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

[Foot]

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.

Foot

[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?

[athanaric]

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.

[Cyclops]

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).

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).

[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.

[Mediolanicus]

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.

Campaign is normal. I don't think any mod comes close to the scripts and other data that EB adds.

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.

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.

[Cyclops]

...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.

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.

[Arkhis]

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 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 :(.

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.

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).

[paleologos]

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?

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.

[Foot]

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

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Less crashing and a better AI would be nice.

[Belisarius II]

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.

[Horatius Flaccus]

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.

[Cyclops]

... gold chevroned peasants stand as gods on the battlefield. ...

Yes there is a "resolution" problem with the improvement in a unit over 10 levels of experience, especially at the bottom end. A slinger witrh "1" attack, plus 9 for experience winds up being ten times as deadly, whereas a unit with 10 attack merely doubles its deadliness.

The proposed autodisbanding militia feature will go a long way to fixing this I'm sure.

I do like the idea of some experience being available. Military doctrine does recognise the value of veteran troops over greenhorns.

I see this as a factor when translating historically described units into game terms. Alexander's men kicked some, big time. The Romans managed to beat the later Macedonians who used a similar unit set-so do we rate Romans higher than the victors of Gaugemela?

I see part of this equation being Alexander's army included a huge proportion of veterans of Philllips many campaigns, whereas the Diadochi troops the Romans fought were probably less well lead but also less "professional", that is not having been in the field as a cohesive force for sustained periods.

IIRC there's an episode in the Gallic wars where Caesar hires a mercenary German cav unit which procedess to trounce all the Gallic cav it meets. Is this because the German cav is intrinsically better, or was it an experienced unit vs green ones?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Gallophile in me wants it to be the second option. As if germanic cavalry could defeat its gallic equivalent straight up! [scoffs ignorantly]

I'm confident there will be a sensible position reached in the way the game is presented. Pretty much every decision has been subject to examination.

On the question of Epic-ness (epic-osity? epic-centricity?), I think its there.

I think we're seeing at least the same attention to detail, respect for the sources, and love of the subject than in EB1. Certainly the excellent work already done meets the highest standard we could set. Its a luxury having dedicated people doing such a thorough job for free.

[Cyclops]

...The proposed autodisbanding militia feature ...

Something just occured to me. Could different groups of units be autodisbanded over different timescales?

EG all units with the militia tag get demobbed annually (someone suggested each Autumn).

And maybe there could be units tagged mercenary which get disbanded after 5 or 10 years? Elites could get 20 or even 40 years (like the white haired silver shields who fought with Phillip and Alexander and even afterwards). OMG OMG.

I haven't though it through but a sliding scale of unit lifespans might allow for some unit "maturity" but without them becoming elite zombie legions ("you see these chevrons I got? My Pappy earned them back in the First Punic War, but somehow it makes me a better soldier. Why? Hardcoded, sonny!").

edit-I forgot, the gobal disband would be at a fixed time, not a countdown for each unit. Damn.

[Ibrahim]

Something just occured to me. Could different groups of units be autodisbanded over different timescales?

EG all units with the militia tag get demobbed annually (someone suggested each Autumn).

And maybe there could be units tagged mercenary which get disbanded after 5 or 10 years? Elites could get 20 or even 40 years (like the white haired silver shields who fought with Phillip and Alexander and even afterwards). OMG OMG.

I haven't though it through but a sliding scale of unit lifespans might allow for some unit "maturity" but without them becoming elite zombie legions ("you see these chevrons I got? My Pappy earned them back in the First Punic War, but somehow it makes me a better soldier. Why? Hardcoded, sonny!").

edit-I forgot, the gobal disband would be at a fixed time, not a countdown for each unit. Damn.

I beg to disagree on elites (in part); while its true that no unit lasts forever, it is however common for regiments to last longer; roman legions were known to last for centuries after being raised in the late republic. IIRC, LEG. XX lasted 3 centuries or so, and I recall one legion lasting 5 and a half centuries. and I am aware of Argyraspides being maintained by the selecids for extended periods of time.

the trick is to make experience effect less. luckily, M2TW is just that in regards to experience.

[Epimetheus]

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.

Foot

Well, in some cases it wasn't that you guys got it wrong, they're simply errors that it appears were never corrected from the original RTW map when EB modded it. Mazaka, the capital of Kappadokia, for instance, remains unchanged from it's location in RTW, where it is depicted as being north of the Halys River, however, this is clearly inaccurate, as the city of Mazaka still exists to this day, albeit under a different name. Mazaka's name was changed to Eusebia during the reign of Ariathes V, and later to Caesarea Cappadociae. which became corrupted in Turkish to Kayseri. Now, if one looks at a modern map of Turkey, one can see that Kayseri is clearly south of the Halys River.



Compared to the EB/RTW location, it would be the red dot on the EB map:



The other obvious error that sticks out, is the location of the city of Susa. This one appears to be a case where the EB team got it wrong. On the EB map, Susa is depicted as being located in the Zagros Mountains, which is inaccurate. Susa, like Mazaka, is a city that remains inhabited to this day, as the city of Shush in Iran, and it's location is easy enough to pinpoint on a modern map as being in the plains south of the Zagros.



Compared to the EB location, it would be the red dot on the EB map:



These are my main quibbles with the EB1 map. If necessary, I can provide more evidence for these changes. There are also a few seemingly anachronistic city names, such as Asaak, or Arsakia as the Greeks called it, in Astabene, which, as far as I can tell, wasn't known as such until it was conquered by Arsakes I, roughly thirty years after the beginning of EB. The portrayal of the province of Atropatene, or Adurbadegan as it is called in EB, is also highly dubious to me, but I'd have to do a lot more digging in order to properly address that issue.

[plutoboyz]

some new faction like Numidian, Bosporan, etc... and unit voice. hearing Hindus Pattiyodha speak greek accent is just weird. and Nomad Unit vioces. saka have their own language, many HA don't have voices.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

some new faction like Numidian, Bosporan, etc... and unit voice. hearing Hindus Pattiyodha speak greek accent is just weird. and Nomad Unit vioces. saka have their own language, many HA don't have voices.

Two words: Germanic Voicemod!