the campaign map will be different according to culture and such, correct? as in we won't be running around medieval forts on the campaign map? it'd be cool if it can be done per culture
the campaign map will be different according to culture and such, correct? as in we won't be running around medieval forts on the campaign map? it'd be cool if it can be done per culture
I'm not too sure, I think they'd all have a default look. I say this because if a foreign faction takes over and upgrades the city it'll change it's culture setting. It would give rise to (potentially) a different culture city and fort. Not sure if that's right, chat away.
We love you because you died and resurrected to save us...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
here is btw a pic how it will look like in DOTS, for those of you who did not see the mods map blog:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
i very much like the combination of huge moving range + many forts
conquering new land and moving through enemy territory will be a slow grinding process, while you can move rapidly through your own, as it should be i guess![]()
Gott mit dir, dem Bayernvolke,
Daß wir unsrer Väter wert,
fest in Eintracht und in Friede
bauen unseres Glückes Herd;
Daß der Freund da Hilfe finde,
Wehrhaft uns der Gegner schau,
Wo die Rauten-Banner wehen,
Unsre Farben – Weiß und Blau!
Unholy crap, that is absolutely ridiculous! No offense, fightermedic, but I will never play that mod for that reason alone. Not only do they look terrible being all over the map, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of EB2 fans have no interest in going through that many siege battles.
I realize that conquering a region means more than just capturing one city, but I think that the team has found an abstract way of representing the continual subjugation of a conquered region through the Authority Buildings system they are implementing. I fully support using stone forts to represent extremely settlements in important strategic locations, but having tons of them spread all over every region just seems absurd to me.
Looks awesome. I have dreamt of this.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
here ya go: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=469217
@Blxz: quite the opposite in my opininon, well we'll have to wait and see how it turns out in the end, anyway
Gott mit dir, dem Bayernvolke,
Daß wir unsrer Väter wert,
fest in Eintracht und in Friede
bauen unseres Glückes Herd;
Daß der Freund da Hilfe finde,
Wehrhaft uns der Gegner schau,
Wo die Rauten-Banner wehen,
Unsre Farben – Weiß und Blau!
Hmm, all this talk of castles has made me think. Will every single city have the option to build some form of massive wall for their settlements? It really, really got to me in EB, around 240BC no matter what city you tried to take, no matter what faction it was you had to take it from, it always had a stone wall, or the "barbarian" equivelant.
Can the building of anything higher than a thick palisade be restricted to like... Rome, Carthage, Athens, Alexandreia, Seleukia, basically just the capital city or any extremely historically important city within an empire that isn't its capital, like Babylon for Seleukids, etc? It kills me having to assault walls every bloody time I attack what ought to be just a minor settlement.
EBII has finally released. All hail the EBII team!
That wouldn't be very realistic now would it?
Stonefort spam. Thats insane, and not good insane. I was looking forward to DOTS but thats just not my style of play. A perfect case of overzealous implementation of a game feature ruining a game.
Completed Campaigns:
Macedonia EB 0.81 / Saby'n EB 1.1
Qart'Hadarst EB 1.2 / Hai EB 1.2
Current Campiagns:
Getai/Sauromatae/Baktria
donated by Brennus for attention to detail.
Bookmarks