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

[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.

[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)

[Belisarius II]

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.

[Seneca]

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.

[vartan]

Its general epicness.

Could you be more specific?

[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.

[Phalanx300]

In EBI there were Germanic units which possesed swords but didn't use any spears. Personally think that owning a sword didn't equal using it at a primary weapon. Like the Cherusci being known as sword owners doesn't mean they don't fight primerely with spears.

[vartan]

In EBI there were Germanic units which possesed swords but didn't use any spears. Personally think that owning a sword didn't equal using it at a primary weapon. Like the Cherusci being known as sword owners doesn't mean they don't fight primerely with spears.

That's correct. But there is one problem. In RTW and in M2TW, as far as I know, units can only have two weapons: primary and secondary. The Cherusci swordsmen in EBI were given two thrown javelins (spears) as primary, and a sword as secondary. Certainly the Cherusci could (did* more likely) have a SPEAR that they carried with them, but in the aforementioned games (RTW/M2TW) the unit cannot have 1) javelins, 2) spear, and 3) sword, but rather only a combination of two of these. That is unfortunately why the Cherusci swordsman does not carry a fighting spear in-game.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

That's correct. But there is one problem. In RTW and in M2TW, as far as I know, units can only have two weapons: primary and secondary. The Cherusci swordsmen in EBI were given two thrown javelins (spears) as primary, and a sword as secondary. Certainly the Cherusci could (did* more likely) have a SPEAR that they carried with them, but in the aforementioned games (RTW/M2TW) the unit cannot have 1) javelins, 2) spear, and 3) sword, but rather only a combination of two of these. That is unfortunately why the Cherusci swordsman does not carry a fighting spear in-game.

If only there was EB Mount and Blade.....

[Phalanx300]

That's correct. But there is one problem. In RTW and in M2TW, as far as I know, units can only have two weapons: primary and secondary. The Cherusci swordsmen in EBI were given two thrown javelins (spears) as primary, and a sword as secondary. Certainly the Cherusci could (did* more likely) have a SPEAR that they carried with them, but in the aforementioned games (RTW/M2TW) the unit cannot have 1) javelins, 2) spear, and 3) sword, but rather only a combination of two of these. That is unfortunately why the Cherusci swordsman does not carry a fighting spear in-game.

I see, well this certainly answers my question. Thanks.


And yes Hegemon mod is nice and clearly EB inspired. Yet they put their own view in it which I don't always like. Like having Germanic pikemen without shields. Whiel its said some Germanics had overly long shields that doesn't equal no shields. Seeing the symbolic importance of shields in Germanic society as well...