Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[血荐轩辕]

Could you change the space that army can move?If they are in a enemys province for too much time,they will have the difficulty of finding food.They will get the traits of short of supply.They cant move far because they need a lot of time to search food.I think supply line should be add to the game if the game want to be historical

[Gigantus]

Modifying AI behavior is one of the more difficult things to do - the problem here is to strike a behavior balance, scripting it like you suggest would very likely result in a 'capture the castle' AI behavior, forcing you to actually play defensive.

There are traits that simulate food supplies: "Supplies" and "FriendlyTerritory" - both change movement points based on where an army is (home land or enemy territory) and for how long.

[血荐轩辕]

Could you also change the map?Could you make zagros mountain more like a mountain not a small hills,make persia more like a basin.Could you use the map in www.map-for-free .com to reshape the map

[Gigantus]

Elevating mountains above a certain height is only possible for inaccessible areas - it will otherwise have strange (and unwanted) effects on battles, black radar maps and units stranded on inaccessible cliffs are some of these effects.

[Arjos]

And my argument from the beginning (one that you have ignored, aside from Gigantus originally calling it “BS”), is that a “cowardice” trait is unrealistic and ahistoric. It is a silly trait, and, in my opinion, a bit “high school”. Arjos, the only thing you say in response, is the imperious “we want the trait,” – as if I have no right to question this decision. That sort of implies you invite criticism so long as it does not question any decisions you have already made. If that is indeed your stance and policy, then make that clear, and I will not waste my time making these points.

Presuming it it not, I will make the following points (to back my assertion that a “cowardice” trait is unhistoric), and then, I really have nothing more to say on the subject.

If a general withdrew from a battle, back in Rome, a general's enemies might snicker privately “coward”, but those enemies would be snickering about other stuff even if the general had a “heroic” success. But politically, success or failure over the campaign was what really counted.

The point is that running away from danger was, among all the cultures in the mod, something akin to a crime. It unmade social status, it was often met with executions, exiles or falls from power. Such an important aspect cannot be left out from a project such as ours, centered so much on historical accuracy...

And this solution is already mild, Punic FMs and generals should get basically a "kill_self" command after a defeat to represent the Karthadastim crucifying them for example...

Generals should have every right to withdraw from a battlefield without penalty of stigma, and historically they often did. Whether we call it a “withdrawal” or a “rout” depends on how much control and order the general maintains during the retreat. If some units, or even all of them, even the general's own bodyguard, “rout”, without the generals order to do so, perhaps that shows the general has trouble inspiring courage or otherwise controlling his men, and perhaps he deserves censor for that – you could strip him of a star, for instance – but as you have taken great lengths to prove, I doubt the game engine is sophisticated enough for you to distinguish between a withdrawal and a total rout, and frankly, I don't think such a persnickety censor is worth the trouble. The game already gives the player a disapproving scroll, and perhaps other censors, for losing the battle.

Here's the quirk: engine limitations!!!

Unfortunately we cannot discern it and we feel that the trait occurring with real routs is more important. It is already something of a compromise as it isn't as punishing as it would've been. Collaterally it occurs with withdraws...

No one cared whether Varus cut a brave figure when he marched without scouts into the Teutoburg forest, they just called him incredibly stupid and incompetent when he lost the legions. No one, even in Rome, questioned Hannibal's courage for losing and withdrawing so many battles --they admired, respected, and hated him for how he recovered and came back doubly strong.

Still imo you are focusing too much on the aftermaths and specific historical figures, knowing what followed. Yours is a series of abstracted causes and effects with no humanity in it...

The now and present is completely left out of your preferential scenario you've described, any levied man, political enemy, disgrunted/tired soldier etc would look even at tactical retreats as a sign of weakness and would lose faith in their general (think of the Cunctator, hell even setbacks by Alexandros were met by doubts). Do note that our trait is doubtful courage, you are the only one rethorically referring to it as cowardice. It is at the 3rd and 4th level of that trait chain that cowardice and fear are mentioned...

Had Varvs run away and even survived, they would've called him stupid, incompetent and coward. Roman martial culture demanded death and sacrifice over survival of defeat. Also focusing on the decline of the Mos Maiorvm in the 1st century BC isn't a good depiction/sample of Roman culture...

As for the picture you are referring to of Hannibal is all coming from the posterity and the knowledge of the ultimate victory by the Romani, not to mention the modern jibber jabber of military historians depicting Scipio as his disciple. It's war anyone with a brain sees something done properly by the enemy and acts on his own tactics accordingly...
I'd very much wonder how much respect and admiration were given to Hannibal by any Roman man during the years and days they were fighting and dying, because of him...

Plus that peachy idea of total admiration and respect is frankly again using a modern lense, the few quotes and propaganda behind them say how Hannibal could win, but had no idea of what to do with a victory for example. Far from being respectful admiration it is a statement of facts: he had victories on the field and no one could deny the dead, but he lost and in just few years lost everything, bested by Roman qualities...
Again even the infamous meeting with Scipio as an older exile, by stating that he would've been better than Alexandros had he won against Scipio. Underneath it is pretty lampant the assertment that no one, but Alexandros could best the Romani. And that was a dead demigod, which could be admired, but the Romani are saying that no one alive threatened them...
Not to mention this is all talks and ideas from the few educated elites, doesn't even touch on what everyone was thinking about Hannibal. A little glimpse is mothers spooking naughty children with the name of Hannibal: so much for admiration...

Plus gameplay-wise nothing prevents you to come back hard on the enemy, like your examples of Caesar, and gain positive traits compensating and overcoming (I'm not sure, but the doubtful courage might even go away) the effects of said trait...

[Cruin]

Arjos, you arguments are well thought and well made, and if you will allow me, I withdraw my objections. Allow me also, to make the following observations.

{ The point is that running away from danger was, among all the cultures in the mod, something akin to a crime. It unmade social status, it was often met with executions, exiles or falls from power. Such an important aspect cannot be left out from a project such as ours, centered so much on historical accuracy...}

In the main, this is true, at least for the rank and file. I'm not so sure the same rule applied to the generals, though, who played in a more complex political arena. They would have to walk a tightrope between the hints of cowardice and accusations that they needlessly threw away the lives of their troops. This applied just as much in the period of EBII as it does today, and to all the cultures therein – some historians have a tendency to portray the people of history as primitive, less sophisticated, and less politically apt than the people of today. We need strive to avoid this tendency


{any levied man, political enemy, disgrunted/tired soldier etc would look even at tactical retreats as a sign of weakness and would lose faith in their general}

See, now that is what I wondered – at least for the disgrunted/tired soldier – seeing as the trait gives a -1 moral penalty. Would a tired soldier rally more to a general who had fearlessly led him into battle, however the battle was going, or would he be more inclined to trust a general that had demonstrated that he cared more for the lives of his soldiers than some possible slight to his own reputation? I admit it is a bit of a toss-up.

{hell even setbacks by Alexandros were met by doubts}

Initially I thought this was one of your best points. It certainly stopped me up to think. Now, though, I am rethinking it – I'm not sure they were doubts about his courage. More the opposite – that he would take them into death and destruction without fear or regard. So this, actually, is an argument against the inclusion of the trait.

{Do note that our trait is doubtful courage, you are the only one rethorically referring to it as cowardice.}

Oops! -- Please forgive me here. I was referring to it as the “Coward” trait because that is what it is called in the code (the first level giving the “Doubtful Courage” tag to the general). I did not mean to try and bolster my argument by giving it any extra weight of stigma by the term “coward”. I actually thought the term “Doubtful Courage” was very well chosen for the first level of the trait, and had, in itself, a certain poetry.

Anyway, aside from the niggly-naggly doubts mentioned above, I still think your arguments were well made, and in the balance, win the day. I am mollified by at least knowing your reasoning for including the trait, and I don't think it is quite as silly and childish as I did before.

Slàn liebh,

Cruin.

[血荐轩辕]

I find that you had very wrong setting for a light cavelry.I had 4 unit of cavelry archer shot at 1 unit of cavelry.It at least take me 10 minuit to totally kill them out.It is one of the lightest cavelry in the game.They have no armour.How could they take so many arrow?In really.Only 1 direct hit can make a light cavelry loose the ability to fight.Please be reasonable with the light cavelry.The Rome 2 total war does very well in this manner

[Christianus]

Is there any chance of HOTSEAT implemented to EBII? Just love playing several factions on the map at once with another mod.

[Ibrahim]

I find that you had very wrong setting for a light cavelry.

OK, as unit battlefield stat guy, I'll hear you out @血荐轩辕:

I had 4 unit of cavelry archer shot at 1 unit of cavelry.It at least take me 10 minuit to totally kill them out. It is one of the lightest cavelry in the game.They have no armour.

several questions pop to mind, reading this description:

-which horse archers (some suck, some don't: arrow type is important here)
-and which light cavalry? quite a few of the latter I know have 1 or 2 armor. (from a gameplay standpoint, there are hardly any units with 0 armor--certainly none for the cavalry). This is important to note, as this can affect things.
-was the enemy in loose formation for at least part of the time?
-did you surround the enemy or not?
-did the targeted unit have a shield (yes, this is a big deal)?
-how far were your men on average from the enemy?
-EDIT: oh, since we're dealing with Horse Archers: did you use the Cantabrian circle or not (again, it makes a big difference)

because, assuming it went like a typical fight (I'm assuming the enemy loosened its formation), 10 minutes is quite fast. You do realize I designed the stat system with slower combat relative to vanilla M2TW in mind, right? It'd have been slower had it not been for CA's decision to tie cohesion to lethality (and make the latter universal...)

How could they take so many arrow?In really.Only 1 direct hit can make a light cavelry loose the ability to fight.

Who said they're "taking" many arrows (here I'm assuming you mean "struck by"? consider these possibilities--all but the last of which happen in Real Life:
-not every shot will hit the target: most will in fact do the opposite (in fact, I made sure of this...)
-not every shot which hits the target will be serious enough to cripple or kill it (especially with arrows). the arrow might put a hole in a hat, co through a sleeve, etc. I might hit a shield, or glance off a helmet.
-horses have been known to take multiple shots with arrows--that's why as late as the Hundred years war, you hear dozens of descriptions of "horses maddened by arrows". You're assuming only the horseman would be hit hard. Obviously horses can be taken out with one shot, but that would be a lucky shot.
-while we're on the subject of horsemen: he and his horse share the same hit point, so if anything horses are weaker in this mod then they should be historically...
-the horse archer is on a horse bobbing up and down, trying to hit a lone target also moving up and down (and I'm assuming at least 70 meters away).

Please be reasonable with the light cavelry.The Rome 2 total war does very well in this manner

Well, this isn't Rome 2: total war. This is not a mod for fast-paced combat. And again, 10 minutes is actually not bad--especially as by your own words, you completely destroyed the unit.

EDIT: for anyone else making a comment along these lines: don't just give me a useless comment. I will tear you to pieces, as I've done here. a good post on the subject should clarify what units there were, how many (and ideally the level of experience), what happened (that is, actions by the enemy and by yourself), where the battle was fought (and if it was part of a campaign), and so on. What I've devised with Quintus, z3n, and many others' help is quite complicated, and depends on many variables--as it should. We can't fix any chinks if we can't even make heads or tails about your complaint. Believe me, you're not doing us any favors if you post like this.