What are the main things you want to see fixed from EB1 in EB2???

[Mediolanicus]

"Missions" are a part of history. It's tricky to balance gameplay and historical detail. Of course it can't be too historical because it wouldn't allow any interaction. Then it would only be a story.

What do you mean by a story?

The game is all about creating your own history starting from 272BC, not recreating history as it really happened (which would be impossible with the engine and kinda hit the replay value rather hard).

in EB Pontics didnt have their own cavalry, I mean, Pontus must have their own cavalry and this cavalry unit must available only Pontus

In EB Pontos could recruit lots of cavalry units in its provinces. You can be sure those recruited in Pontus consisted out of locally breed horses and Pontic riders.


Of course, other faction that may conquer Pontos can also recruit those same horses and riders...

Excuse me, I also think Micko is overreacting, BUT
people, who are treating every kind of critisism and complaining as childish, always go with the majority, idolise the EB Teams as gods and critisize people only based on their writing skills are also kind of douchebags themselves.

Agreed. As long as the critism is based on something and one doesn't automatically conclude it must have been an oversight, an inconsistence or just plain stupidity to come to another conclusion.

[scutum]

What do you mean by a story?

Story is a common term for a description of a sequence of events.

Game is all about creating your own history starting from 272BC, not recreating history as it really happened (which would be impossible with the engine and kinda hit the replay value rather hard).

Which makes me wonder what it means when a game is called historical.

[abou]

The hope of EB is that you are given an historical jumping-off point of 272 BC. Everything that happens after that is up to you. We do not, and never have, stated that EB is a history-on-rails game.

[scutum]

The hope of EB is that you are given an historical jumping-off point of 272 BC. Everything that happens after that is up to you. We do not, and never have, stated that EB is a history-on-rails game.

Exactly. However, the reforms do intervene with this policy. When events change for example Marian may never exist and thus eliminating Marian reforms. Even if reforms ever take place the uniforms, weaponry, banners, symbols etc most likely would be different.

[abou]

We believe that there are certain factors driving events. We call the Marian reforms that name because it is a convention everyone understands, but something similar would have likely happened regardless as long as Rome continued to expand. The adoption of the thureos was pretty much a foregone conclusion by our game start. There are certain caveats, of course, but as far as we are concerned, the game is quite historical.

[XSamatan]

This is not correct IMHO. The reforms as they are represented in EB are 'pictures' of what would happen if an empire would expand in a certain way. If you expand in other ways, build i.e. not the required buildings then the reform won't take place or takes place a later time, when you got too much provinces to get all your army from Italy itself for the Romans as example. So the reforms are a optional feature and not a must. However this is EB1 thema and should be discussed there, the reforms in EB2 are depicted in the previews.

XSamatan

[scutum]

Does this mean that EBII has different options/versions of reformed units?

[abou]

We have limited resources. We can't make different reformed units for every possible permutation. Then again, how many different possibilities could there be? I don't think anyone on the team would seriously consider a hoplite reform for Celtic factions if a Koinon Hellenon player was particularly successful in Europe.