EB balance. Again.

[Bereg]

I have several questions and/or suggestions concerning EB. But first of all, I have to say that I'm not a native english speaker and had very little practice in it. So mistakes in the text are possible (and even expected). Please, stay calm. I'll try to explain something again if my grammar is so bad, that it's hard to understand.

1. Temples of war (that give morale bonuses to newly recruited units) seem to be broken. I haven't tried them for all nations, but sauromatae and seleukid units are hired without bonuses. Is it broken or I'm doing something wrong?
2. Unit stats. I know, that mod developers told that it's still not final balance version of EB, so I won't complain about particular numbers. But it seems that sometimes balancing is done on wrong principles. As far as I understand, armor value applied only to attacks from behind. But units, that have one breast plate that covers them from the front still get higher armor values and so become more protected from the back. Maybe it would be better to distribute those armor values between parry/shield?
3. Government zones, MICs, etc. Alexander the Great managed to invade Asia and create homeland zones far away from home. So, why can't we do so? For example, I've captured one of the provinces far away from home. And slaughtered all population there, leaving 400 or so people alive. Then I've disbanded small army of troops and got more then one thousand population... But it still weren't my homeland! But why? Yes, it's historically realistic to have national units trained only in some areas but it's logically unrealistic.
Romans, being less bloodthirsty than I am, ;) used cultural expansion as one of their most powerful weapons. It provided recruits for them even from the distant lands. They've brought trade first, then education, ability to join military ranks, then citizen rights to their colonies, transforming them into fully romanised lands. So why can't I transform some lands into my homelands through a series of assimilation projects? It's not a gameplay issue - local units and mercs that are already there are more then enough to conquer the world - but a logical one.
Of course, it's still should be impossible to change government type in some cases (for example, no nomad horde could be trained in european forests or arabian deserts, leaving pastoralism as an only option), but I still don't understand, why can't I change it at all.
I don't really know limits of RTW script engine. But if it's possible to change buildings (a.k.a cultural areas) by disbanding one type of unit if some conditions are met (population in province), then it should be possible to make "bloody cultural revolution". By making "settler-unit" with no battle value but with size of 1-5 thousands of men and then disbanding it in such province. Maybe it would be necessary to add some hidden resource or something.
And peaceful cultural invasions could be made by a simple series of buildings. If it's possible to add new building types, of course.
4. The same problem with "technological" revolutions. Pahlava can shift from nomad stile to civilised. Germanic tribes can acquire military reforms. And romans... ;) Those revolutions are not guaranteed, but still possible. But, for example, why Saka Rauka or Sauromatae can't adopt roman or carthagian inventions? When WRE falled, barbarians that conquered it, adopted some of the roman technology, learning and cultural practises. Why can't I do the same with my barb hordes?
It shouldn't be completely historically realistic (well, I don't ask you to simulate all roman allied city states inside Italian peninsula, I know of the engine limitation on provinces), but, for example, I think that by conquering Greece player should be able to adapt their traditions and build theaters, academies, roads, etc. Just like romans adapted them from hellens. Maybe such reforms should occur not always. But at least if there's some family member clever and influential enough to do so (like during Marian reforms).

All those are observations/suggestions because I have very little practice in modding RTW itself.

[mcantu]

For #2. Armor applies to attacks from all directions; shield applies to attacks from the front and front/left; defense skill is parrying bonus that applies to attacks from the front and front/right.

[Bereg]

My mistake. But only armor applied from the rear. So breastplates should not be counted in armor value, but instead distributed between parry/shield.

[Korlon]

1. Morale bonuses from buildings, if they're broken, it's a hardcoded issue straight from vanilla. And I'm guessing you really think it's morale rather than think it'll give extra experience to newly recruited troops. I've heard that the morale bonus doesn't actually apply to newly created troops, only for troops stationed at that town. I've never noticed the effects that well as I hardly ever build those.

3. The "population" in a city in EB is generally thought of as the amount of people that you can recruit into your armies. There would be hundreds of thousands of others besides that that you can't see. And yes, the thing about the settler of one to five thousand troops is hardcoded, probably. For the other things, somebody else can probably field better than I can.

4. I've actually seen this question pop up quite a few times. Generally, if the thing didn't happen in real life, it probably won't be included in here, but others can explain it better than I can.

[LorDBulA]

2. Unit stats. I know, that mod developers told that it's still not final balance version of EB, so I won't complain about particular numbers. But it seems that sometimes balancing is done on wrong principles. As far as I understand, armor value applied only to attacks from behind. But units, that have one breast plate that covers them from the front still get higher armor values and so become more protected from the back. Maybe it would be better to distribute those armor values between parry/shield?

Armour as was said protects from all sides.
Adding this point to shield instead is also not very good solution because shield is not effected by AP weapon bonus.
Both solutions have problems, we have made our choice.

Point 3 and 4.

Basically there is no way to represent this with satisfying level of accuracy using RTW as an engine. Nothing more to be said.

[Ludens]

I think the problem with 3 and 4 is that it would be too difficult to implement. Especially since these reforms require building markers, and EB is out of building space. Also, the team does not want to go too far into speculative history. Something is included if happened historically, or if the faction in question at least made a good (well-documented) attempt at it. Else there would be no end to the units you'd have to include.