Unit stacking?

[Stark]

You really believe that, or are you joking (I can't tell)?

Historical accuracy can't be viewed as anything except "background" or "flavor" for the game, otherwise you might as well make the game a simple script that runs like a movie, showing you all the events that occurred until Rome took over all of Europe, with no interaction allowed by the player at all (therefore, no ability to change any event that occurred).

EB was made to emulate ancient warfare and politics. Doing something that engine allows but wasn't possible in real life is an exploit, not a feature.

When will understand that most people play EB for it's historical background and roleplaying, not for powergaming like you? Play as you like, but please stop pushing your opinions down other people throats.

[Andres]

EB was made to emulate ancient warfare and politics. Doing something that engine allows but wasn't possible in real life is an exploit, not a feature.

When will understand that most people play EB for it's historical background and roleplaying, not for powergaming like you? Play as you like, but please stop pushing your opinions down other people throats.

Everybody is entitled to his opinion

That said, Nightmare, it's ok to have criticism on a modding project, as long as it is constructive criticism.

As Stark says, the EB modification is all about historical (as accurate as possible) background end trying to relive history. Of course, you can do things in the game that didn't happen in real history, because, well, it's a game.

I can understand that this is not to your liking and that you prefer more balance, even if that means less historical accuracy. That's fair enough, but if you put that opinion forward as criticism on the mod, then you're criticism is pointless and thus, no longer constructive.

Constructive criticism is criticism that helps the modders to improve their mod, in the framework of their objectives, desires, viewpoints, opinions etc. If, however, your criticsm comes down to "I want another mod", then that's no longer criticism, let alone constructive criticism, but just an opinion.

Coming here and constantly posting posts that basically come down to "I don't like this mod at all" is not only pointless, it's also a bit disrespectful to the people who dedicate their free time on a voluntary basis to create work that they then make available for everyone, free of charge.

If you don't like this mod, then perhaps you should try another one. If none of the modifications of a TW game out there are to your liking, then you have only two options : 1) accept that; 2) try to form your own team to make your own mod. I'm sure you'll find people here who can show you where to find guides, tutorials etc. on modding. Maybe some might even want work with you on your mod.

But please, be aware that constantly posting messages that basically say "this mod sucks" will be considered disrespectful by the people creating the mod. I'm not saying that that is your intention, but you need to be aware that is how it comes across.

[athanaric]

I believe there's a misunderstanding here regarding the meaning(s) of the term historical accuracy: Nightmare tends to view it as "historical accuracy as in chain of events that actually happened" whereas others see it as "historical accuracy as in realistic social/natural environment for the time period and realistic, plausible possibilities of development after 272 BC". For instance, the Persian reforms of the Hai faction never happened in real life because Armenia got caught up between Arsacid Parthia and Rome and ended up being a semi-autonomous kingdom ruled by an offshoot of the Arsacids. But if things had gone differently (say, a power vacuum that makes it possible for Armenians to conquer Iranian core regions), the "reform" might actually have happened because of existing dynastic and cultural ties, not to mention geograpic proximity. Seeing as the human player starts the campaign in 272 BC, he or she can avoid the mistakes made by historical characters and thereby build a prosperous empire.
By the way, both EB I and II only include factions that had a disposition to and a realistic chance of becoming a bigger power of sorts.

[d'Arthez]

< deleted / removed >

[Nightmare]

Well, it still remains a game. It would no longer be a game if it would be entirely scripted until the end

I think that's essentially my point, so it seems you and I agree. The mod is **obviously a game first, with historical accuracy and what not coming second. It has to be that way, or, as you and I point out, it would cease to be a game and would merely be a scripted "movie" so to speak.

On the usage of the term **obviously above - each campaign contains victory conditions. Many, if not most, are ahistorical. For instance, Carthage victory conditions include taking all of Italy. This never happened. If ahistorical play was frowned upon, the victory conditions would be "lose to Rome." Epeiros victory conditions include taking all the lands of the Arche Seluke and going all the way to India.

The point is, none of this stuff ever happened, yet the designers of this mod are saying you must do it anyway. They are saying "to win with this particular faction YOU MUST PLAY AHISTORICALLY."

Therefore, I claim it's "obvious" that this is a 1) game first, which is 2) historically-flavored second, designed that way by the modders themselves. I claim it is not some attempt to maximize historical accuracy, with ahistorical play being verbotten or frowned upon. In fact, for most if not all campaigns, ahistorical play is absolutely required in order to win.

I will gladly reverse my statement and stance if someone can somehow refute the fact that the modders created ahistorical victory conditions for the factions.

I'm sure they appreciate feedback on bugs or on historical inaccuracies you spotted, but there's not much point in wanting the modders to change the starting points and goals of their project.

No no no no no! You've got me all wrong here! I'm not asking modders to change starting points and goals! I'm simply stating what those starting points and goals appear to be! :-)

Others seem to have erroneous ideas about what those starting points and goals are (from my perspective at least). I'm either trying to 1) correct the record for them, or 2) have my own record corrected - one of the two. If someone says the world is flat and I say it is round (or vice-versa), I'd like to lay out my arguments, have them lay out their arguments, and optimally have one of us reverse his position.

...or on historical inaccuracies you spotted...

*sigh* :-(

I mentioned (and continue to mention) historical inaccuracies not because I am criticizing the game by any means. Nor do I want these historical inaccuracies changed. I mention them to simply make the point that the game is a game, not a scripted movie. You can do this amazing thing called "change history" - something far more interesting than simply "watch history." My point is simply that "changing history" is by definition "ahistorical."

There seems to be this notion that what I just said is a "criticism" of the game. My God, it's applause. I applaud the designers for this choice. I stand up and scream and rejoice and shout to the high heavens.

If they would go for balance and not pay too much attention to history for instance, then this would be a completely different mod, no longer EB

Gotcha.

I don't think anyone has brought up balance here, unless you count "unit stacking" as a balance concern. I was just responding to someone who said "such and such is ahistorical, therefore shouldn't be allowed in the game." My point is that the game, by consequence of it being a game, is forced to be ahistorical, so we should stop kidding ourselves. You seem to agree with your statement at the very top. I don't think I'm saying much different than what you said. I'm just saying it in a hell of a lot more words :-)

As I understand it, what moonburn referred to was the occasional EB multiplayer tournaments, which are played with strict historical rules regarding the composition of armies by faction and what moves are not allowed.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for trying to clarify. If that is the case, then we can just move on if everyone wants (perhaps I'm talking apples while he's talking oranges). However, he did say that such-and-such shouldn't be allowed because of ahistorical reasons "even in mp games" which seems to say that he wasn't talking exclusively about special mp tournaments. Or perhaps there is a language barrier? Is he a native speaker?

There may be additional miscommunication here, and if so I will accept the blame. The title and topic of this thread is unit stacking and whether it is considered an exploit or not. I asked the question. People were free to give whatever answers. They did. And I accepted all of those answers with no bone of contention or comment whatsoever. If people considered it an exploit, that was fine with me. If people didn't, that was fine too. I just wanted to hear people's opinions on it, that's all. There was never any challenge by me on any of that.

What I was actually "challenging" (in a friendly way) in moonburn's statement WASN'T whether or not stacking such-and-such unit with a phalanx was considered an exploit, verbotten, etc. - again, I ASKED THE QUESTION, I GOT ANSWERS, I ACCEPTED THEM, 'NUFF SAID. What I challeneged was whether something in the game should not be allowed on the basis of historical accuracy, because to me, as I've said, the game by it's very nature is ahistorical so that's never a reason to reject something - that's all.

In short, I said "hate unit stacking all you want, make all the comments you want against it because I posed the question and wanted answers, I just view with suspicion the rationale of 'ahistorical,' that's all." I think a much better argument is that unit stacking is simply impossible to do in real life and violates physics, and simply appears to be an exploit.

That said, Nightmare, it's ok to have criticism on a modding project, as long as it is constructive criticism.

Gotcha.

No criticism here from me. If you can find it please cut and paste it or quote it so I can see it. Or perhaps there is some miscommunication? Perhaps you or others feel it's criticism to say the game is a game first which happens to have historical flavor second? That wasn't intended as criticism at all. In fact, while I said it and meant it as a flat, neutral, objective statement, if I had to go one way or other I'd put it in the "compliment" camp, not "criticism" camp. I think the game is much better as the actual "game" that it is vs. a scripted movie you can only watch.

I can understand that this is not to your liking and that you prefer more balance, even if that means less historical accuracy. That's fair enough, but if you put that opinion forward as criticism on the mod, then you're criticism is pointless and thus, no longer constructive.

Understood.

I don't think I've said anything about balance here, nor have I said I prefer less historical accuracy. I've just stated that this appears to be a game first and foremost, with the historical flavor coming second. That isn't a preference I'm citing (whether I have such a preference or not). I'm just looking at the game (see above about campaign victory conditions, about the fact that this isn't just a scripted movie that plays noninteractively, etc) and making that observation. I'm happy to have the observation corrected. In fact, if I'm wrong about this, I WANT to have it corrected. If the world is round and I think it's flat, I'd like to have someone tell me it's round.

Constructive criticism is criticism that helps the modders to improve their mod, in the framework of their objectives, desires, viewpoints, opinions etc. If, however, your criticsm comes down to "I want another mod", then that's no longer criticism, let alone constructive criticism, but just an opinion.

Message received.

I don't think I implied, or stated "I want another mod" here. I think I've just tried to describe what this mod actually is, from the best observation I've been able to make, that's all. There was not a "criticism" component to anything I've said, or hell, not even a preference I've voiced. I've just said "this appears to be such-and-such, and doesn't appear to be something else."

I'm saying "the color here appears to be blue, not black." That's an objective observation, and I'm making no value judgement with it. But if you must know, I like the color blue just fine.

You might be confusing my posts here with some posts I've made in other threads. These are these posts. Those are those posts. These posts != those posts.

Coming here and constantly posting posts that basically come down to "I don't like this mod at all" is not only pointless, it's also a bit disrespectful to the people who dedicate their free time on a voluntary basis to create work that they then make available for everyone, free of charge.

Roger.

Not sure who's posts you are reading in this thread, but they don't appear to be mine.

...try to form your own team to make your own mod. I'm sure you'll find people here who can show you where to find guides, tutorials etc. on modding. Maybe some might even want work with you on your mod.

Already beat you to it :-) A few weeks ago I obtained some EBO_MP_EDU mod from some guy (can't remember his name but all the MP folks around seem to use his mod) and I wrote a custom program to merge his MP stuff with the vanilla SP stuff, then I further modified that to create my own mod which I'm playing. I'm happy to announce that the cost-effectiveness of elite units is much improved, plus Casse chariots are now good units. Hell, I'm even using the Alexander engine now, and having great success with it. But again, I wasn't being critical of standard EB here in this thread.

I believe there's a misunderstanding here regarding the meaning(s) of the term historical accuracy: Nightmare tends to view it as "historical accuracy as in chain of events that actually happened" whereas others see it as "historical accuracy as in realistic social/natural environment for the time period and realistic, plausible possibilities of development after 272 BC".

Thanks, athanaric. Perhaps we are using different definitions of historical accuracy.