Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

[WinsingtonIII]

This question may be a bit (OK, maybe even really) premature, but I was wondering if the team was considering making EB2 a mod-foldered mod so that when you install the mod it does not directly modify the base files in the M2TW directory but instead has it's own mod-folder.

The reason I ask is because I remember that to install EB1 you had to have a clean install of RTW. Now, I do use one mod for M2TW (Chivalry II it's called), but it is mod-foldered so that the underlying files are unchanged, and therefore my M2TW is still technically a clean install, which is something I have tried to keep that way just in case EB2 requires a clean install. However, if EB2 directly overwrites the main directory files, this could mean that other mods (and vanilla if you really wanted to play it) would not function properly. Now, I'm obviously willing to sacrifice all other mods for the greatness that will be EB2, but I do enjoy medieval era mods sometimes, and it would be nice to be able to keep them. So, just a suggestion, if it's possible to mod-folder EB2 it would be nice, because then other mods could still function without strange problems.

[Foot]

EBI is mod-foldered, we don't effect any of the vanilla files. When it comes to EBII we will endeavour to make it mod-foldered. However it appears that at least one file needs to replace a vanilla file (the banner.xml one), however we will probably work on a start-up script that will copy our one over when you play and then replace it when you have finished.

Foot

[WinsingtonIII]

EBI is mod-foldered, we don't effect any of the vanilla files. When it comes to EBII we will endeavour to make it mod-foldered. However it appears that at least one file needs to replace a vanilla file (the banner.xml one), however we will probably work on a start-up script that will copy our one over when you play and then replace it when you have finished.

Foot

Oh OK, thanks for the information. For some reason I thought EB1 was not mod-foldered, I don't know where I got that idea. That's an interesting idea for working around the fact that one file needs to overwrite. Thanks again for letting me know.

[Andy1984]

I've got two questions and a suggestion regarding EBII, so here they are:

(1) My first question relates to the usage of four-horse chariots in battles. We know these chariots were used in parades and ceremonies. Montvert believes these chariots to be used at Magnesia, but his only source for this is Livius (who could hardly have been more informed about the battle than we are). Persians seem to have deployed four-horse chariots as well. I haven't found a credible source yet for the deployment of four-horse chariots, but if I will I'll let you know. My question is whether the EBII-team considers four-horse chariots? (RS has a four-horse chariot as unit.)

(2) Has the MTW2-engine or the Kingdoms-engine been known to retrain AI-units? In other words: are we likely to see an EBII-AI that retrains her units as well?

(3) My third is more a suggestion. In EBI, I didn't encounter that many truly impressive empires (apart from the ones at the start of the timeframe). While it is certainly true that Rome and her allies weren't bound to become the empire they would become, the Roman empire in my opinion demonstrates clearly that at least the administration, cohesion or any other factor of centralization could be found to turn one of the starting factions into an empire of the Roman size. I believe the reason why the AI in EBI fails to grow to these sizes is the following. Thanks to the wonderful moneyscript, each faction is capable to have at least some funds, with an average of 20.000/2=10.000 mnai to spend each turn. This enables smaller and poorer factions to build out their economy, hire some mercenaries and eventually forge their own mini-Hai or mini-Pontos empires. However: they hardly grow beyond a certain size, even if the player leaves them alone. This is because eventually, this 10.000 mnai on average isn't sufficient to construct buildings or to wage the multifront wars the Romani, the AS or even the owners of the Agean are engaged in. The bigger these empires, the more opponents to engage who have equally 10.000 mnai to spend on little more than mercenaries (since they have far less settlements, like Bactria).

If we add a minor adjustment to the money-script, this problem would be solved (that is: if the team believes this to be a problem). If we give each faction 20.000 mnai until their finances are positive, and an additional 500 mnai for each settlement owned on top of this already positive treasury, an AI would have on average 10.000 + 500*s to spend. This would be 11.000 for a two settlement faction (which enables them to do just anything they do in EBI), and a stunning 15.000 mnai for a 10-settlement faction. I believe this would enable AI-factions to grow to an even bigger size than they do now. It would also reflect the idea that bigger empires were capable to muster greater forces (whether mercenary or more soldier-like).

If the team is convinced empires of the Roman or Alexandrian size are too ahistorical for the given time-frame because of administrative or cohesion-related limitations, shouldn't these limitations be imposed by unrest due to the 'distance to capital' and related traits instead of financial limitations? This can be realized by giving fewer happiness-bonusses to buildings, which would make it harder for both the player and the AI to subdue far-away regions.

kind regards and thanks in advance,

Andy

[Ludens]

I can only reply to the third question. While I don't have EB installed on this computer, I know that the early versions of the money script did give a bonus per city. However, this made the silver/yellow death problem even worse. I am not sure how your solution will help start-up empires but not the existing ones. Secondly, you cannot draw conclusions about faction-expansion on the basis of EB1. The M2:TW strategic A.I. may not work the same, and there are many new options (and new factions) to consider.

[Andy1984]

I can only reply to the third question. While I don't have EB installed on this computer, I know that the early versions of the money script did give a bonus per city. However, this made the silver/yellow death problem even worse. I am not sure how your solution will help start-up empires but not the existing ones.

I didn't know the team already experimented with bonusses per city. Please discard the following text. I typed it earlier, but now realise it has certain major flaws in it. One of them being the fact that expanding empires already receive huge financial bonusses by looting big cities (which doesn't seem to pull off the empire-building I expected it to do). Therefore I believe this idea needs to be better worked out by me, before I can even hope to make a decent statement. I left the text so those interested could read it.

Even existing empires would not be sustainable for prolongued periods of time, because even existing empires will still have too limited resources when they start throwing away their money by depletion of the mercenary-pool in Sardinia. I believe the difference made is that factions that expand thanks to either luck or great generals are more likely to hold on temporarily to their resources because they now have some extra funds to do so. Existing empires would also benefit from it, but only in the short run. Because even for them, building ships or sending an army to Arabia is not going to rescue their empire. In the long run, it seems to be a matter of time before even the additional bonusses gained from cities are insufficient and factions start to overexpand... leading to a collapse. The higher the bonus per city given, the greater the variability of the size of (bigger) empires. The smaller this additional-city-bonus, or the bigger the standard amount of money each city gets, the smaller this variability.

These are issues not faced by smaller factions, as they tend to be the ones without military harbors, or without opportunities to place stacks without moving them (Southern-Italy, Southern-Iran, North-Africa, Arabia). Whatever the Lusotanni or Bactria do in the beginning of the game, they'll almost immediately benefit from it. If they initiate a construction, this will add to their demographic growth or to the quality of units trained. If they deplete some mercenary pool, these mercenaries will be standing next to their capital and close to the target they'll attack. Smaller factions, or at least factions that can't build ships, seem to be run more efficiently by the AI. Hence my idea to compensate for it. But it will be a subtle balancing, that's for sure.

Secondly, you cannot draw conclusions about faction-expansion on the basis of EB1. The M2:TW strategic A.I. may not work the same, and there are many new options (and new factions) to consider.

You're right. We should wait and see how factions in EB2 behave. In the mean-time I can experiment with different money-scripts in EB1.

kind regards,

Andy

[mydognamedrikki]

Dont know if this was asked or answered, but will the Kingdoms, Steam Version of the game work with this mod

[XSamatan]

It will. You will have to break the launcher, meaning it might be difficult to play several mods at teh same time, but it will work just as the 'real' version.

XSamatan

[Chelovyek]

Is the original EB music going to be kept for EBII? Is it likely that any new music will be added?

[Ludens]

It's not easy to find skilled musicians that are willing to donate their work, so the original music will be kept. I assume the team will try to add new music, but I don't think that is a priority.

[Balbor]

If we add a minor adjustment to the money-script, this problem would be solved (that is: if the team believes this to be a problem). If we give each faction 20.000 mnai until their finances are positive, and an additional 500 mnai for each settlement owned on top of this already positive treasury, an AI would have on average 10.000 + 500*s to spend. This would be 11.000 for a two settlement faction (which enables them to do just anything they do in EBI), and a stunning 15.000 mnai for a 10-settlement faction. I believe this would enable AI-factions to grow to an even bigger size than they do now. It would also reflect the idea that bigger empires were capable to muster greater forces (whether mercenary or more soldier-like).

If the team is convinced empires of the Roman or Alexandrian size are too ahistorical for the given time-frame because of administrative or cohesion-related limitations, shouldn't these limitations be imposed by unrest due to the 'distance to capital' and related traits instead of financial limitations? This can be realized by giving fewer happiness-bonusses to buildings, which would make it harder for both the player and the AI to subdue far-away regions.

kind regards and thanks in advance,

Andy

Stainless Steel uses a money script to give the AI extra help but it's not without its problems. I've found many factions are always bankrupt, even though they are getting loads of extra money, this is because they cannot afford the upkeep of there armies but at the start of each turn they are given more money to recruit more units, so they get into a never ending cycle. Using Spy and assassins to destroy the infostructure of settlements or blockading busy ports becomes pointless and ineffective as they don't any any money anyway except for the start of there turn and they spend it automaticlly. This might not be a problem with EB2 if the recruit refresh times are increased (to represent the 4 turns per year as oppsosed to 1 turn per year) and reduce the number of recruitment slots (3 max should really be enough) that way the factions won't be able to chrun out 20+ units every turn and its cash reserves would be able to build up.

I'm pritty sure he AI does retrain units in M2TW. They always seem to bring units up to full strengh if they are in a plague infected city.

[Balbor]

will settlement upgrades be linked to the walls like they are in M2TW, I hope not as i like the idea of huge settlements with basic walls

[XSamatan]

I doubt this can be made, IIRC there is atm nobody in the mod-sphere capable of doing this.

XSamatan

[Balbor]

I doubt this can be made, IIRC there is atm nobody in the mod-sphere capable of doing this.

XSamatan

so all huge cities will have massive walls? :(

[Foot]

so all huge cities will have massive walls? :(

Sort of. They don't have to, but to attack them you need to get suitable siege equipment for the wall that they are set to have. However, if you take away the wall bonus the walls won't actually appear on the battlemap, iirc.

Foot

[Balbor]

Sort of. They don't have to, but to attack them you need to get suitable siege equipment for the wall that they are set to have. However, if you take away the wall bonus the walls won't actually appear on the battlemap, iirc.

Foot

So on the campaign map the walls are there as far as the game is concerned and it won't let you attack without correct equipment or open doors?

Can the Wall bonuses be applied to another building to allow a settlement with fake walls build them later on?

Another building/settlement question.

Is it possible for 2 different building to give bonuses to different religion conversion? So building 1 is converting religion 1 by +15% and building 2 is converting religion 2 at 10%, so overall religion 1 is converting 5% of the population.

[Foot]

So on the campaign map the walls are there as far as the game is concerned and it won't let you attack without correct equipment or open doors?

Yes.

Can the Wall bonuses be applied to another building to allow a settlement with fake walls build them later on?

Yes

Another building/settlement question.

Is it possible for 2 different building to give bonuses to different religion conversion? So building 1 is converting religion 1 by +15% and building 2 is converting religion 2 at 10%, so overall religion 1 is converting 5% of the population.

Yes, if you fudge it. A building of one type of religion will be destroyed if the settlement is conquered by a faction of another religion, so this couldn't be done mid-game (though I can't recall how the game handles hinterland buildings and this feature). However, it would only give an overal bonus of 5% if there were only two religions. However, this isn't something that we could reasonably do in game due to the auto-destruct nature of "religious" buildings.

Foot

[Balbor]

Yes, if you fudge it. A building of one type of religion will be destroyed if the settlement is conquered by a faction of another religion, so this couldn't be done mid-game (though I can't recall how the game handles hinterland buildings and this feature). However, it would only give an overal bonus of 5% if there were only two religions. However, this isn't something that we could reasonably do in game due to the auto-destruct nature of "religious" buildings.

Foot

Is it possible for a factions building list to include building for different religions conversion, or is religion hard coded to give a bonues to what ever the settlements controlling factions religion is?

[QuintusSertorius]

Is someone going to update the question about factions with the Getai, Qart-Hadast and Romani?

[B-Wing]

Is it possible for a factions building list to include building for different religions conversion, or is religion hard coded to give a bonues to what ever the settlements controlling factions religion is?

I can't remember exactly how it works, but I do believe it is impossible for a settlement to have religious buildings that differ from the owner faction's. I read somewhere on a thread about the mechanics of religion in M2TW that opposing religious buildings are automatically destroyed when a different religion takes over.

[QuintusSertorius]

I was looking again at the February Preview, in particular the hoplites. Has the problem of secondary weapons for hoplites been fixed in EB2? As in do hoplite units now have swords as secondary weapons once again?

An unrelated point, but how easy is it to do a migrated faction game in the M2:TW engine? Are the console commands the same? While there's no need to do an Pergamene (or Bosphoran) one now, I quite like playing as Kyrene, which isn't a faction.

[QuintusSertorius]

What are the system requirements for EBII? I'll be needing to get a new computer anyway, since I can't run M2:TW on this old rig, what should I be aiming for? Should I be avoiding the 64-bit O/S like the plague (given all the problems they seem to cause EBI)?

[bobbin]

I have vista 64 and it runs fine.

I don't think we can give a system requirements as it isn't finished yet although as of now it runs perfect with maxed out settings on my 3Ghz E8400, 4gb ram & 512mb ati HD4870.

[QuintusSertorius]

The funny thing is though that you only should be able to ransom nobles (not just FMs though, "noble" units too) as they were the only ones worth the money. Peasant levies etc. were usually killed on spot. (Concerning M(2):TW ransom mechancis)

In Hellenistic warfare, it wasn't just nobles who might be spared. Mercenaries in particular might be hired by the army who captured them, if they were good.

[Ca Putt]

(trolling a bit): what about levies and kleucheroi? I presume It'd be much more profitable to main tain them as farmers as their loyalities are not as close as that of higher ranks.(note this is a question)
concerning the ransom mechanism, ransoming mercs(and not the odd pezhetairos, princeps, Dugunth(damn singular), Steppe rider etc.) would not really make sence tho.

[QuintusSertorius]

(trolling a bit): what about levies and kleucheroi? I presume It'd be much more profitable to main tain them as farmers as their loyalities are not as close as that of higher ranks.(note this is a question)
concerning the ransom mechanism, ransoming mercs(and not the odd pezhetairos, princeps, Dugunth(damn singular), Steppe rider etc.) would not really make sence tho.

A significant proportion of those fighting in Hellenistic armies on both sides were mercenaries. They knew the business of war and could be counted on to perform all the boring tasks that make up campaigning. They would fight as much as they needed to, and no more. There were campaigns won by simply buying the other side, rather than fighting them.

Given they were on both sides (friends, relatives and other family on different sides of the battle), and their loyalties were interchangeable, it didn't make sense to alienate them by executing them. How then might the mercs in your own service feel, if your enemies extended the same courtesy to them in the event they were captured?

[Ca Putt]

no, I know that. I asked: waht about peasants, as they may not be hired on the field by the winner but may hae been usefull to cultiate the conquered land.
with it does not make sence to ransom them I did not mean that they'd be executed but that paying ransom for mercs is rather strange. don't always think the other one is opposing you, that makes conversation much more annoying and much less fun ;)

[QuintusSertorius]

no, I know that. I asked: waht about peasants, as they may not be hired on the field by the winner but may hae been usefull to cultiate the conquered land.
with it does not make sence to ransom them I did not mean that they'd be executed but that paying ransom for mercs is rather strange. don't always think the other one is opposing you, that makes conversation much more annoying and much less fun ;)

I agree, killing the men who'd be tilling your new conquests doesn't make a lot of sense. In wars between "civilised" powers, I expect prisoners were taken and executing them was seen as bad form.

[QuintusSertorius]

I someone going to update the stickied previews thread, and the first page of this one with the new info?

[Foot]

no, I know that. I asked: waht about peasants, as they may not be hired on the field by the winner but may hae been usefull to cultiate the conquered land.
with it does not make sence to ransom them I did not mean that they'd be executed but that paying ransom for mercs is rather strange. don't always think the other one is opposing you, that makes conversation much more annoying and much less fun ;)

Doesn't make any difference. Ransom mechanics are not modifiable in the way that would be necessary to tweak it correctly. Its not worth worrying about.

Foot