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

[vartan]

What we should know here is their role. Are they a near-elite/elite unit or just a "regular" one? And the fixed stats made them a bit better, but as I commented in the previous post, they are still useless. Paying almost 2k mnai for a unit which can barely handle regular light infantry (without AP) and light spearmen is just a waste of mnai, in my opinion.

Edit: So we need an EB team member who can help and enlighten us in the matter. *Tries to summon one of them with conjuration magic.*

Edit2: Ahh, edited the first sentence, I missunderstood your sentences. :D

Those units are far from elite. Just because there were few of them on the field doesn't make them elite.

[antisocialmunky]

I would take a look at how stamina is balanced in EB2. I think the bias against professional and city-based infantry that aren't Rome with regards to stamina should be re-examined from EB1 now that the guard mode bugs are largely gone. It makes it impossible to effectively assault positions since most enemy infantry will always have a slight but noticeable advantage in the stamina department until both units are exhausted. I mean, its not that bad but it seems equivalent to 3 or 4 points spread between attack/defense.

I think for EB1 length battles, the ideal stamina would be 'hardy' for all regular fighting units and then 'very hardy' if the unit deserves extra stamina. No stamina bonus should be exclusively given to city-levies and such(farmers are buff). That means hardy Neito and Hoplites so they don't completely dud against cheaper units that can keep a stamina bonus in a 10 minute battle.

[Apázlinemjó]

Why would they be elite? They don't look like elite units to me, and AFAIK they were intended to replace the old-fashioned phalangite armies, suggesting they made up the rank-and-file.

Those units are far from elite. Just because there were few of them on the field doesn't make them elite.

I thought their original name was something like "Pontic Elite Infantry", though I'm not sure. Anyway their description says they are not elite, but a good heavy infantry. Okay, nevermind with the morale question about them, then the 13 is correct. I hope their "combat" stats get an overhaul in EB2.

[Cambyses]

Except that in M2TW, using guard mode means that you get pushed backwards quite fast when fighting heavy infantry - and very fast when fighting cavalry. This breaks your formation with often terminal consequences. So, I dont think guard mode will cause the same issues in EB2 as it (maybe) does in EB1. I think the key thing with stamina is to slow the battles down, and lessen the impact of cavalry charges, then it wont be necessary to run everywhere. Hopefully the AI can be taught this simple fact as well.

[vartan]

I thought their original name was something like "Pontic Elite Infantry", though I'm not sure. Anyway their description says they are not elite, but a good heavy infantry. Okay, nevermind with the morale question about them, then the 13 is correct. I hope their "combat" stats get an overhaul in EB2.

Correct? You're joking right? I'm sure you didn't mean to offend, that you meant to say that 13 is "reasonable", not "correct". What is correct? incorrect? Oh my good friend. And you have a good memory. They were formerly named Elite Infantry of the Pontiks.

[Moros]

they are not elite, they are armoured.

[Torres84]

I'd love to see kind of tech advance, since there are no historical characters ingame like Julius Caesar or Augustus... why would we have to stick with the historical parameters? I mean, maybe you could make some scripting that decides whether or not Roman receives lorica segmentata or whether or not (like a switch that activates certain units, certain new buildings, ships etc)

: - D

[Captain Jazzy]

Im fairly sure its been stated many, many, many times that LS wont be included and anyway how would you implement reserch/tech advances in a MedII mod? This isnt Empires and I dont think it would fit in Eb at all...

[plutoboyz]

I'd love to see kind of tech advance, since there are no historical characters ingame like Julius Caesar or Augustus... why would we have to stick with the historical parameters? I mean, maybe you could make some scripting that decides whether or not Roman receives lorica segmentata or whether or not (like a switch that activates certain units, certain new buildings, ships etc)

: - D

LS??

IRL, LS was rarely used, and even roman legionaire were barely worn armor. only when inspection or parade.

[Torres84]

LS??

IRL, LS was rarely used, and even roman legionaire were barely worn armor. only when inspection or parade.

Yesss I know !! but that's what I mean, not a research tree like in ETW but a script-like with objectives that you would have to fulfill (like in reforms) in order to achieve some "minor" advances, or the option to build certain things to engrandeur the roman res publica or empire (like minor obelisks in rome that gives you certain morale bonuses or trade bonuses only allowed after you conquer the Ptolemaioi, or the expositions of barbarian kings and nobles once you have annihilated the gauls)

I know LS it was not used widely IRL but it would be great to have that option if you have the ability to accomplish the necessary objectives. Like secondary objectives. : )

[HFox]

Not sure if this is possible......but I would like to see cavalry charge through and out of the other side of the unit they are engaging....or at least a chance of this.

[abou]

Not sure if this is possible......but I would like to see cavalry charge through and out of the other side of the unit they are engaging....or at least a chance of this.

I wouldn't know how to do that. I imagine it would be a little work with collision detection, mass, and so forth. That would be heavy stuff. I don't think anyone on the team is in a position to do that with the current workload. We would really need to look for outside help on that.

[zamolxe]

Do you best on the campaign and battle AI! I think is the most important aspects of the game.

[President]

Not sure if this is possible......but I would like to see cavalry charge through and out of the other side of the unit they are engaging....or at least a chance of this.

There is a chance of this it's called a... ... ... successful charge! ;D



But about my idea: A comprehensive weapons stat index. Such as Gladius -, Sarissa -, Chainmail -, Lorica Hamataa -, etc. etc. etc...

[Aper]

Dunno if someone already pointed out this, but M2TW diplomacy and AI are not that of RTW, right?

They are in fact very moddable (there are many and very different AIs on TWC and other fan sites).

To some people, try to visit TW Center to inform you about M2TW modding before posting false infos as they were well known facts.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Diplomacy is still the same (only you now get an indication of the answer), and not moddable at all. BAI en CAI are somewhat moddable, but not very.

[antisocialmunky]

CAI can be moddable to a reasonable spot so that's not a really big problem. BAI... I dunno. There are groups out there that claim that the AI is much better though I haven't seen a good formation AI.

[Gabeed]

Bear with me if this is not possible (I've never played Medieval 2) or has already been discussed, but the biggest problem in EB for me, and is in fact a problem in all Total War games I've played, is the lack of internal civil wars in factions. This is why we see the Ptolemies become so powerful most of the time in EB 1. This is why you can have a king with the charisma and martial skill of a dead crocodile and still conquer the world. This is why I (and probably many other players) often lost interest in a campaign after about 50 years, with no civilization that can harm me and no potential civil wars. I recall Barbarian Invasion vanilla having the most rudimentary of concepts for this (with Roman Empire rebels cropping up and whatnot), but it wasn't great. If only the Creative Assembly would take some hints from Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis: Rome, we'd have a game that is wonderfully immersive and realistic in more aspects of why battles are fought, rather than just focusing on increasing the graphical quality of the battlefield.

[Duguntz]

I want to see the Lorica Segmentata!!!

Forget about it. totally! The lorica segmentata came of use around 9 BC. From 9 BC to 14 AD, where the script stops, isn't a preiod long enough to justify a new imperial unit!

So, get used to the lorica hamata!

[Mediolanicus]

Isn't Tux an EB member? So I think that was a joke...

If yours is a joke too, please make it a more obvious one the next time.

[bobbin]

Yes, Tux is a long time member of the team. He was quoting the daring new historical argument that has forced us to rethink our whole position on Lorica Segmentata.

[Lusitani]

What I would really like to see fixed is....a fast release date :P

[Hax]

Bear with me if this is not possible (I've never played Medieval 2) or has already been discussed, but the biggest problem in EB for me, and is in fact a problem in all Total War games I've played, is the lack of internal civil wars in factions. This is why we see the Ptolemies become so powerful most of the time in EB 1. This is why you can have a king with the charisma and martial skill of a dead crocodile and still conquer the world. This is why I (and probably many other players) often lost interest in a campaign after about 50 years, with no civilization that can harm me and no potential civil wars. I recall Barbarian Invasion vanilla having the most rudimentary of concepts for this (with Roman Empire rebels cropping up and whatnot), but it wasn't great. If only the Creative Assembly would take some hints from Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis: Rome, we'd have a game that is wonderfully immersive and realistic in more aspects of why battles are fought, rather than just focusing on increasing the graphical quality of the battlefield.

There will be some form of representation of internal strife within factions. How it works exactly, I can't say (and I don't really know, actually )

This is why we see the Ptolemies become so powerful most of the time in EB 1. This is why you can have a king with the charisma and martial skill of a dead crocodile

I see what you did there.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

There will be some form of representation of internal strife within factions. How it works exactly, I can't say (and I don't really know, actually )

Ooohh...I'm intrigued, sounds good. I think, in all honesty, the only real weakness of EB1 is the diplomatic/political side - and that's not really the fault of the EB team, simply a limitation of the R:TW engine. If that aspect is significantly improved then.....EB2 is going to be something else....as one poster said, there should be a better representation of the why of warfare, as well as the how.

If there was one thing that I would want to see, that I think is lacking in EB1 (and this might not be possible) is some way of representing guerilla tactics. Ambushes should catch armies spread out, for example - not in battle formation... or reconaissance (cavalry) units, and in enemy territory, foraging parties.

[Horatius Flaccus]

It's good to see you now are an actual EB team member (instead of an 'auxiliary') Hax, congratulations!

And I'm very interested in the way EB is going to handel civil strife, it's one of the hardest things to represent well. BC 3.0 has what seems like a good system, but it could be too 'artificial'.

[Rahl]

If there was one thing that I would want to see, that I think is lacking in EB1 (and this might not be possible) is some way of representing guerilla tactics. Ambushes should catch armies spread out, for example - not in battle formation...

Thats actually possible in M2TW. I was as surprised as my enemy when my King of Norway caught an enemy force in marching formation. The where standing in a long line while I was able to position my troops on every other place of the battlefield, I could attack them from the sides and crushed them. But I was not able to do this again, mainly because I play EB again.

[bobbin]

Thats actually possible in M2TW. I was as surprised as my enemy when my King of Norway caught an enemy force in marching formation. The where standing in a long line while I was able to position my troops on every other place of the battlefield, I could attack them from the sides and crushed them. But I was not able to do this again, mainly because I play EB again.

Eh? This is what always happens when an ambush is successful, in both RTW and M2TW.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Eh? This is what always happens when an ambush is successful, in both RTW and M2TW.

Really? I have succesfully ambushed (and been ambushed) and wouldn't say that the ambushed armies fairly represent an army on the move.

[XSamatan]

Than your ambush wasn't successful 100%. If it is, your would have get the situation bobbin was referring to, but otherwise the enemy would have time to organize his army. This feature is hardcoded both in RTW as in MTW2.

XSamatan

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Thanks.... I've obviously been unlucky. I look forward to some proper guerilla tactics.... Does it make a difference what sort of units are ambushing, or is it purely chance (if you know..)?