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

[stratigos vasilios]

Bobbin will 'The People in Flight' option be used? Or will it be dependent on the faction similar to the discussion we're having on re-emerging factions?

[Populus Romanus]

I doubt they will use The People in Flight. It sounds very ahistorical to me. On another note, can reemergent factions be forced to attack the settlement whose province they spawn in? It would be pretty stupid if the Makedonians revolt only to ignore Pella and go after Serdike. Also, how strong would reemergent factions be? I assume pretty weak. And finally, is it possible to make the spawning armies smaller the longer the province has been occupied?

[bobbin]

Bobbin will 'The People in Flight' option be used? Or will it be dependent on the faction similar to the discussion we're having on re-emerging factions?

Unlikely, it's the single most hated feature of the horde mechanic among the team.

I doubt they will use The People in Flight. It sounds very ahistorical to me. On another note, can reemergent factions be forced to attack the settlement whose province they spawn in? It would be pretty stupid if the Makedonians revolt only to ignore Pella and go after Serdike. Also, how strong would reemergent factions be? I assume pretty weak. And finally, is it possible to make the spawning armies smaller the longer the province has been occupied?

Yes they can. I cannot answer any more because we haven't worked on reemergent factions yet, all I am doing is telling people that it is possible and that we will want to include it in EBII.

[econ21]

The main thing I am looking forward to improving in EB2 is taking advantage of the better AI potential of M2TW. The team could change nothing in EB1 and just switching the engine would make the port totally worth it. If it is more stable, that will be a plus too.

Beyond that, one thing I would like but probaby won't get is a reduction in the proportion of sieges to field battles. I just don't find TW sieges - at least as the attacker - as fun as field battles. I don't know how you could go about this, except by lowering the density of settlements. The BI map had fewer settlements and seemed to lead to more of an emphasis on field battles.

[Rahl]

With all the permanent stone forts representing smaller cities, sieges will probably become even more numerous. Though EB is about realism and ancient warfare was more about sieges then about field battles.

[moonburn]

actually rahl one field batle and the wars would be over most of the times sieges were not cost effective and unleass some "cheating" appeared for the taking (like spies opening the gates) most of the times the only reason to besiege was to force a field batle win the day and present the terms

even when you managed after much sacrifice to take over a city you would need to spend fortunes bribing important people and expend alot of humanpower resources to keep the city under control that was one of the antigonid problems when they faced the romans they had too many garrisons scatered around places like athens and whatever

in medieval total war the rate of sucefull sieges is a disgrace in rl it was very rare for a castle to fall because of a direct attack or even a walled city it was starving and using the catapults to send dead animals into the place hoping that disease made them surrender before the disease caught your own men and you would be forçed to pull back for health reasons

[Ca Putt]

tho I wonder how they will handle PSF in detail it could be that they repreent them without walls eg.

And I would not worry toomuch about PSFs, in my brittannia campaign they were empty most of the time and I was the only one actually careing about them.(ok they were not empty all the time and gave the AI lords shelter while I conquered all of their Settlements :D, but the important ones were empty long enough to sneak in a lord and some mercs ^^)

[ziegenpeter]

actually rahl one field batle and the wars would be over most of the times sieges were not cost effective and unleass some "cheating" appeared for the taking (like spies opening the gates) most of the times the only reason to besiege was to force a field batle win the day and present the terms

What??? Is this a troll attempt?

[Ichon]

There are enough mechanics in place that if you don't want many siege battles that are decisive there are quite numerous ways to avoid them in MTW2. AI likes to station an army outside walls which can draw out enemies, etc.

Though it would be nice to have the length of time a city can withstand a siege be dependent on more buildings than just the walls. Basic walls should give very limited extra time to a siege defense before forcing surrender. Higher port facilities, grain, and water storages that can be built should make more of a difference. Even with how slow armies move sieges over 12 turns being common to force a field battle is too much. 3-6 turns should be more than enough without concentrated building program of storages.

Many of the regions being represented as a single city is also misleading when the battle for the province actually takes several fights. Playing on VH with the AI getting decent bonuses the majority of decisive battles occur outside of cities for me. Of course that is by my choice sometimes where I simply don't attack well garrisoned cities unless absolutely necessary but that means having to destroy the AI in the field. In most cases that also means meeting attacking enemy armies in the field and not waiting for them to lay siege where I find the mechanics greatly favor the player. Siege battles for attacking AI are greatly unbalanced in favor of the player.