Is EBII campaign Longer in time and years ?

[eddy_purpus]

will it have more years ?
because i would like to play EBII if it was like a little longer
like it starts from 273 bc and it ends on 100 ac .
nothing special .
i just would like to play a longer campaign

[Admetos]

The problem with that is that the extra 90 years would require their own new units, which means that model slots would need to be freed up, thus lessening the accuracy and on the timeframe at the moment.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Adding those hundred years would not only require more units, but there were factions that came and when in the time frame and the limited faction slots would take away realism of that late time period.

I don't think anyone has reached the current end date (AD14) in EB1, anyways. Besides, by the time you've played that long, even if there were new factions, nothing would be a challenge anymore.

[General Appo]

Why make the campaign go to 100 AD when almost no players has reached further then 100 BC? Just a load of work that nobody will ever benefit from.
Besides, if at 14 AD you still have a challenge with anything but civil disorder, then you either suck or have deliberately done nothing at all for hundreds of years.

[Morte66]

I think it would make more sense to reduce the timeframe. Let it run from 272bc to the Marians (or whatever), then do a second campaign starting roughly when the first ends.

That way you could have factions that are "questionable" in 272BC (Parthia, Bactria) in the later campaign without bending the truth.

You'd get around one of RTW's Achille's heels, the way the the "barbarian" factions don't learn (e.g. to build paved roads) as they become more urbanised.

You'd get around the game starting to become boring after you hit 30-50 provinces and the opposition turn into speed bumps, and the distance to capital penalties cause more difficulty than the enemy.

You'd mitigate the disconnect between the actual history that the EB team privilege and the alternate history that players create in the game by reducing the scope for factions to expand non-historically.

[Gebeleisis]

K.I.S

keep it simple

[Puupertti Ruma]

will it have more years ?
because i would like to play EBII if it was like a little longer
like it starts from 273 bc and it ends on 100 ac .
nothing special .
i just would like to play a longer campaign

So you aren't satisfied with the 1136 turns that EB has?

Please note that EB has 4 turns in a year, which amounts to 2 times longer campaign than in vanilla Rome Total War. I don't know of Medieval 2 but I'd reckon it is about the same as Rome.

[Ailfertes]

In Medieval there's 1 turn per 2 years

[Moosemanmoo]

In Medieval there's 1 turn per 2 years

oh yeah, God knows I hate it when marching from London to Scotland takes over 6 years!

[General Appo]

But characters still only age 6 months per turn, so your general usually live for like 300 years even though the game says they´re only 75. Stupid game.

[Copperknickers]

That has been fixed though.

On topic, unfortunatly not feasible i expect, as it would neccesitate the inclusion of (dare i say it?)

*whispers*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Lorica Segmenatata

[Tellos Athenaios]

Some concepts:

1) Alpaca's 4tpy script for M2TW;
2) The Late Period Project, pehaps on day in the future it shall live ?

[Hax]

2) The Late Period Project, pehaps on day in the future it shall live ?

Lo! Heareth Tellos Athenaios spread Ye Darke Rumours!

[Cartaphilus]

I think it would make more sense to reduce the timeframe. Let it run from 272bc to the Marians (or whatever), then do a second campaign starting roughly when the first ends.

That way you could have factions that are "questionable" in 272BC (Parthia, Bactria) in the later campaign without bending the truth.

You'd get around one of RTW's Achille's heels, the way the the "barbarian" factions don't learn (e.g. to build paved roads) as they become more urbanised.

You'd get around the game starting to become boring after you hit 30-50 provinces and the opposition turn into speed bumps, and the distance to capital penalties cause more difficulty than the enemy.

You'd mitigate the disconnect between the actual history that the EB team privilege and the alternate history that players create in the game by reducing the scope for factions to expand non-historically.

That would be perfect, so It won't happen. :(

In the late campaign, we can have some interesting factions, and the roman juggernaut could be divided in a cool civil war (the first or the second triunvirate).

[Bellum]

Heh, EB is more than long enough as it is. I've yet to sit through an entire campaign, and if they keep making new versions.... God, I'll end up starting campaigns over for the rest of my life. Can't wait for EB III, btw.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I have never managed to get further than something like 160 b.C in a campaign. (Playing as Saba in EB 1.0)

Therefore, I think that the length of the campaign is great just as it is, as even though I have played for ca. 448 turns (4*112), more than half of the game's time span is still ahead of me.
Then again, I don't think that the team had any plans to change it anyway...

[Spartan198]

On topic, unfortunatly not feasible i expect, as it would neccesitate the inclusion of (dare i say it?)

*whispers*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Lorica Segmenatata

A shocking prospect!

[dumuzi]

I think it would make more sense to reduce the timeframe. Let it run from 272bc to the Marians (or whatever), then do a second campaign starting roughly when the first ends.

That way you could have factions that are "questionable" in 272BC (Parthia, Bactria) in the later campaign without bending the truth.

You'd get around one of RTW's Achille's heels, the way the the "barbarian" factions don't learn (e.g. to build paved roads) as they become more urbanised.

You'd get around the game starting to become boring after you hit 30-50 provinces and the opposition turn into speed bumps, and the distance to capital penalties cause more difficulty than the enemy.

You'd mitigate the disconnect between the actual history that the EB team privilege and the alternate history that players create in the game by reducing the scope for factions to expand non-historically.

I think this could be an excellent idea to add a bit to what is already a quite complete game.
It wouldnt require any new units since EB already covers this period, and I dont think that anyone will complain that there is less scope for development (many of the advanced buildings will have been already made). It would just be a different experience; maybe a little less "complete" than the original, but with the novelty of playing out a different historical situation. It could be done by simply (er, not so simply, I know...) making a new map, and giving the appropriate reforms and buildings to factions.
As a side note, my own specialty is late Hellenistic history (religion in particular) so if anyone is planning on following up on this, I would be very happy to help with the historical reseach/advice.

[Tyrfingr]

To make the longer games more exciting and not just a fight against public order, can't it be coded that the longer you hold a settlement, the more "incorporated" it becomes with the owner faction and public order is reduced.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

It would be an incredible amount of work to have two campaigns. Different leaders, different scripts, different starting positions, different important cities, etc. We won't be making two campaigns.

[dumuzi]

It would be an incredible amount of work to have two campaigns. Different leaders, different scripts, different starting positions, different important cities, etc. We won't be making two campaigns.

Uh ok, cool; good to know.
If anyone would be interested in modding EB with me; well, like I said late Hellenistic History is my academic area of focus so I could provide a lot of the background reasearch grunt work. Well for the Roman and Hellenic factions anyways, although I could also cover some of the other ones, I'm sure. My knowledge of computer programming ends as ctrl+alt+del, so someone else would have to help out with the implementation.

[Bellum]

It would be an incredible amount of work to have two campaigns. Different leaders, different scripts, different starting positions, different important cities, etc. We won't be making two campaigns.

Good to hear. I think I prefer one long campaign anyway.