Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[joshmahurin]

No not at all and I wanted to point out that I appreciate your suggestion and it may end up influencing something eventually just yeah it isn't anything we could put priority on currently. Please keep suggesting anything you can think of :)

[madmatg]

Any chance we see recruitable generals like eb1 had? Seems like it would be a way for computer to have an officer in charge of armies and also makes it more enjoyable having something that really seems like a puppet leader

[anubis88]

Any chance we see recruitable generals like eb1 had? Seems like it would be a way for computer to have an officer in charge of armies and also makes it more enjoyable having something that really seems like a puppet leader

Thing is there's a new concept for bodyguards in EB; if you look closely, they are almost free. The idea is to give the small factions a better chance by them having cheap elite units.

I think it's tied to the fact that the recruitable generals would also be very cheap, and spamming them could become a huge issue. Someone correct me if i'm wrong :D

[madmatg]

Thing is there's a new concept for bodyguards in EB; if you look closely, they are almost free. The idea is to give the small factions a better chance by them having cheap elite units.

I think it's tied to the fact that the recruitable generals would also be very cheap, and spamming them could become a huge issue. Someone correct me if i'm wrong :D

Seems like you could just set a hard cap like you do now with spies so you could only have like 1 or 2 per settlement

[QuintusSertorius]

Seems like you could just set a hard cap like you do now with spies so you could only have like 1 or 2 per settlement

If they were going to be available anywhere, it would be in Allied Governments, not factional ones, I'd say.

[Rien]

recruitable generals would be great. A very low repletish rate and hard cap would prevent any spamming.
maybe make the amount (hard cap) dependant on the amount of allied gov you have. So if you have a lot of allies you also get a few allied generals to lead their armies (or go rebel with them :p)

[Adalingum]

So, another thing I've been thinking about: the workings of the predecessor government buildings (regional pacification).

First off, it's working is inconsistent: the Roman version, for example, provides a 10% law bonus, a minus 20% happiness penalty and a third effect I can't think of atm (I believe an agricultural effect), whereas in most other factions (perhaps even all others) it only provides a happiness penalty (of 15%, if I'm not mistaken).

I don't know if the Romans were more effective in pacifying a region militarily than others, but to me this seems like an unfair advantage or at least a case of inconsistency. This is, however, not the main point of my suggestion.

Since regional pacification only provides a negative stat in most cases and money is usually tight in the early stages of an EB campaign (meaning more advanced forms of government are at times unavailable for some time, I tend to hold off on setting up regional pacification until I've got the funds immediately start building the next government building. In practice, this can mean keeping the region in what is effectively a state of lawlessness for what can amount to several years. Not very realistic imo, which is why I suggest the following changes to the current system:

1 For the sake of consistency I propose adding a minor law bonus (in the vein of the Roman one) to at least the regional pacification buildings of the 'civilized' factions, if not to those of all factions. In my mind at least, 'regional pacification' represents the forceful restoration of (at least the semblance of) civil order amongst a resentful and unhappy population (one can imagine soldiers patrolling the streets at night, their movements followed by civilians with anger and hate in their eyes...) Thus, even though the natives are still very much upset, order has been restored after the chaos that follows a governmental breakdown and military conquest. This leads me nicely to my second point...

2 In my previous remark, I spoke of 'the chaos that follows a governmental breakdown and military conquest'. The issue I see here is that, in my opinion, EB II doesn't actually represent this situation in its current state. As noted before, setting up regional pacification is actually worse in terms of public order compared to leaving the region in a state of governmental limbo (leading to issue I noted above). Therefore, I propose the creation of a building that represents a state of civil chaos. This building could be tied to script that checks whether there is a government building in a settlement and if there isn't, spawns one of these buildings in said settlement (also destroying it if a goverment has been built). Effects could include a law and happiness penalty or even a minor population growth penalty (to represent people fleeing, migrating or moving away) or a taxation penalty (such as can be found in RS II, where it represents the maintenance cost of, for example, roads) to represent that effective collection of tribute or taxation isn't possible in such situation. I believe this would be a good incentive for the player to begin restoring order to a province either by pacifying it or handing over power to the local elites.

So, I hope this has been enough to present my idea. Once again, I'm interested to see what you people think about it (perhaps my view of what things follow after a military conquest is wholly inaccurate). Please do not think this is a critique or meant to be condescending towards the mod.

Also, please ignore any spelling and grammar mistakes I likely made.

[flythth]

A RECRUITER - a person (or best 2 or 3 persons) that will post from time to time on every: 1. mod-related, 2. history-related 3. total-war rel

Have you guys ever thought about outsourcing some work to students that can be used for both their project/thesis and EB?

Here some examples to clarify my idea:
- A history student does research for some EB related stuff and publishes the results in a seminar thesis
- A designer creates 3D models for a university project that can be used in EB

They would be more inclined to do the work since they have to do papers/projects for their degree anyway.

So the recruiters duties could include getting students to propose stuff like that to their professors or even better, getting professors to put that kind of work on their "list of possible topics/projects".

Would that even be possible/make sense or is the idea completely stupid?

[Lizardo]

Playing as the Gandharans was really easy until i refused to submit to authority then Mauryans came! The capture of cities was really easy as all the rebel army normally in Settlement was outside roaming the province so i went around (they did surpirse me sometimes and i lost a general) and captured the Cities as there was only 1 unit a general defending most of the Settlements are like that it's a great idea but didnt work as the army outside wouldnt ever attack the settlement just wait outside?
Yeah recruitable General good idea then schools would be even more useful

[Not_a_Strategist_yet]

Would it be possible to exploit the medieval 2 totals war jihad mechanic to add the possibility of a coalition of states with similar culture against an enemy province for those regions something like that used to happen at some point in history?
If it can be made really hard to achieve and wants good reputation with other factions for them to join it could be a nice thing. And it's 1 province so won't end up defeating everything with a decent cooldown.

Like let's say someone has a Greek power and has good relations with other Greeks so when the Romans invade he calls for a counter-attack of a coalition of city states. But if they are infighting the chance is very slim for that.

Just adding the idea, but I'm not a historian so I don't know if it would really fit in.

[Vermin]

I have a couple of suggestions: :)

1) Is it possible to link Mercenary recruitment more closely to factions or restrict the replenishment levels more selectively so that for example KH can't simply recruit Mercenary Phalangitai to meets its shortfall in that area? IIRC there was mention in the Hellenic reform thread of a Hellenic faction only being able to recruit 2000 phalangites at some point. ties. With a modicum of money however, the player can simply top up his faction limits with the inexhaustible supply of fairly easily replaced mercenary equivalents. Or maybe just make them a lot more expensive to recruit/maintain?

2) Is it possible (or desirable?) to have each faction capital capable of retraining but not recruiting all/most of the initial starting army. For example the Macedonians start with a nice unit of Hetairoi which is usually ground down in a few battles. It is then several decades before Macedonia can build up its cities/associated buildings to recruit or retrain them, which leaves much of the early-middle part of the game bereft of these colourful units.

Thoughts?

Regards
Vermin

[血荐轩辕]

.I also hope that you can introduce one important things to the military.The logistics.If your army are too far away from your basis.It should run out of food.There should be deserters and lower morale.The cost outside the country should be far higher inside it.I think this will help balance the nomad and permanent faction

[anubis88]

Hi,

you already get penalties when you leave your territory; unit attrition is not possible in the mtw engine though

[血荐轩辕]

If that is not possible.Could you lower the training cost and the upkeep of the nomadic faction.A nomadic leader did not need to pay to train his warrior.He just sumon them and share with them the trophy when he win a war.There should be more reble in nomadic region.They will represent other nomadic tribe oppose the nomadic faction .They will attack nomadic faction as well as any other invader..But if you are powerful enough you can buy them out as your mercenary.

[QuintusSertorius]

If that is not possible.Could you lower the training cost and the upkeep of the nomadic faction.A nomadic leader did not need to pay to train his warrior.He just sumon them and share with them the trophy when he win a war.There should be more reble in nomadic region.They will represent other nomadic tribe oppose the nomadic faction .They will attack nomadic faction as well as any other invader..But if you are powerful enough you can buy them out as your mercenary.

No, all unit costs and upkeep are based upon the unit's status, equipment, training and size. There is no way to distinguish what faction has recruited a unit, meaning if nomadic units are cheaper then they are so for everyone. In any case, they generally are cheaper because they have less armour and are often levy or semi-professional.

[Cruin]

I am hoping this is the right place to put this (if not please advise me)
Two criticisms

OK – hoping that you guys can take some heartfelt criticism without going all defensive on me:

I really like EB II, but I have two beefs with it that prevent me from playing it.

Beef 1:
The latest versions – I will not install EB II 2.1b simply because you make the already too complex installation much worse. First I have to move my old installation, then download the 2.1 patch and install it, then the 2.1b patch and install that, all the time checking that through very slow loads that everything is going right! – Give me a break, guys, I retired from programming years ago, and I don't want to take it up again just to get a game to run. I would stick to EB II until you guys produce a unified version with an installer that can figure out which directories it wants to put things into. At least , I would play EB II, if not for the following major annoyance:

Beef 2:
No Swapping of Ancillaries
Yes, I have read the discussions, and the reasons that at least one of your developers gave for this choice. I am sorry but I can no longer find that thread, so I hope he forgives me if I miss-quote his reasoning here.

Basically, he said that you don't allow the Swapping of Ancillaries because it is not realistic. In real life, if you get a “Drunken Uncle,” or a “Bad Dog,” or whatever, you are stuck with him – you can't just pass him on to someone else.

The person who wrote that sounds like a really nice person, but he must live in a family quite different from mine, or those that I have experienced. If he has never had to pack of a Slubbergudgeon Uncle to go live with some distant cousins that he did not like very much anyway, then he is a better person than the members of my family, and other families I am acquainted with. If he has never unloaded a bad dog on an unsuspecting sucker, then he is a good and honest fellow, but I must confess that I am not so good, and have done this very thing. Heh! – I am Celtic, dog trading is in my blood!

As for other types of Ancillaries – slaves, servants, scribes, military and political assistants and so on – there is a fine tradition of trading these people from ancient times right on to present.

In Roman times, there was active trading in slaves. If your wife got furious about a slave who had become an Embarrassing Mistress, perhaps you could manage to placate your wife by trading her for a good cook. In the complex political/social interactions of Roman households, a good cook could advance your status and career. So could a good scribe or political adviser, and there was active trading in and competition for such servants. So much so, that remarkable were the instances where a prominent Roman managed to keep a good servant for life, perhaps only manumitting them by death will – such as in the case of, say, Cicero and Tiro.

As for military assistants, tribunes and the like, was not the cursus honorum a complex social convention that designed specifically to ensure the regular swapping around of such ancillaries?

The active trading and swapping of slaves, and later servants, was a tradition that was carried on well into modern times. If you read the stories of Jeeves and Wooster by PG Wodehouse, you will find many of the plots revolve around the trading, or attempted poaching, of some favored cook or maid or manservant. These are humorous tales, but they reflect the reality that there was active competition for good servants in feudal households.

I do know that Vanilla Med TW (unlike Rome TW) does not allow the swapping of ancillaries. I regretted this change, because I thought the careful strategic swapping of these servants was a fun and valuable part of the game. So the first thing I did with Med TW was unpack and edit the export_descr_ancillaries.txt to allow the swapping of all ancillaries (and make the changes in other files that this change requires)

With some work and some jiggery-pokerry, I have finally managed to get the same edits done on the export_descr_ancillaries.txt file of EB II. So now I CAN swap around ancillaries, without some irate Roman yelling in Latin at me. “Non Possibli” indeed! I guess it damned-well is possibli if you are determined enough!

However, I stand by all my other statements and arguments. Ancillary swapping should be allowed in EB II, so that a player does not have to go through all the jiggery-pockery to get it to work. Perhaps, it could be offered as an option (although I fear further complicating an installation process already too complex).

And if you ever fix the installation procedure, I might get on to version 2.1x (although, more likely, I would wait for a debugged and tried version 3.0, if you ever get round to making such a thing.

I do think that the making of EB II is an incredible achievement, one that you should all be proud off. I am sorry that this beef annoys me enough that it makes the game unplayable to me.

With great respect,

Cruin MacGriogair.

[Cruin]

Just one other thing. I have not tried EB II in terms of the effectiveness of slingers yet, but if it is like the original EB, then I have a tiny wee Beef with that too.

As a slinger and an archer, I can assure you that sling bullets (at least over medium ranges) are in no way as penetrating as arrows. There is also a lot of good research available on the web about arrow penetration, it is not hard to find. Just because one Roman historian said that slingers were mowing down armored men, it does not make it true. If you doubt me, go get a sling and try it. Sling bullets can do some damage, but arrows do much more, and that is before we even look at bodkin arrow points.

The advantage of slings over bows is cost (they are much cheaper) and ammo (you can carry many more bullets than arrows, and if you run out, you can always use stones).

Regards,

Cruin MacGriogair.

[QuintusSertorius]

Ancillary-swapping for most (but not all, there are a handful you can't get rid of) was something I implemented in the test builds ages ago. It's in 2.1 and 2.1b.

[Cruin]

Well good, -- see there I go, always a couple of versions behind the times, suggesting changes that have already been implemented in the latest version -- well, good for you!

I also have managed to play for a while now, and the slingers do not seem to overpowering here (they were just way over the top in EB I).

I do have another question/suggestion though:

In the description for a Free State, it says that you get 3 upkeep-free units. But it does not say which units! (The longer description suggests that locally-raised troops are only for local defense, and I think that is a neat idea, but none of the local troops seem to be upkeep-free). You should mention which troops are meant (which are they, by the way?)

If this is another thing you have implemented already in Version 2.1b I will laugh. You are like Microsoft, always trying to urge me along to the latest version!

le durachain

Cruin.

[QuintusSertorius]

What you get depends on where you build it, and the building browser and indeed description of the building should tell you when you look at it what's available in any particular place. It'll be a list of unit names.

[Cruin]

A few other EB II bugs

What you get depends on where you build it, and the building browser and indeed description of the building should tell you when you look at it what's available in any particular place. It'll be a list of unit names.

Hmmm....?
This confused me, so I went back and looked.

Lets take, for example, Aleria, a Free City (actually a town) or we could take Caralis, which is the same:

The description lists the following units as available:
Persian Archers
Eastern Axemen
Eastern Medium Cavalry
Libyan Infantry *
Libby-Phonician Hoplites *
Libby-Phonician Cavalry *
Hellenic Levy Hoplites
Hellenistic Medium Cavalry (is there, btw, a difference “Hellenic” and “Hellenistic”?)

* The ones with the * are the only ones actually available in the recruitment roles, I am assuming because the town is only a town yet.

I had tried, unluckily, Libyan Infantry, and Libby-Phonician Cavalry before I left you my last note, and had not seen any “upkeep free” on mousing over them.

After you replied, I went back and tried the last unit availiable to me, Libby-Phonician Hoplites, and they do come upkeep free.

As a scot-pict I love to get upkeep-free units.
As a scot-pict I hate having to buy other units just to find out which ones are free.
If you want to avoid annoying scot-picts (and believe me, you do) you should mention in the descriptions which units are upkeep-free.


A couple of more small bugs – which you have probable fixed by ver 2.1b, but just in case not, I will list them here for you:

Bug 1

Almost all the “coming of age” family members have the same attributes: sharp/uncharismatic/languorous and selfish/pessimistic. This is despite having fathers that were sharp/charismatic/vigorous.The few exceptions (I think) were worse, being dull/uncharismatic/languorous

This would make it it hard to train up good fighting generals, but it gets worse, see Bug 2, below.

Bug 2

When a general wins a fight, he gets the a good-general stat, but does not get a general star. In fact he loses a star if he already has one. I have a “great tactician” – still no star.


Bug 3

In the battlefield interface, when trying to mass select units with hot keys:

Control-I selects both infantry and slingers
Control-M selects just archers (not slingers)


I hope this info is useful to you (I am really not nagging, I am trying to help).

Slainte,

Cruin.

[Cruin]

BTW
I have now discovered so many bugs and quirky things that I think it unfair to keep posting them about an older version. So I have broken down and decided to go through the labor of getting the latest version installed, before I report any more problems. So if you think some of this is magically fixed in version 2.1b, then ignore it. I will report on any that persist in the new versions.

Slan liebh

Cruin.

[Arjos]

Someone from the Mechanics Department will know this better than me, but none of those are bugs...

1 - Unfortunately you are just being unlucky, still those traits do not preclude in any way that those FMs will turn out as great/competent generals. In fact those traits are used to increase the likelihood or not of gaining other traits...

2 - That chain of traits increases line of sight and ambush, as it progresses, but all give +1 command star. Another trait caused your FM to lose stars. There are several other traits that increase stars and having the aforementioned chain increase progressively would be quite the broken feature...

3 - Cannot be helped, if we give the missile unit trait to the slingers they will fire over say 30° or such, which is not proper for slings, whose trajectory is different than that of a bow...

[Cruin]

OK -- I am loving Ver 2.1b by the way -- is is sharp, beutiful, and works much better. Also you have adjusted unit stats way for the better -- things are much better balanced now (in EB II ver I, for instance, Hastati were actually stronger than Principes, for instance).

Graphics are lovely, and everything just seems to work better. Some of my earlier objections have now disappeared. For instance, generals seem to be getting their stars now (however, what has happened to triumphs? I have a General who has won 10 battles, and he is still not being offered a triumph!)

Some things are still a problem, though.

You really do need to write in the government descriptions what units will be free upkeep.

As for the missile trait to slingers -- since when do sling bullets and arrows fly with a different sort of trajectory?
Both fly a parabola. Arrows are a wee bit different because of the fletching, which causes them to slow down over long ranges due to air resistance and loss of energy to anti-spin friction (just another air resistance, really), but both projectiles fly a parabola. Slingers can (as easily as archers) achieve range by firing in a high arc -- maximum range is achieved at 45 degrees -- what is to stop a slinger firing a bullet at this angle? I do it often when shooting out to sea (in Alaskan forest, I don't get much chance otherwise).

By the way, I practice two different kinds of sling shot -- the "double-loop" or "figure eight" sling throw, or the simpler, faster, overhand "Apache" sling throw (when hunting small game) -- either one will allow me to fling a bullet at any angle, but there is not much point when using the Apache throw, which I use for short range, fairly flat-trajectory shots.

Slainte,

Cruin.

[Cruin]

Another note on slingers:

I have been thinking about why you want to make slingers and archers different in the game -- other than the differences I pointed out in an earlier message (slingers are cheaper, more mobile, and can carry more amo). The problem comes when you put slingers behind infantry. In real life, this would be bad -- the sling bullets would hit the backs of the infantry causing them to howl.

This has nothing to do with trajectory. It has to do with accuracy over short range. Or, actually, it has more to do with having flexible control of the projectile's release point. An archer, can, with some care, hold his bow, sight through the arrow point, and shoot between infantry men standing in front of him, or otherwise avoid them (although, archers do, sometimes, make mistakes in the heat of battle -- and English infantry often howled about archers behind them during the 100-year war). Most slingers are not that accurate -- and have that wild sling thing going on -- it is much harder for them to "thread the needle" and put a sling bullet between close standing infantry.

So it is realistic to have the problem of slingers hitting friendly troops who are standing close in front of them. To accurately represent this in a game, you would need some new mechanism to distinguish archers and slingers. Some sort of transparency or protection for friendly troops from arrows, but not from sling bullets.

Watching the direction of development of TW game engines, I doubt we will ever see that.

Le durachdain,

Cruin.

[Ludens]

Watching the direction of development of TW game engines, I doubt we will ever see that.

Yes, and that's really the clincher. We're limited by what the engine allows. (And also by what the A.I. can handle. A completely realistic mechanism that leads to A.I. stupidity isn't going to be implemented either.)

[QuintusSertorius]

Slingers do hit the men in front when you put them behind infantry.

[Cruin]

Start Battle AI? -- How?

OK, here is a problem -- whenever one enters a battle, a handsome Nubian general says "Remember to start the AI before the battle" (I love that -- "remember" like you have told me sometime before!). Problem is, our handsome fellow does not say *HOW* to start the AI. From searching these forums, I saw someone say you start it up by clicking on the general's portrait. If this is correct, then he should say something like "Good job: by clicking my smiling face, you have started up the battlefield AI." If, on the other hand, you start it by dismissing the portrait, then he should say, "By Golly, you need to click on my portrait again to start up the AI!"

If this is wrong, and you start up the AI in some other method, then by Zambula's Arse he needs to *SAY HOW* to do this!

With a smile,

Cruin.

[血荐轩辕]

I had a question about the indian city.Is it a mayan city?I can see no indian specialty in it?I hope you can not only focus on the army model but the architecture.Thanks

[血荐轩辕]

Could you Add more army and reble to nomadic faction and province?In nomadic area,There are loads of tribe.How could one outstand the other.Only when the nomadic faction defeat all the other competitor or rebels.They can held the whole province and lot of money and manpower.Otherwise,Nomadic faction should be poor to death