Suggestions for v0.8

[Foot]

Okay I really don't understand all of what you just said (I'm not really computer literate).So what your saying is I can access vanilla stil with EB installed.1.How and 2. Does that mean I can still add on BI and Alexander after .8 comes out. And for backing up files,how do I do that.I tried it once but nothing worked when I tried to install it to the new copy.

0.8 works in the same way BI works. You'll notice, with BI installed, that there is a seperate folder for BI within the RTW folder, it is in essence a completey different set of files from vanilla. BI is accessed through a seperate .exe file, not the RomeTW.exe for normal RTW. Because they use different .exe files, they are essentially different games and thus have different version numbers. When BI is 1.6, RTW is 1.5. In just the same way that you can choose to play either RTW or BI from the same install, we have modded EB so that you can choose to play RTW and EB from the same install. We are able to do this because we can add a command line to the RomeTW.exe that tells the game to look in a seperate "EB" folder for the modified game files that we use.

This means that on the same install, ie in the same RTW directory, you can have vanilla RTW, BI, Alexander and EB all working seperately and correctly.

the data files for vanilla RTW are found here:
Rome - Total War/data

the BI data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/BI/data

The EB data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/EB/data

Because they are all in seperate data folders the files don't affect each other and thus the all the different games can be played without fear of messing the others up.

Foot

[scourgeofrome]

0.8 works in the same way BI works. You'll notice, with BI installed, that there is a seperate folder for BI within the RTW folder, it is in essence a completey different set of files from vanilla. BI is accessed through a seperate .exe file, not the RomeTW.exe for normal RTW. Because they use different .exe files, they are essentially different games and thus have different version numbers. When BI is 1.6, RTW is 1.5. In just the same way that you can choose to play either RTW or BI from the same install, we have modded EB so that you can choose to play RTW and EB from the same install. We are able to do this because we can add a command line to the RomeTW.exe that tells the game to look in a seperate "EB" folder for the modified game files that we use.

This means that on the same install, ie in the same RTW directory, you can have vanilla RTW, BI, Alexander and EB all working seperately and correctly.

the data files for vanilla RTW are found here:
Rome - Total War/data

the BI data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/BI/data

The EB data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/EB/data

Because they are all in seperate data folders the files don't affect each other and thus the all the different games can be played without fear of messing the others up.

Foot

Does that mean right now I can install Bi with the .74 version of EB?

[Foot]

No, for two reasons. EB 0.74 does not use the - mod: build and so overwrites the vanilla data files. Only if the mod uses the -mod: build can you use BI and vanilla RTW with it. The second reason is that EB 0.74 must have RTW 1.2, but BI must have RTW 1.3 to work (and automatically upgrades RTW when installed).

Foot

[Geoffrey S]

I don't know if it's hardcoded, but is it possible to set the amount of mnai gained for destroying a building? If so, perhaps a building can be created representing a money stockpile for times of need; it takes a while to build, but when completed it can be destroyed when money is running low for instant cash to build much-needed units/buildings.

[Foot]

I don't know if it's hardcoded, but is it possible to set the amount of mnai gained for destroying a building? If so, perhaps a building can be created representing a money stockpile for times of need; it takes a while to build, but when completed it can be destroyed when money is running low for instant cash to build much-needed units/buildings.

Impossible, its a set amount that cannot be changed per building.

Foot

[Dram]

it would be good if you could enable cheats in the next version.

auto win attacker/defender is really useful for players who are sick of fighting 'easy win' battles all the time. once youve done it 1000 times before it just eats away at your enjoyment of the game and theres nothing new to learn from them. autocalc on VH difficulty tends to result in obscene casualties so its not really an option.

i know in the next version that rebel rates will be adjustable, which i certaintly take advantage of, but this would still be useful against those inumerable swarms of tiny stacks factions send out to decorate the landscape.

besides which i think cheating is something people should be able to do if they want, theres no reason to impose that restriction on people. if you dont want to cheat then you simply dont enter the codes.

[Dumbass]

I think those cheats require a script to be made, or something.
Since they don't work in vanilla either.

[Tellos Athenaios]

it would be good if you could enable cheats in the next version.

auto win attacker/defender is really useful for players who are sick of fighting 'easy win' battles all the time. once youve done it 1000 times before it just eats away at your enjoyment of the game and theres nothing new to learn from them. autocalc on VH difficulty tends to result in obscene casualties so its not really an option.

On the other hand, if one used a little more strategy, one would simply raise an army that drives those pesky rebels from your lands by attacking them only once each turn - and thus doesn't actually have to fight them, because the rebels flee from it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Impossible, its a set amount that cannot be changed per building.

Foot

Thus, perhaps, if the cost to build it would equal the returned mnai when it's destroyed... or has it to do something with a fixed part of what the construction cost?

[Darkarbiter]

0.8 works in the same way BI works. You'll notice, with BI installed, that there is a seperate folder for BI within the RTW folder, it is in essence a completey different set of files from vanilla. BI is accessed through a seperate .exe file, not the RomeTW.exe for normal RTW. Because they use different .exe files, they are essentially different games and thus have different version numbers. When BI is 1.6, RTW is 1.5. In just the same way that you can choose to play either RTW or BI from the same install, we have modded EB so that you can choose to play RTW and EB from the same install. We are able to do this because we can add a command line to the RomeTW.exe that tells the game to look in a seperate "EB" folder for the modified game files that we use.

This means that on the same install, ie in the same RTW directory, you can have vanilla RTW, BI, Alexander and EB all working seperately and correctly.

the data files for vanilla RTW are found here:
Rome - Total War/data

the BI data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/BI/data

The EB data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/EB/data

Because they are all in seperate data folders the files don't affect each other and thus the all the different games can be played without fear of messing the others up.

Foot

Ive been thinking.... doesnt that meen that having the BI folder is essentially the same as having -mod. Because i know that BI mods that alter vanilla files only can work with the BI directory deleted and since 1.5 is the same as 1.6 the only difference between 1.6 and 1.5 is the BI.exe otherwise BI may as well be a mod.

Im a little hazy about the only difference between 1.5 and 1.6 being the exe (and BI folder) though can anyone correct me/back me up? Obviously registry says its 1.6 too but thats not important.

I was wondering, again, about something I noticed in EB. Whenever my thureophoroi or thorakitai are in melee and I order them to attack an other unit than they were attacking first, they start to 'throw' javelins instead. Now, whenever they do such a thing they get slaughtered in droves (a unit of peltastai once killed half my unit of thorakitai that way ). Could this be due to the 'missile' class of the infantry? Some way to fix it?

Also: aren't the current overhand style animations just missile animations? If so, you could try the overhand style formation in XGM (only if you get permission of course) instead.

Use alt right click to use alternate weopen (missle is allways primary weopen). If you use alt right click they will allways go into melee.

[Corinthian Hoplite]

Are Auxilia units going to exist in 0.8? I think I missed them, are they historically incorrect? What about militia units to act as garrissons?

[Corinthian Hoplite]

I'm looking forward to see realistic unit armour/shield/skill values. Vanilla and most mod's stats were so stupid. Ex: a unit with a helmet and greaves having no armour or two units having the same armour value with completely diferent types of armour, skill values based on gameplay rather than reality, all cavalry having 4 shield defense (regardless of the actual shield size) and infantry shields restricted to 2 and 5, representing it's size in a very rough manner.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I'm looking forward to see realistic unit armour/shield/skill values. Vanilla and most mod's stats were so stupid. Ex: a unit with a helmet and greaves having no armour or two units having the same armour value with completely diferent types of armour, skill values based on gameplay rather than reality, all cavalry having 4 shield defense (regardless of the actual shield size) and infantry shields restricted to 2 and 5, representing it's size in a very rough manner.

Well, I had already told you a bit about this. EB uses a specific incremental system where all armour pieces are accounted for in regard to placement, quality and material used in it. The same goes for weapons who have different speed, lethality, power and are accounted for in accord to their performance as well as ease of use. Also the types of soldier are divided in several classes that reflect their conditioning/training as well as thier status.

[Corinthian Hoplite]

Well, I had already told you a bit about this. EB uses a specific incremental system where all armour pieces are accounted for in regard to placement, quality and material used in it. The same goes for weapons who have different speed, lethality, power and are accounted for in accord to their performance as well as ease of use. Also the types of soldier are divided in several classes that reflect their conditioning/training as well as thier status.

Oh, right, I didn't understand well what you had said earlier
These are great news, I'm always attentive to bugs/gliches and so unit stat's are some of my main concerns. I even modded all vanilla units to make their stats realistic...

[Kull]

I'm looking forward to see realistic unit armour/shield/skill values. Vanilla and most mod's stats were so stupid. Ex: a unit with a helmet and greaves having no armour or two units having the same armour value with completely diferent types of armour, skill values based on gameplay rather than reality, all cavalry having 4 shield defense (regardless of the actual shield size) and infantry shields restricted to 2 and 5, representing it's size in a very rough manner.

As Aymar has indicated, EB uses a very sophisticated system to determine the effects of Armor, and everything else for that matter. Without giving away the full details, here's a look at the different types of just one kind of armor:

	Torso Armor
1	Skin
2	Shirt
3	Soft Leather Armor/Padded
4	Boiled Leather Armor/Linothorax 
5	Chain/Scale
6	Cuirass/Quality Chain

And of course there are similar groups for shields, helmets, and leg armor, not to mention "adder" categories which can improve say Torso and Head armor (Cheek Guards, Chest plates, etc.)

Everything item has a value associated with it, and all is further factored by ability to protect from 1 side, both sides, and/or rear.

So if "complex and realistic" was your hope, sleep easy.

[Corinthian Hoplite]

As Aymar has indicated, EB uses a very sophisticated system to determine the effects of Armor, and everything else for that matter. Without giving away the full details, here's a look at the different types of just one kind of armor:

	Torso Armor
1	Skin
2	Shirt
3	Soft Leather Armor/Padded
4	Boiled Leather Armor/Linothorax 
5	Chain/Scale
6	Cuirass/Quality Chain

And of course there are similar groups for shields, helmets, and leg armor, not to mention "adder" categories which can improve say Torso and Head armor (Cheek Guards, Chest plates, etc.)

Everything item has a value associated with it, and all is further factored by ability to protect from 1 side, both sides, and/or rear.

So if "complex and realistic" was your hope, sleep easy.

I created a system like that for vanilla some time ago, being (unnecessarily) more complex, perhaps too complex Had a hard time creating the system, for it all to be destroyed when I formatted my PC...

I'm glad to have the possibility of helping such a dedicated team.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Use alt right click to use alternate weopen (missle is allways primary weopen). If you use alt right click they will allways go into melee.

Yes, but the point is, that both thorakitai and thurephoroi aren't supposed to pretend that they are some sort of skirmisher. They should be the same sort of unit as hastati in this way that while intended for melee only they have the means to soften the enemy up before closing in. However when they have closed in, they should stick to melee, and to melee only - just like Vanilla Hastati and Principes do.

Methought that this 'fault' could be due to the fact that they are rated as missile infantry, whereas Vanilla Hastati are not.

[Watchman]

Naw. Any and all troops with precursor missile weapons will do that, or at least when they finally get into their thick virtual skulls they're ordered to shoot (they can be a bit slow on the uptake). If you right-click the enemy and they still have ammo left - ie. the cursor changes into that javelin thingy - you're telling them to fire at the enemy period, and if the command gets through the "fog of war" they'll soon start reloading and toss their javelins or whatever at the foe.

This is actually quite useful at times. There's quite a lot of units that have a low armour rating but quite a high defense skill and are thus rather difficult to kill in melee, but them javelins only care about the armour value (and shield)... Judicious use of this technique makes urban assaults against the unarmoured but skilled and numerous African eleutheroi with Libyans rather quicker, for example. And conversely if your unit has AP missiles and non-AP melee weapons (Scutarii come to mind), tossing a volley tends to reduce the numbers of heavily armoured enemies fairly quickly. That all missiles in EB (well, except the javelins on one of those Central Asian light cav... bit of an oversight that one, methinks) have kill rate of round 1 and no melee weapon had above 0.5 doesn't particularly hurt either.

That the soldiers drop everything else and turn into a bit of sitting ducks for the loading and firing sequence is of course a bit troublesome, but may well be worth it given the number of enemies that may well drop in one go. Plus in my experience the throwers usually don't actually suffer too badly, but then again I use Medium battle difficulty...

Anyway, the unit type designation doesn't AFAIK have any game-mechanical effect. It's just there to tell the AI and the assorted formation files where the unit in question is supposed to go and what it's supposed to do; the Other/Missile/Light/Heavy distinction in weapon type AFAIK has no real significance beyond what weapon upgrades the unit gets - in EB nothing gives the upgrade to Missile or Other, but conversely many units have their missiles (typically higher-end infantry with precursors) tagged as for example Light ("simple" in the EDU) instead of Missile ("archery" in the EDU, IIRC) and thus get the bonus (which incidentally affects both the ranged and melee attack value). Thus for example Thureophoroi (whose javelins are rated "missile") never get the upgrade, but Gaesatae (whose javelins are tagged as "simple"/Light) do.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well that explains then, thanks Watchman.

Still wondering though about the 'unit' and 'description' thingies I stated before...

[Watchman]

Still wondering though about the 'unit' and 'description' thingies I stated before...

Didn't I try to explain them in that last paragraph already ?
Okay, I'll try again. In the EDU Thureophoroi are given the unit type "spearmen" (or more specifically, "category - infantry" and "class - spearmen"). This tells the assorted formation text files and the AI what these units are used for and where they are put in the battle order, nothing more.

Now, the "tech type" of their primary weapon (the precursor javelin) is "archery". This is the one that appears as "Missile" in the unit info card - it's always the primary weapon whose type shows up there, period. The only effect this has is in the context of the weapon-upgrade blacksmithy building, which does boost Light and Heavy weapons (respectively the "tech types" "simple" and "blade" in the EDU) as well as armour, but not Missile weapons. Ergo, Thureophoroi never get the weapon upgrade as the engine only looks up the primary weapon's type in the context; that the spear the Thureos use for melee is typed "simple" doesn't interest it one bit. Ditto for quite a few other precursor-spearman units, such as Libyan Spearmen, Mala Gaeroas, Frameharjoz and so on. Dedicated skirmishers too.

Conversely Iberian Assault Infantry have their primary-weapon precursor javelins tagged as tech type "blade" (Heavy on the unit info card), and get the bonus point from blacksmiths. Ditto for most other swordsmen who have precursors - they're just about all designated as "simple" or "blade" and are thus upgrade-able.

To my knowledge this is the exact only effect that weapon attribute has.

[Darkarbiter]

You can change reload and fire times for units if you think they are taking too long to fire their missles.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Didn't I try to explain them in that last paragraph already ?

I was talking about a few previous posts of mine, on the previous page (page 30) of this thread. One about Iudaioi taxeis and Haravautish/Harauvatish, and another about 'ho basileus'/'ho basileos' and such in unit descriptions.

I apologize...

[Sdragon]

Yes, but the point is, that both thorakitai and thurephoroi aren't supposed to pretend that they are some sort of skirmisher. They should be the same sort of unit as hastati in this way that while intended for melee only they have the means to soften the enemy up before closing in. However when they have closed in, they should stick to melee, and to melee only - just like Vanilla Hastati and Principes do.

Vanilla Hastati and Principes have the same javalin throwing problem. Used to drive me nuts. (Lost more than one unit of Hastati because of it before I learned Alt) Any unit that is melee but has a javalin WILL want to throw it if you order an attack, nomatter how retarted that doing so is. So it's vanilla thing and not just a thorakitai one. (Not of course if you hold Alt when ordering an attack)