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

[Foot]

Wow, this has suddenly turned into a thread that I really don't want to read anymore. I think that some of what people are saying is coming close to stepping over the line from being critical to being insulting. Sometimes, I really really do not like reading these forums. Its so very easy to criticise, and its so very easy to judge and, in doing so, upset. It is a lot harder to work in a volunteer team to create something complex and, dare I say, it beautiful with dozens of conflicting characters all attempting to work with each other. There have been a plethora of these statting threads and they have invariably attacked and insulted the team - the condensed versions is "oh look, there are some apparent inconsistencies. EB must be a bunch of morons for doing that. i can do it much better, here is my work that i did and is so much better because i know why i did it". I find the tone of these posts hateful and their insinuations of the team hurtful.

For people who quite obviously get so much enjoyment from the mod, it seems that some of you have no sense of respect for those who brought it to you. The EB Team have invariably put their life on hold to work on this mod, I know I have, and to have the work of the fine people that I have known disparaged in such a fashion as I find in this thread and in others is not something that I wish to continue engaging in. Insult away, you fixers of things broken, I hope that your mods are as successfully balanced as you wish them to be. However, this is a suggestion thread for EBII, and as the statting system in M2TW cannot be assumed to work in any fashion close enough to that of RTW to make connections, I would suggest that you move discussion about EBI stats to the EBI forums.

Foot

[micko]

I always asked my self,why such a mod like this(a great mod,if not the best) hase so low attention,and why are there only 10-15 people that are active and actually post on EB forums(here and at TWC).And the ancer to that is the post above.

[Kival]

I cannot agree, micko. EB 2 has a big attention as you can see in the preview-threads. Most of the people are just not so loud-voiced and enjoys it without discussing here all the time. And I understand Foots anger very well, some - and too much! - comments here and at the twc are insulting for real to the team. It's not the problem to make other stat-adjustings or to question the reasons but some people act as if the teams are morons and that's just not ok and some should think about their manners.

[bobbin]

OK,I have read it all cearfuly and the only thing that I came up with that culd be "insolting" to the team was ......

When people criticise a part of the mod as being deficient and then give no good reason why, beyond their own preconceptions, it is pretty insulting.
If you must have a specific example: "I'm just seeking a system that is consistent and reliable" implies that the current one is neither and comes across as insulting (although I don't think SlickNicaG69 intended it to be), a similar thread currently going on the TWC forums is full of prime examples.

Your post on the other hand was clearly insulting, if you accuse people of being immature you might want to look up the word "oxymoron" before commenting again in that manner.

[Mediolanicus]

removed

I agree with certain points SlickNica brings forward here. I don't see the need to change the EB system though. I did find it a very interesting discussion (when on topic).

However I do understand the EB team feels attacked, since SlickNica's somewhat adds to his criticism that "the EB team clearly didn't think about this and that it would be better to introduce a system that is consistent and actually has been thought over."

This is what insults the team.

He is free to not agree that some body armours are less strong than the EB team thinks, or that carrying 15kg of armour for hours on the march and during battle does not influence your agility during all stages of battle, or that armour protecting parts which are not protected by anything else should have more weight in-game than good body armour.
That said he has put forth some very good points and the only things I don't agree with is that he implies that the EB team has done this at random and was inconsistent, and that he implies that the difference between a good armoured soldier and a naked barbarian used to fighting war, would mean that the barbarian didn't stand a chance. (or at least that the fight was more one sided than you would interpret from the EB stats).


There is however one thing that is rather insulting to Foot, to the EB team, to good taste and to everyone here, and that are the last two "contributions" of micko in this thread, who is clearly a tad immature to understand people study or have a job and creating a game like EB takes a lot of time, effort and organization - and frustration pretty much every time they come to the forums -, or to understand what history actually is (the interpretation of historical evidence).

So for anyone on the EB team this game is very serious, micko. It takes up hours and hours of their private life, working for free and for something we can and will enjoy.

And you're interpol reference isn't that bad, since every historian is more or less like a detective. And just like you can go to court with only assumptions pulled out of thin air, you must have some evidence to back up a historical claim.


To the EB team: Guys, remember that for every guy complaining or insulting, there are 20 fans not posting and enjoying and admiring your work, waiting patiently for EB II.

To SlickNica: I think everyone knows you did not want to insult the team, you just wished to start a discussion. Beware of implying that something is illogical just because you don't immediately see the logic behind it.



Sorry for any grammatical or spelling errors in this long patch of text.

[scutum]

This thread has an interesting question which is hard to answer without knowing fully the possibilities of the M2TW engine. Since the poor AI is hardcoded, I have already asked CA for the AI source code or ways to modify it, but I have a feeling that the universe will suffer heat death before they will share it.

Unfortunately I can't play RTW with anything else than with the Romani or when really stretching with Carthage or successor states. It just doesn't feel right to build an empire with a barbarian faction, which to my knowledge practically all collapsed after their charismatic and successful leader died (huns, mongols etc.). Important thing about Rome is that it lasted. So I would like to see a more challenging campaign for Romani in EBII. I tried adding money for the AI factions, but it didn't appear to have much impact.

The gameplay details and leader events of EB I were very nice. More storyline type events for leaders would be nice so that the missions would have more depth than just capture settlement or go to a Spartan school etc.

[Lucius Verus]

Eastern (Pontic, Parthian etc.) cavalry units must be better than western factions

[XSamatan]

This thread has an interesting question which is hard to answer without knowing fully the possibilities of the M2TW engine. Since the poor AI is hardcoded, I have already asked CA for the AI source code or ways to modify it, but I have a feeling that the universe will suffer heat death before they will share it.

Unfortunately I can't play RTW with anything else than with the Romani or when really stretching with Carthage or successor states. It just doesn't feel right to build an empire with a barbarian faction, which to my knowledge practically all collapsed after their charismatic and successful leader died (huns, mongols etc.). Important thing about Rome is that it lasted. So I would like to see a more challenging campaign for Romani in EBII. I tried adding money for the AI factions, but it didn't appear to have much impact.

The gameplay details and leader events of EB I were very nice. More storyline type events for leaders would be nice so that the missions would have more depth than just capture settlement or go to a Spartan school etc.

Actually the AI is quite modable in MTW2, that releases a big bunch of possbilities, and you can be sure that EB2 will use a lot of them. However, there are some facts that couldn't be broken by the community by now, so some of the big bugs of vanilla MTW2 that can be found in all of the mods will be found also in our mod if we can't get behind some behaviours.
Speaking about the Romans, did you read the preview about teh election system (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...php?t=120753)? I'm sure that this will bring new depth into the game and will assure a deep 'bond' between player and ingame characters.

XSamatan

[scutum]

Actually the AI is quite modable in MTW2, that releases a big bunch of possbilities, and you can be sure that EB2 will use a lot of them. However, there are some facts that couldn't be broken by the community by now, so some of the big bugs of vanilla MTW2 that can be found in all of the mods will be found also in our mod if we can't get behind some behaviours.

I have little experience (although not in total war games) and much more interest in game AI development. If you have some problems I would be happy to review them. After some search I found the interactive tutorial for AI modding, but that doesn't quite offer the options I was trying to find. It's so frustrating in TW series when the AI can be easily beaten even in VH battles by simply choosing the battlefield and letting AI walk straight into the trap, which it always does. Battle tactics could also use some refinement.

[Mediolanicus]

Eastern (Pontic, Parthian etc.) cavalry units must be better than western factions

They already are...

Numidians, Spaniards, Illurians, Tracians, Gaul/Belgians weren't rubbish either in that department, but the Eastern cavalry beats them all...

Unfortunately I can't play RTW with anything else than with the Romani or when really stretching with Carthage or successor states. It just doesn't feel right to build an empire with a barbarian faction, which to my knowledge practically all collapsed after their charismatic and successful leader died (huns, mongols etc.). Important thing about Rome is that it lasted. So I would like to see a more challenging campaign for Romani in EBII. I tried adding money for the AI factions, but it didn't appear to have much impact.

The gameplay details and leader events of EB I were very nice. More storyline type events for leaders would be nice so that the missions would have more depth than just capture settlement or go to a Spartan school etc.

EB will of course never be Romano-centric, but seeing the Romani previews and the new government system and trait system with imperium, it'll be more of a challenge.

The sotrylines aren't a good idea IMO. I don't like "missions". I like to play at my own speed and following my own choices.

[scutum]

The sotrylines aren't a good idea IMO. I don't like "missions". I like to play at my own speed and following my own choices.

"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.

[seienchin]

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.
If people had ignored Micko or used some persuasion like ludens does, the whole thing wouldnt have become such an argument.

[Lucius Verus]

They already are...

Numidians, Spaniards, Illurians, Tracians, Gaul/Belgians weren't rubbish either in that department, but the Eastern cavalry beats them all...

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

[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.

[Apázlinemjó]

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

My guess would be that at the beginning of the third century BC, Pontos didn't really have an "own" cavalry force, but the same as in the last days of the Achaemenid Empire. Which means the exra-heavies were Persians, as they were the ruling nobility, while the mediums and lights were Galatians, Anatolians, Pontic Greeks and later Scythians too. Though I have to admit this setup probably changed in the later periods (adopting the Successors-like cavalry), and that is missing from EB I in my opinion too.

On topic, I would like to see "fixed" morale stats at the Pontic elites (Chalkaspides, Pontikoi Thorakitai), because the 13 is just too low compared to the other units in the same class. When I wrote my paper about the Mithridatic Wars I focused on the politics more than on the actual battles, but I think the defeats against the SPQR don't prove that these guys were more likely to rout and were bad quality soldiers than the "others". Also the Pontic numbers were obviously exaggerated by the Romans and I'm sure none believes that at Chaeronea Sulla lost only 13 men, while Archelaus lost over 100 000. But If I'm wrong, then I would like to ask an EB member to explain me the reason behind the low morale. Thanks.

[athanaric]

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

It would be good if you argued why you think that is, instead of just saying "it must".
That said, Pontos has Cappadoccian Cavalry in EBI that I haven't seen with any other faction. Maybe we'll see more in EBII...

[Noble Wrath]

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

If I am not mistaken, I remember an EB member's post stating that the team had found new evidence for a faction-specific heavy cavalry unit for Pontos. It was a while ago though and I can't find the exact post.

[anubis88]

Edit: Nevermind