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

[fomalhaut]

will their be mechanics to represent degrees of assimilation rather than just the generic 'unrest' feature? i know that MTWII has religion and such.

also, how will the '-ization' process work? I hate when i take a city like Carthage, for instance, but it is at its highest level of Administration building so that even long after the culture/government would be romanized, it would still have mostly semitic buildings? I really like hellenizing europe, and for RTW the Strategy Map representation changes at the next level of government building, which usually coincides with the end of huge culture penalties

[Foot]

will their be mechanics to represent degrees of assimilation rather than just the generic 'unrest' feature? i know that MTWII has religion and such.

also, how will the '-ization' process work? I hate when i take a city like Carthage, for instance, but it is at its highest level of Administration building so that even long after the culture/government would be romanized, it would still have mostly semitic buildings? I really like hellenizing europe, and for RTW the Strategy Map representation changes at the next level of government building, which usually coincides with the end of huge culture penalties

Those are two very different things how a settlement looks is not associated with any game mechanics that we can introduce and modify as for colonization, you should probably check out the roman previews-

Foot

[geala]

I'm rather pleased with EB 1, my only wish would be better (historically more accurate, I mean) Greek units. I think that will happen.

[vartan]

historically more accurate

What does this mean anymore? History has room for more than one interpretation. That is why when 20 students turn in papers for a single prompt, and none of them answers the same way as any other, none of them fails for the simple fact that they did not achieve a single correct answer. EB has provided us with an interpretation of history that--and it is important to remember this--has not been constant, and has changed over time. I don't take it for granted because when entering in factional unit lists for EB Online I see name changes over and over again for units. Flexibility is a great trait in history.

[Ca Putt]

anything in particular you would like to suggest?

[Olaf The Great]

I suppose another thing I'd wish for is a more complete barbarian roster, an perhaps a "reformed pastoralism" government for the other nomads and possibly the barbarians.

[fomalhaut]

a more full Barbarian roster would definitely help, mid-late game are very rough on Barbarian factions. As eastern factions, Pahlava in particular, you keep getting new units until the very end.

This is an issue with everyone except the Getai i'd say, but in particular with the Lusotan. a very basic and effective roster, but after you can train Celtiberian Infantry you are kind of out on soldiers.

[geala]

@ Ca Putt: I don't want to start a discussion about units here, therefore I don't mentioned examples.

What does this mean anymore? History has room for more than one interpretation. That is why when 20 students turn in papers for a single prompt, and none of them answers the same way as any other, none of them fails for the simple fact that they did not achieve a single correct answer. EB has provided us with an interpretation of history that--and it is important to remember this--has not been constant, and has changed over time. I don't take it for granted because when entering in factional unit lists for EB Online I see name changes over and over again for units. Flexibility is a great trait in history.

Surely, I concur with what you said. We have sometimes so few informations that a good deal of speculation is mandatory, esp. for a game and its restrictions. I only had some problems in mind that are possibly caused by the early introduction of some of the Greek/Hellenistic units. E.G. to have peltasts with thoureoi shields and thoureophoroi is such a problem. EB2 should get rid of the peltasts and install thoureophoroi with javelins instead. And a thoureophoros should not have much armour, with armour it should be a thorakites. Or the padded armour of the Cretan archers. The only pictures of Hellenistic time Cretan archers show them without armour, and if armour is given to them because of gameplay reasons (which are important reasons) it should perhaps be one that is more common for the Greeks and at least shown in some ancient illustrations. Or the rather strange Akarnanian attack unit. Or the appearance of the chitones and the Roman caligae of many Greek units.

Small things like this. The possibility of M2:TW units to show more than one appearance will solve many problems and I think the team is aware of the problems. We had such discussions before, no need to warm it up.

[athanaric]

Or the padded armour of the Cretan archers.

I'd rather see a source for the extreme missile range they have in EB I.

Or the rather strange Akarnanian attack unit.

Which unit are you referring to? Akarnania doesn't have a regional special unit in EB I as far as I'm aware of. Perhaps you mean Agrianian?

[Ca Putt]

ah ok those, yeah the EB team often chose the most armored variant thinkable. personally I could never actually befriend myself with the fact that EB-Peltasts are fairly heavy. and(like you) I'm sure through the variation possible within a unit they'll "fix" alot of these issues.

I was just curious on what you suggest. no need to discuss

[geala]

I'd rather see a source for the extreme missile range they have in EB I.

I only know one for the contrary, I would also like to have a source cause I'm especially interested in Cretan archers. On the other hand, you can change it very easily yourself. I'm too dumb to create a new sprite/texture however, I can perhaps alter unit info pictures, but not more.

Which unit are you referring to? Akarnania doesn't have a regional special unit in EB I as far as I'm aware of. Perhaps you mean Agrianian?

Exactly. Thank you for the correction. I should start a new campaign and don't trust my bad memory.

Well I never experienced the EB Peltasts as extremely heavy... there is definitely an increase in "heaviness" going from peltastai to thoureophoroi to thorakitai

It is really ok for game reasons, a steady development. But I think the "peltasts" of the 3rd c BC were thoureophoroi (which means nothing more than bearer of a thureos), mostly without armour and with more than two, but lighter javelins. They were often named peltastes which sometimes seemed to become a synonym for soldiers outside the phalanx (or even professional soldiers/mercenaries). I never recruit EB thoureophoroi because there is no real historical background for such a Roman style soldier with a javelin-before-attack setting. And in the game the peltastes can more or less do the same as the thoureophoroi, shielding the flanks of the phalanx. The EB thoureophoroi are in fact thorakitai (user of thorakes because they have a linen or leather thorax) and I don't see the sense in the distinction. Better to combine peltastes and thoureophoroi to one unit and spare a slot.