Org Mobile Site
I got the idea for this thread from a poll I started regarding the making of EB2. Naturally, it developed into a discussion about the things in EB2 and how it will be different from EB1. Thus, with people so focused on the new things that will be present in EB2, I thought it would be productive to talk about the old things in EB1 that people are uncomfortable with, or dislike, and would like to see fixed in EB2. For is it not that things are made better by improving upon them and adjusting that which contains problems, rather than trying to make something completely new and different? So what are they?
To make things more clear, list your items and, if you want, explain your reasoning for such opinions after the list. Try to be specific. These are mine:
1) Battle Map Fighting (Yea they are elite, armored units, but come on, they are not supermen!)
2) Campaign AI (I offer an army-less, money-less, territory-less faction peace for nothing and they refuse with the attitude that they can still kick my @$$!)
3) Ending Date/Time period (Personally, I wish EB2 would be more "Imperial" than "Republican," but if it must be, at least go into it, don't stop at it's beginning)
*I think this one is especially relevant, for Rome did not stop growing until Trajan's days...
4) Illyria (Like Aristotle used to say, if Gaul, then why not Illyria???)
5) Or for that matter Numidia, Mauretania, Belgae, Aquitainia, Dacia, Scythia and Thrace! (These were all unique people with unique customs and heritages - I wouldn't put such "tribes" as Massalia, Crete, Rhodes, etc. as a faction because they only really comprised 1 single province/town and were part of a greater culture, not its embodiment)
6) New/more formation alignments... would be great to be able to deploy in triple line, or alexanders cavalry/phalanx, with a simple click... as the real generals of old used to do!
To make things more clear, list your items and, if you want, explain your reasoning for such opinions after the list. Try to be specific. These are mine:
1) Battle Map Fighting (Yea they are elite, armored units, but come on, they are not supermen!)
2) Campaign AI (I offer an army-less, money-less, territory-less faction peace for nothing and they refuse with the attitude that they can still kick my @$$!)
3) Ending Date/Time period (Personally, I wish EB2 would be more "Imperial" than "Republican," but if it must be, at least go into it, don't stop at it's beginning)
*I think this one is especially relevant, for Rome did not stop growing until Trajan's days...
4) Illyria (Like Aristotle used to say, if Gaul, then why not Illyria???)
5) Or for that matter Numidia, Mauretania, Belgae, Aquitainia, Dacia, Scythia and Thrace! (These were all unique people with unique customs and heritages - I wouldn't put such "tribes" as Massalia, Crete, Rhodes, etc. as a faction because they only really comprised 1 single province/town and were part of a greater culture, not its embodiment)
6) New/more formation alignments... would be great to be able to deploy in triple line, or alexanders cavalry/phalanx, with a simple click... as the real generals of old used to do!
(1) What exactly? One-on-one units tend to last quite a while; but the right `push' or `shove' crushes even elite units like they're simply not there.
(2) Not our bug, essentially. It is a problem deep down in the core AI which is largely unaffected by what we can mod*
(3) Not going to happen; in fact if we are really pressed for unit slots we'd probably drop Imperial units altogether. As it is, Imperial reforms pretty much marks the death of the Republic as we know it in EB. No faction is remotely accurate in 14 AD as it is portrayed in EB: expansion, for one thing, is all wrong; and for many factions the depiction of internal structure and culture would be anachronistic (as these developed much more in the real world than is possible within the game) not to mention that units would be outdated, too.
(2) Not our bug, essentially. It is a problem deep down in the core AI which is largely unaffected by what we can mod*
(3) Not going to happen; in fact if we are really pressed for unit slots we'd probably drop Imperial units altogether. As it is, Imperial reforms pretty much marks the death of the Republic as we know it in EB. No faction is remotely accurate in 14 AD as it is portrayed in EB: expansion, for one thing, is all wrong; and for many factions the depiction of internal structure and culture would be anachronistic (as these developed much more in the real world than is possible within the game) not to mention that units would be outdated, too.
Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69:
1) Battle Map Fighting (Yea they are elite, armored units, but come on, they are not supermen!)
What do you mean by this?1) Battle Map Fighting (Yea they are elite, armored units, but come on, they are not supermen!)
Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69:
2) Campaign AI (I offer an army-less, money-less, territory-less faction peace for nothing and they refuse with the attitude that they can still kick my @$$!)
Diplomacy in M2TW is still as shit as in Rome: TW, so it won't be any better, I fear it's hardcoded. That's why people use that forced diplomacy mod.2) Campaign AI (I offer an army-less, money-less, territory-less faction peace for nothing and they refuse with the attitude that they can still kick my @$$!)
Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69:
3) Ending Date/Time period (Personally, I wish EB2 would be more "Imperial" than "Republican," but if it must be, at least go into it, don't stop at it's beginning)
*I think this one is especially relevant, for Rome did not stop growing until Trajan's days...
The game is not about Rome alone ;). Besides, it already has over a thousand turns, that's REALLY long.3) Ending Date/Time period (Personally, I wish EB2 would be more "Imperial" than "Republican," but if it must be, at least go into it, don't stop at it's beginning)
*I think this one is especially relevant, for Rome did not stop growing until Trajan's days...
Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69:
4) Illyria (Like Aristotle used to say, if Gaul, then why not Illyria???)
They're still working on the new factions, though I doubt any Illyrian tribe will be playable. You should look for the criteria for faction-inclusion on these forums and see if they fit any of those.4) Illyria (Like Aristotle used to say, if Gaul, then why not Illyria???)
Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69:
5) Or for that matter Numidia, Mauretania, Belgae, Dacia, and Thrace! (These were all unique people with unique customs and heritages - I wouldn't put such "tribes" as Massalia, Crete, Rhodes, etc. as a faction because they only really comprised 1 single province/town and were part of a greater culture, not its embodiment)
Again, they're still working on new factions, but you should read the previews, 'cause then you'd know that: Numidians are in, represented by the Kingdom of Massylia, and Dacians and Thracians are already in EB1, just check out the Getai.5) Or for that matter Numidia, Mauretania, Belgae, Dacia, and Thrace! (These were all unique people with unique customs and heritages - I wouldn't put such "tribes" as Massalia, Crete, Rhodes, etc. as a faction because they only really comprised 1 single province/town and were part of a greater culture, not its embodiment)
Factions are political units, not cultural.
Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69:
6) New/more formation alignments... would be great to be able to deploy in triple line, or alexanders cavalry/phalanx, with a simple click... as the real generals of old used do!
Hardcoded again, I fear.6) New/more formation alignments... would be great to be able to deploy in triple line, or alexanders cavalry/phalanx, with a simple click... as the real generals of old used do!
Personally, the biggest issues I have are with the AI, and those should've been fixed by CA, but alas, the AI is still bad :(.
Originally Posted by Arkhis:
Diplomacy in M2TW is still as shit as in Rome: TW, so it won't be any better, I fear it's hardcoded. That's why people use that forced diplomacy mod.
Actually, it's better. I've been playing TATW for some time and when I really started to beat up an evil faction, they came suing for peace despite still bordering me (didn't help them as their last settlements were taken by the AI Dwarven Empire, hehe).Diplomacy in M2TW is still as shit as in Rome: TW, so it won't be any better, I fear it's hardcoded. That's why people use that forced diplomacy mod.
M2TW's AI is still retarded but believe me it's an improvement over RTW's, at least on the campaign map.
I'd like to see some improvements on the map in the middle-east. Specifically the incorrect locations of some of the settlements, such as Susa or Mazaka, as well as some geographic improvements to the Atropatene province. But this is mostly just nitpicking by a map freak.
Originally Posted by Epimetheus:
I'd like to see some improvements on the map in the middle-east. Specifically the incorrect locations of some of the settlements, such as Susa or Mazaka, as well as some geographic improvements to the Atropatene province. But this is mostly just nitpicking by a map freak.
If you can be more specific and post your evidence that we got it wrong, that would be great. Note that translating a world that is not flat onto a map that is never going to be correct. But if you don't tell us how we've got it wrong (and back that up with some good evidence) then how are we going to know we got it wrong. Its all well and good for you to say "fix it", but we need to know what to fix and also the reasons why you think it needs to be fixed. I'd like to see some improvements on the map in the middle-east. Specifically the incorrect locations of some of the settlements, such as Susa or Mazaka, as well as some geographic improvements to the Atropatene province. But this is mostly just nitpicking by a map freak.
Foot
Actually you're wrong about the formations being hardcoded... Rome Total Realism actually doesn't even have the default formations with exception of the single line formation... they have real, set formations such as triple apex, macedonian phalanx, etc... The reason I bring these things up is because I feel that if EB had the same type of Battle map style as RTR it would be nearly perfect. Also, RTR is much less laggy, which I think should also be improved in EB.
Nothing broken in EB1 that isn't broken in RTW really, pretty much the best possible effort.
Happy to see the "experience problem" for militia units seems to be solved with seasonal/annual/whatever-it-is disbanding. I stil RP disbanding non-elites especially non-elite missile troops. Gold chevroned slings are the HMG of EB.
Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).
Maybe they will even be able to use the unique unit feature from Crusades for some awesome fun kick-ass historical units. Maybe AS stormtroopers could be souped up even more if there was just one of them innthe game at a time? Maybe an Iberian faction could have the Vasci shockers if it was just one unit in the world?
Happy to see the "experience problem" for militia units seems to be solved with seasonal/annual/whatever-it-is disbanding. I stil RP disbanding non-elites especially non-elite missile troops. Gold chevroned slings are the HMG of EB.
Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).
Maybe they will even be able to use the unique unit feature from Crusades for some awesome fun kick-ass historical units. Maybe AS stormtroopers could be souped up even more if there was just one of them innthe game at a time? Maybe an Iberian faction could have the Vasci shockers if it was just one unit in the world?
Originally Posted by Cyclops:
Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).
You think Triarii are nasty? Well, I recently disabled Elite African Pikemen (except for my Roman and Carthaginian campaigns) because there basically were several full stacks of them screwing everything in Italy. That happened in at least two recent campaigns. In fact, it happens all the time unless the Romans manage to throw Carthage out of Sicily early on.Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).
Originally Posted by athanaric:
You think Triarii are nasty? Well, I recently disabled Elite African Pikemen (except for my Roman and Carthaginian campaigns) because there basically were several full stacks of them screwing everything in Italy. That happened in at least two recent campaigns. In fact, it happens all the time unless the Romans manage to throw Carthage out of Sicily early on.
In my campaigns Rome has taken Sicily every time I have seen, then they make peace and one or both of them comes after me (happened as AS, Lusso, Aedui, others). You think Triarii are nasty? Well, I recently disabled Elite African Pikemen (except for my Roman and Carthaginian campaigns) because there basically were several full stacks of them screwing everything in Italy. That happened in at least two recent campaigns. In fact, it happens all the time unless the Romans manage to throw Carthage out of Sicily early on.
Elite spam is a worry, although I'm less concerned when the AI screws the AI. Carthaginian pwnage of Italy was something the Romans feared and Hannibal almost achieved so if it happens, c'est la vitae.
I found it hard to swallow because I was carefully house-ruling it. I had stack limits (FL=14 units, FH 12 units, FM 10, allied general 8), "realistic" force mixes (eg a hellenistic allied general would lead a greekish "allied" stack, only the FL/FH got sacred band) so my armies were medium strength unless I shipped the FL up from Carthage where he lived.
I had to do this repeatedly from the start of the war with Rome sometime in the 250's (I never did get that Spartan general) because Greek allied stacks just held their ground vs Triari, and Italian allied stacks (pezoi Brutti-thingy, samnites and Leucanians) bled out rather quickly: after one battle they had to retire and refit.
My solution was a Hannibal-esque blitz around 230 up to the Po, using Sacred band cav elephants and mercenaries of all sorts (very Puni indeed). Roman stacks of mercenary celts and Lugoae were less of a challenge even for my "Latin" allies (3 roarii, 3 hastati, Campanian cav and an Allied general in a stack).
What I don't like in EB is the fact that lightly armed and unarmored skirmisher units without firm and stationary formations are not swept away easily by cavalry. Sometimes my cavalry has more casualties in close combat against knife armed slingers than against heavy infantry. I would also like when moving units of what kind ever struck by cavalry would be defeated very easily. I solved the problem more or less by changing the moral of many units, but that was for a cost.
Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69:
Actually you're wrong about the formations being hardcoded... Rome Total Realism actually doesn't even have the default formations with exception of the single line formation... they have real, set formations such as triple apex, macedonian phalanx, etc... The reason I bring these things up is because I feel that if EB had the same type of Battle map style as RTR it would be nearly perfect. Also, RTR is much less laggy, which I think should also be improved in EB.
Battles were much more laggy in RTR than in EB. Eb I can play with everything on full, RTR I had to play with small unit sizes and everything off or on minimum.Actually you're wrong about the formations being hardcoded... Rome Total Realism actually doesn't even have the default formations with exception of the single line formation... they have real, set formations such as triple apex, macedonian phalanx, etc... The reason I bring these things up is because I feel that if EB had the same type of Battle map style as RTR it would be nearly perfect. Also, RTR is much less laggy, which I think should also be improved in EB.
Campaign is normal. I don't think any mod comes close to the scripts and other data that EB adds.
Originally Posted by geala:
What I don't like in EB is the fact that lightly armed and unarmored skirmisher units without firm and stationary formations are not swept away easily by cavalry. Sometimes my cavalry has more casualties in close combat against knife armed slingers than against heavy infantry. I would also like when moving units of what kind ever struck by cavalry would be defeated very easily. I solved the problem more or less by changing the moral of many units, but that was for a cost.
They are swept away very easily by cavalry. Unless yor cavalry stops and begins melee, in which case they easily surrounded, dragged from their horses and killed.What I don't like in EB is the fact that lightly armed and unarmored skirmisher units without firm and stationary formations are not swept away easily by cavalry. Sometimes my cavalry has more casualties in close combat against knife armed slingers than against heavy infantry. I would also like when moving units of what kind ever struck by cavalry would be defeated very easily. I solved the problem more or less by changing the moral of many units, but that was for a cost.
I don't know why a moving unit, that's not running from battle, is not demoralized and is not occupied with another unit, would be much easier to defeat.
Originally Posted by athanaric:
Actually, it's better. I've been playing TATW for some time and when I really started to beat up an evil faction, they came suing for peace despite still bordering me (didn't help them as their last settlements were taken by the AI Dwarven Empire, hehe).
M2TW's AI is still retarded but believe me it's an improvement over RTW's, at least on the campaign map.
You're right, diplomacy is slightly better in M2TW. At least factions don't fight to the death all the time.Actually, it's better. I've been playing TATW for some time and when I really started to beat up an evil faction, they came suing for peace despite still bordering me (didn't help them as their last settlements were taken by the AI Dwarven Empire, hehe).
M2TW's AI is still retarded but believe me it's an improvement over RTW's, at least on the campaign map.
Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69:
Actually you're wrong about the formations being hardcoded... Rome Total Realism actually doesn't even have the default formations with exception of the single line formation... they have real, set formations such as triple apex, macedonian phalanx, etc... The reason I bring these things up is because I feel that if EB had the same type of Battle map style as RTR it would be nearly perfect. Also, RTR is much less laggy, which I think should also be improved in EB.
Indeed, my mistake :(.Actually you're wrong about the formations being hardcoded... Rome Total Realism actually doesn't even have the default formations with exception of the single line formation... they have real, set formations such as triple apex, macedonian phalanx, etc... The reason I bring these things up is because I feel that if EB had the same type of Battle map style as RTR it would be nearly perfect. Also, RTR is much less laggy, which I think should also be improved in EB.
I think EB isn't laggy, just a bit slow, but that's due to the script and the fact it has a lot more data to process then the original game (don't know compared to RTR). Admittedly, it works a lot faster on the IB or ALX .exe's. I'd rather have a slower, full EB then a faster, stripped down EB though.
Originally Posted by geala:
What I don't like in EB is the fact that lightly armed and unarmored skirmisher units without firm and stationary formations are not swept away easily by cavalry. Sometimes my cavalry has more casualties in close combat against knife armed slingers than against heavy infantry. I would also like when moving units of what kind ever struck by cavalry would be defeated very easily. I solved the problem more or less by changing the moral of many units, but that was for a cost.
Nearly all units break quickly when decently charged (in the rear, by medium-heavy cavalry), but I play on medium battle difficulty mostly (where AI morale isn't boosted).What I don't like in EB is the fact that lightly armed and unarmored skirmisher units without firm and stationary formations are not swept away easily by cavalry. Sometimes my cavalry has more casualties in close combat against knife armed slingers than against heavy infantry. I would also like when moving units of what kind ever struck by cavalry would be defeated very easily. I solved the problem more or less by changing the moral of many units, but that was for a cost.
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus:
...They are swept away very easily by cavalry. Unless yor cavalry stops and begins melee, in which case they easily surrounded, dragged from their horses and killed....
I find light troops on loose formation resist cav charges longer than if they are on tight formation which seems counterintuitive....They are swept away very easily by cavalry. Unless yor cavalry stops and begins melee, in which case they easily surrounded, dragged from their horses and killed....
I guess because the men are further apart they take longer to be killed so their morale holds longer? Dunno.
They also resist elephants and chariots better when loose which seems right.
Maybe thats the tradeoff? Anyway as you sensibly point out cav charges in EB are rarely decisive unless the charged unit is already engaged.
I'm definitely not asking for elephant charges to be changed, I love them.
Originally Posted by Cyclops:
I find light troops on loose formation resist cav charges longer than if they are on tight formation which seems counterintuitive.
I guess because the men are further apart they take longer to be killed so their morale holds longer? Dunno.
They also resist elephants and chariots better when loose which seems right.
Maybe thats the tradeoff? Anyway as you sensibly point out cav charges in EB are rarely decisive unless the charged unit is already engaged.
I'm definitely not asking for elephant charges to be changed, I love them.
You are of course absolutly right.I find light troops on loose formation resist cav charges longer than if they are on tight formation which seems counterintuitive.
I guess because the men are further apart they take longer to be killed so their morale holds longer? Dunno.
They also resist elephants and chariots better when loose which seems right.
Maybe thats the tradeoff? Anyway as you sensibly point out cav charges in EB are rarely decisive unless the charged unit is already engaged.
I'm definitely not asking for elephant charges to be changed, I love them.
Skirmisher with the skirmishing mode on often starts running in the opposite direction of the cavallery thus eliminating the charge and forcing the cavallery into melee. It is really a problem in Rome and unrealistic and very easy to exploit.
Originally Posted by Cyclops:
Nothing broken in EB1 that isn't broken in RTW really, pretty much the best possible effort.
Happy to see the "experience problem" for militia units seems to be solved with seasonal/annual/whatever-it-is disbanding. I stil RP disbanding non-elites especially non-elite missile troops. Gold chevroned slings are the HMG of EB.
Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).
Maybe they will even be able to use the unique unit feature from Crusades for some awesome fun kick-ass historical units. Maybe AS stormtroopers could be souped up even more if there was just one of them innthe game at a time? Maybe an Iberian faction could have the Vasci shockers if it was just one unit in the world?
"RP" and "HMG" what do they stand for? Personaly, I like the veteracy system as it is in RTW, though I admit missile units beggin to act like AP once they are experienced enough. Still do you really think that realism and historical accuracy should outweight gameplay in what is a game?Nothing broken in EB1 that isn't broken in RTW really, pretty much the best possible effort.
Happy to see the "experience problem" for militia units seems to be solved with seasonal/annual/whatever-it-is disbanding. I stil RP disbanding non-elites especially non-elite missile troops. Gold chevroned slings are the HMG of EB.
Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).
Maybe they will even be able to use the unique unit feature from Crusades for some awesome fun kick-ass historical units. Maybe AS stormtroopers could be souped up even more if there was just one of them innthe game at a time? Maybe an Iberian faction could have the Vasci shockers if it was just one unit in the world?
Also it would be nice if recruitment of units drained the population. In M2TW it did not.
Also I remember in M2TW it was possible to capture routing troops. I assume this will be unchanged in EB II and I would like to see the option of selling POWs in slave markets in the case of the AI refusing to redeem them. As a matter of fact it should not be an option. I find it annoying that redeemed POWs would be returned with their full panoply. They should only be sold and never killed and their numbers adding to the population of the nearest friendly settlement.
RP = roleplaying
HMG = heavy machine gun
You may personally like the veterancy system in RTW, however we think that it breaks the delicate balance that exist in the base stats of our units, and so we would never return to those bad old days. For EB, history and realism inspire our gameplay, not the other way round. There is a mistake in thinking history and gameplay are two sides pulling against each other. They actually work together and for us there is no hard choice when it comes to it. History inspires gameplay, and so we feel that a balanced, realistic stat system (including veterancy) makes for a better game than some 300-esque stat where gold chevroned peasants stand as gods on the battlefield.
We disagree about the recruitment and population. The justification for recruitment draining population is just no there. Population obviously does not represent the full population of a province, yet a city can only develop if men of fighting age are not fighting. We much prefer recruitment to be constrained by the far more modifiable recuitment pools of MTW2.
Capturing troops is hardcoded into the game, and so will still exist. The options that are available at the end of the battle, however, cannot be changed. We can rename then, and we probably will, however the effects of each option will stay exactly the same (hardcoded).
Foot
HMG = heavy machine gun
You may personally like the veterancy system in RTW, however we think that it breaks the delicate balance that exist in the base stats of our units, and so we would never return to those bad old days. For EB, history and realism inspire our gameplay, not the other way round. There is a mistake in thinking history and gameplay are two sides pulling against each other. They actually work together and for us there is no hard choice when it comes to it. History inspires gameplay, and so we feel that a balanced, realistic stat system (including veterancy) makes for a better game than some 300-esque stat where gold chevroned peasants stand as gods on the battlefield.
We disagree about the recruitment and population. The justification for recruitment draining population is just no there. Population obviously does not represent the full population of a province, yet a city can only develop if men of fighting age are not fighting. We much prefer recruitment to be constrained by the far more modifiable recuitment pools of MTW2.
Capturing troops is hardcoded into the game, and so will still exist. The options that are available at the end of the battle, however, cannot be changed. We can rename then, and we probably will, however the effects of each option will stay exactly the same (hardcoded).
Foot
Less crashing and a better AI would be nice.
Although it would take a lot of scripting, I would like settlements' names to change to the faction which conquered it.
For example, if Rome takes Taras, then Taras becomes Tarentum next turn. This could work for many factions, not just Rome, I'm thinking that Pahlava would benefit from this too.
Just a thought, though I understand it would be impossible to implement for certain occasions. (i.e. Luso taking Carthage)
EDIT: I realized this is more of a new feature than an old one being fixed.
For example, if Rome takes Taras, then Taras becomes Tarentum next turn. This could work for many factions, not just Rome, I'm thinking that Pahlava would benefit from this too.
Just a thought, though I understand it would be impossible to implement for certain occasions. (i.e. Luso taking Carthage)
EDIT: I realized this is more of a new feature than an old one being fixed.
Actually, it doesn't require scripting. In the MedII engine it is possible to change the name of a city depending on the faction that controls it.
Here's a question for y'all: What are the main things you want to see kept from EB1 in EB2? (note: only one question mark necessary, not three)
Originally Posted by Arkhis:
What do you mean by this?
Diplomacy in M2TW is still as shit as in Rome: TW, so it won't be any better, I fear it's hardcoded. That's why people use that forced diplomacy mod.
The game is not about Rome alone ;). Besides, it already has over a thousand turns, that's REALLY long.
They're still working on the new factions, though I doubt any Illyrian tribe will be playable. You should look for the criteria for faction-inclusion on these forums and see if they fit any of those.
Again, they're still working on new factions, but you should read the previews, 'cause then you'd know that: Numidians are in, represented by the Kingdom of Massylia, and Dacians and Thracians are already in EB1, just check out the Getai.
Factions are political units, not cultural.
Hardcoded again, I fear.
Personally, the biggest issues I have are with the AI, and those should've been fixed by CA, but alas, the AI is still bad :(.
When in doubt... use What do you mean by this?
Diplomacy in M2TW is still as shit as in Rome: TW, so it won't be any better, I fear it's hardcoded. That's why people use that forced diplomacy mod.
The game is not about Rome alone ;). Besides, it already has over a thousand turns, that's REALLY long.
They're still working on the new factions, though I doubt any Illyrian tribe will be playable. You should look for the criteria for faction-inclusion on these forums and see if they fit any of those.
Again, they're still working on new factions, but you should read the previews, 'cause then you'd know that: Numidians are in, represented by the Kingdom of Massylia, and Dacians and Thracians are already in EB1, just check out the Getai.
Factions are political units, not cultural.
Hardcoded again, I fear.
Personally, the biggest issues I have are with the AI, and those should've been fixed by CA, but alas, the AI is still bad :(.
~Jirisys (dang science fair project! come on college!
)Originally Posted by vartan:
Here's a question for y'all: What are the main things you want to see kept from EB1 in EB2? (note: only one question mark necessary, not three)
It's general epicness.Here's a question for y'all: What are the main things you want to see kept from EB1 in EB2? (note: only one question mark necessary, not three)
An improvement of the naval warfare would be nr. 1 on my wishlist. More AI navy's and not just juggernaut ships from Ptolemaioi, and more naval invasions.
Also, it really takes the pleasure out of having an expencive navy when you know it has nearly no effect to blockade the enemys ports, so if blockading could be an effective weapon in EBII it would add a lot to the aspect of economic warfare.
Also, it really takes the pleasure out of having an expencive navy when you know it has nearly no effect to blockade the enemys ports, so if blockading could be an effective weapon in EBII it would add a lot to the aspect of economic warfare.
Originally Posted by Belisarius II:
Its general epicness.
Could you be more specific?Its general epicness.
Originally Posted by vartan:
Could you be more specific?
Your question was epic, that's what he meantCould you be more specific?
~Jirisys (i forgot to say 200th post! when i made my 200th post, dang i hate last minute work)
Originally Posted by jirisys:
Your question was epic, that's what he meant
~Jirisys (i forgot to say 200th post! when i made my 200th post, dang i hate last minute work)
Congrats. And not really. What do you mean you want to keep its epicness?Your question was epic, that's what he meant
~Jirisys (i forgot to say 200th post! when i made my 200th post, dang i hate last minute work)
I want to see the Lorica Segmentata!!!
Originally Posted by Tux:
I want to see the Lorica Segmentata!!!
Yeeeey and EB needs Imhotep from the Mummy movie.I want to see the Lorica Segmentata!!!
Originally Posted by vartan:
Congrats. And not really. What do you mean you want to keep its epicness?
I think he means to keep the awesome immersiveness and brilliant gameplay of the EB1, transfered over into EB2.Congrats. And not really. What do you mean you want to keep its epicness?
I think this can pretty much be guaranteed considering it *is* the EB team were talking about.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO