as of late (I'm actually just now modifying my game for starting again).Quote:
Unit choices aside, do you agree that units wich get the shield wall should get a minor decrease in their defense value?
Perhaps even levy troops would instinctively form a 'shield wall'. Their weakness would be a decreased morale value (or whatever makes units rout easier)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
A shield wall is no 'special formation' like a phalanx, rather the most simple static battle formation. Any man, levied into the army, would seek the (relative) protection of his neighbour.
A shield wall should be an increased value only counting for the whole group. Defence value should be the defence of the soldier himself (shield, armour, skill)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Does a shield wall give a unit's defence an unworldly boost anyway?
I did not give the shield wall formation to units with long swords, such as Milnaht or Botroas. Rycalawre and Solduros do have it, since they're hightly trained warbands which only draw their swords after their formation is broken and their spears lost. Calawre, being individual heroes (for EB's sake gathered in a unit) didn't fight in such an organisation, cf their long swords.
Neither did I give it to the especially designed flexible professional spear units, such as Thureophoroi and Thorakitai (Hellenic armies don't need an ersatz phalanx on the flanks of the Makedonian ones, rather good flanking units) Legionnairies should have them, however I think they should be more flexible, so it'd be a bad idea. EB gave them nice stats anyway to justify them fighting without shield wall.
Thanks for the icon fix, Watchman, I was looking for it!
I don't think units can be given two special formations though, and the legionaires already have the testudo as their "special trick" don't they ? I know they did sometimes fight in very close order, but that was in rare special cases such as against massed Sarmatian lancers and as in that instance the front ranks also used spears that one would really rather better be simulated by using Auxilia (who might qualify for the shieldwall - IIRC I didn't give it to them, but...).
Ah yes, of course, sorry. Forgot about the Testudo :wacko: never play as Romans, and I tend to crush them before they get it...
Does the shield wall give more protection from aerial attacks (in the front)? Units I use the shieldwall on in my campaign are too low levelled to notice, but is it better? I was thinking that the testudo was some evoluated and disciplined form of the 'ordinary' levy shield wall to protect against arrows...
Well, most of the units that were given the shieldwall have pretty decent Shield scores to begin with and I doubt if the formation particularly hurts, anymore than the phalanx does. I always avoid shooting at such units' shielded sides anyway so I can't say I knew if there was a major difference though.
Lugoae and the like still seem to hurt from precursor javelins, but whether it's more or less than what they'd suffer outside the shieldwall I haven't the foggiest about.
One advantage I can see the Testudo having is that it seems to have shields on about all sides (maybe not the rear though), so it avoids the flank-fire vulnerability issue densely packed formations have. 'Course, I understand units in Testudo are also in serious trouble if engaged in melee so...
It was a siege-assault approach formation after all.
Yeah, in a real battle the testudoe has limted uses, but in a seige it's good for attacking fire away from vuneraable units.
...handy for fighting eastern armies, especially horse archers!Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
Question for Watchman..Do you also add shiltrom and berserker abilities to certain units in your modified EDU??..If not will you be in a form of an update?
The schiltrom is in my experience largely useless anyway, and berserk I was never too fond of. Warcry does the job well enough IMO. So, no.
But of course you're free to further modify your download and add them to whichever units you see fit - all it requires is finding the unit entry in the EDU and some typing.
As for updates, I just now learned what exactly the vanilla EB "can form shieldwall" thingy meant - namely, a clever tweak of the unit's formation line that quite simply uses a tighter formation for the second setting, rather than looser which is what you normally get from clicking the "loose order" button. Learning this immediately made me wonder if I should redo the whole damn thing all over again, as the BI shieldwall does have some issues, and it'd let certain barbarian units combine warcry and "locked shields". Plus I've noticed a few random oversights here and there which vaguely annoy me and I could fix at the same time - I'm a bit perfectionist about my work that way.
I just kinda wonder if the tactical AI can actually use the EB shieldwall thingy. With suitable formation files (I use these, myself - speaking of which I should probably ask Thorlof if I could integrate them into the next version of this thing...) it does use the BI shieldwall at least, if not necessarily well.
Opinions ? Should I redo the EDU at least and take the BI shieldwall off at least some of the units that have the EB tight secondary formation, especially some of the barbarians who could then get the warcry instead ? Or would people prefer the BI one as it now is ?
Thanks for the quick response Watchman. Just downloaded your files and now looking thru them. Specifically the EDU. I'm about to start a campaign using the BI.exe and needed an EDU that took advantage of the BI.exe. When i found your thread here in the Unofficial Modding Projects. Thank god too..I thought i would have to edit my whole EDU myself :wall: I wanted the EDU to pretty much stay the same as the .81a EDU with just the added BI.exe abilities and maybe an alteration here or there but nothing too drastic stat wise that would in all likelihood thow the game out of wack from a balance perspective. I'm too lazy and didn't want to do this myself..Thankfully i found your work.
As for redoing your EDU based on what you just now found out in vanilla EB..
I say yes...Especially if your just gonna do it for the barbarians who could then get the warcry instead. Just leave the Hoplites alone. :2thumbsup:
You're welcome. :bow: Although as a disclaimer I'll caution you that the relatively minor alterations I've done may not be exactly balanced either, and I have some doubts about the BI shieldwall in particular in that regard - never had the time and patience to do any real testing, after all. :sweatdrop:
I've played around a bit with the shield_wall feature, I haven't found any significant issues with it (other than that the AI won't use it)
About the EB shield wall solution (use the loose order-button to create a dense formation), I find that it doesn't work to well, even in guard mode the German spear guys will break formation. I wouldn't be surprised to if the AI uses the formation when a unit comes under missile attack :dizzy2:
In my EDU I've only given the shield_wall feature to units that used this dense formation (hoplites mostly plus a couple of barbarians)
@Watchman:
Is your mod already compatible with the latest v2 Patch to the EB? Or are you waiting for Cunctator to upgrade his FC mod to this patch and only then you'll upgrade your mod?
BTW: I'm not sure what's going on with the BI 1.6 and your mod: does it mean that I should redirect the EB shortcut to BI.exe OR does it mean that it works with RTW 1.5 but includes some changes that have been done in the BI engine?
You'll have to use a BI.exe shortcut if you want any of the BI content (say, shieldwalls) to work, obviously. IIRC it should be "backwards compatible" with RTW 1.5, but naturally the BI stuff won't function.
Anyway, as of the moment I'm still in the process of even aquiring the dang v2 (and BT insist on being slow to boot), so obviously the minimod has yet to be updated. I've been planning to rework it a bit for a while now anyway, so I might as well do it in one go.
Naturally, it will be announced when it's done. What'd be the point otherwise ? :beam:
OK.
So to both Cunctator & Watchman:
1. after Cunctator makes the next version of his FC mod, utilizing the v2 Patch, shall the Watchman upgrade his mod after it is upgraded by Cunctator, or these two mod shall be independent?
I’m asking due to the fact that I’m a little bit confused with the number of mods and mini-mods issued currently to EB...
What is now (before implementation of v2 Patch) is that the Watchman’s mod is based upon Cunctator’s, and it seems – for me, maybe I’m wrong – that one have to install FIRST the Cunctator’s FC mod, THEN to upgrade it with Watchman’s one.
After v2 Patch is implemented, what structure and relationships between these two mods shall be? Shall they be independent ? I.e., one could choose to play either Cunctator’s or Watchman’s mod?
In fact, what is the difference between these two mods except adding some units in Watchman’s? (maybe a stupid question, but...)
@Watchman:
If I understand correctly, to make Your mod being playable under BI engine, should I copy the “imperial_campaign” directory and rename it to “barbarian_invasion”, and then change the shortcut path by adding “-BI” – similar to Thorloff’s RoA? Or does Your mod use the BI just as it is, with only changing the shortcut path?
I’m asking ‘cause I’m not sure if I’m doing everything OK...
And anyway it seems that I have to reinstall my EB again and copy this, keeping one copy of the EB 0.81a clean (with only v2 Patch and CTD fixes and elephant fix) installed, with second one as a basis for either Cunctator’s or Watchman’s mods... with yet another copy for Thorloff’s RoA... as I have non-EB RTW copies used for SPQR and Ancient Empires (with non-alread-installed “clean” RTR PE 1.8, but who knows... maybe I shall install it too...)
I got stuck with the mods for RTW and it seems that I’ll have lot of fun playing them... only the poor M2TW lies aside bought a month ago and not installed...
I'm not frankly entirely sure what exactly your question about the shortcut path means. This is an EB minimiod, so naturally the files go into the EB folder and you play it through the BI shortcut with the appropriate command-line switches (mainly, -mod:EB) thrown in. Personally I just copy the basic EB desktop shortcut and add the "-BI". Most convenient that way.Quote:
@Watchman:
If I understand correctly, to make Your mod being playable under BI engine, should I copy the “imperial_campaign” directory and rename it to “barbarian_invasion”, and then change the shortcut path by adding “-BI” – similar to Thorloff’s RoA? Or does Your mod use the BI just as it is, with only changing the shortcut path?
Watchman, one question: does the *.zip file available for download on page 1 of this thread contain the newest version of Your mod? I mean, the Cunv=ctator has released his 1.3 version that is based on the latest v2 Patch. However, after I DL-ed Your mod from the Megaupload link shown on the first page, it appeared that the file is the same that I DL-ed some time ago, and it's almost sure that it is not yet upgraded to suit the latest v2 patch. Am I right?
If so, when the latest version of Your mod (updated to v2 patch) will be availabole and where?
I figure I'll have it done sometime next week, by Wednesday probably. Depends heavily on when I'm feeling perky enough to get to work - I'm a bit lethargic at the moment, and not in the mood to wade through all that code. :sweatdrop:
I installed watchman's mod, and all of a sudden a bunch of cities that formerly could upgrade their foreign MIC can't do so. In fact, one city that was in the middle of upgrading, had the building queue frozen with 4 turns left! This happened while playing as Romans. That is, unless I'm missing something obvious such as that MIC requirements can spontaneously change.
I know I never did anything to the barracks (save for the thing with the Hai catas), so beats me. Not savegame compatible presumably - wouldn't know, I never even tried applying it to an ongoing campaign.
Well, it isn't a *big* deal, it doesn't screw up major cities like Rome or Capua, just some of the outlying cities in Cisalpine Gaul and Dalmatia: many of these cities can't build ANY military units, and others just a very basic unit like lugoae! Also, I didn't install First Cohort's mod before installing your patch. The only other thing I have installed is the CTD crash fixed that was released here in the forum shortly after .81a... I put that in there almost two months ago though.
Other than that, the shield wall works great (though the icon is funked up). The AI even uses it from time to time! Haven't run into any germans, so I haven't seen the shiltrom in action yet :)
The MIC issue sounds like applying the mod mid-game broke something IMHO. I've had campaigns go rather spectacularly screwy just by messing around with the trait files...
Anyway, I should probably include either the BI UI file that includes the proper shieldwall button in the next version, or instructions on how to do the job yourself (you need to put a copy in every UI folder, so including them all would sorta bloat the package...). IIRC there was a thread or two around here somewhere that explained it, which is probably why I didn't bother back in the day. Those are probably a few pages away by now though...
Oh, and I didn't use the schiltrom at all (it always seemed very useless in BI), so the Germans won't do you any good in that regard. Well, or any other either...
:viking:
When will this mini-mod be updated to V2, I'm dying to play it!
Right, after getting some unrelated issues out of the way and mustering some energy I'm now working on it. There's one thing I'd like a "consumer opinion" on though; I've been thinking about giving assorted types of "irregular" light cavalry - better part of the horse-archers and "tribal" javelin cav like the Numidians and Daha - the "horde" formation, to account for these guys operating in a very "free" and loose order and not really having the drill for shock action, being primarily skirmishers. What do you think ? If need be it should be very easy to undo "after sales" by just doing a global replace in the EDU if it comes to that too, so it wouldn't be a major "matter of taste" issue if it comes to that.
Not that I've tested it or anything, just thought it might be interesting and probably appropriate.
I'll get back to you on that one. Just keep the incredible mini-mod coming.
Well, Watchman, I think that adding the proper shield wall button already in the package would be much better - especially for those who are not too familiar with changing files in RTW/EB directory. That would eliminate possible screw-ups done by such unfamiliar players.
Anyway, will Your mini-mod to be installed OVER First Cohort and City Mods?
IIRC the previous version was to be installed in such a way: FC, then City and finally Watchman's mod.
Shall it be retained in the new release or not?
I'm asking 'cause I've already installed FC and City mods and don't know if to wait for Your mod or not? (if I should wait I'll won't start EB campaign using all these mods together).
Watchman,
Just curious why you removed the bows from Getai general units...
Well, sorry Watchman. But you took so long to release the new version that I will change to Reign of Ares. But I still appreciate your work, no offence meant.
Cheers.
But is it not the version in first post for V2 and First cohor mod 1.3?Quote:
Originally Posted by MindLich
Good ideas all around. Is there any chance of you merging the City mod in?
is there anyway to nit pick this mod? I don't like the name changing (different triaris have the same name for example) and the 1st cohort units have peasant unit cards.
perhaps a silly question, but will this work over vanilla EB rather than cunctator's First Cohorts mod, which i dont have (not a big fun of Romani)?