Org Mobile Site
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.
{ 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.
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
Is there any chance of HOTSEAT implemented to EBII? Just love playing several factions on the map at once with another mod.
There is a standard, hot seat capable mtw2.lnt file (mtw2-hotseat) in the data\menu folder. Rename the default file (mtw2) and then remove the suffix (-hotseat) from the hotseat file.
Because it is default it will yield some 'interesting' UI appearance in the menu, but it is usable and functional.
The hot seat capability should at some stage be coded into the default file we are using - that file is a night mare unless you really know what you are doing.
Because it is default it will yield some 'interesting' UI appearance in the menu, but it is usable and functional.
The hot seat capability should at some stage be coded into the default file we are using - that file is a night mare unless you really know what you are doing.
Well hotseat has been added to the build for the next release. It seems to be fully working, so you won't need to do anything special, but just download the new version when it's out.
Yes, there's a "hotseat campaign" button in main menu now. About the mtw2.int file, i have worked it out so now I could even create new pages menus and display custom stuff there.
Hat off to you - took me ages to figure out how to add a version display graphic, never mind an animated element (short BIK) to the menu.
Making a guide about it couldn't hurt, I'd probably give it a read. 
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕:
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 find that you had very wrong setting for a light cavelry.
Originally Posted by :
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: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.
-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...)
Originally Posted by :
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:How could they take so many arrow?In really.Only 1 direct hit can make a light cavelry loose the ability to fight.
-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).
Originally Posted by :
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.Please be reasonable with the light cavelry.The Rome 2 total war does very well in this manner
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.
Originally Posted by Ibrahim:
OK, as unit battlefield stat guy, I'll hear you out @血荐轩辕:
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...)
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).
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.
I think that you have underate the power of bow and arrow.It is bow and arrow alone that forge Mongolian empire.That is the light cavalry when I fight khiva as parthia.The arrow should be more powerful.A light cavelry is very vanerable to arrow.If they are not afraid of arrow.What is the difference between light and heavy cavalry?Please widen the gap between light and heavy cavelry ,between light and heavy infantryOK, as unit battlefield stat guy, I'll hear you out @血荐轩辕:
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...)
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).
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.
Oh boy...
before I answer this, please do me a favor: answer my questions directly.
As to the Hellenistic time-period: the main bow types which have been found from this time-period (notably the yrzi bow) had at best only about half the poundage of the Mongolian bow (so no more than ~80 Pounds draw). This, combined with the lighter arrows used, will make for a weaker missile. I'm sorry, but I can't apply Mongol tech to the hellenistic timeperiod.
though if it's what I suspect, then the unit has a shield, and in this case is well protected. That's a limitation of the engine, and not my problem. Just maneuver your men to the opposite side, or to the back of the enemy. EDIT: and get up-close.
And dude, we all know unarmored cavalry is going to be vulnerable: we're not stupid. Problem is, I can't judge the validity of your comment, if you won't answer the questions I posed:
seriously, think about it: how can I do my job, if I don't even know what on Earth was going on in the battle? don't you want me to fix any mistakes (if they even exist)? or are you just gulling me?
most heavy cavalry are between 7 and 17 armor, and defense between 6 and 9. Their job is to charge into other cavalry and into infantry (with caveats...)
that's assuming shields aren't involved. for all cavalry, this can be between 2 and 4...
of course, you'd know that if you actually read the stats for the units...
EDIT: also, what version of EB II are you running? if you're using an old version, there was a bug in it that made cavalry overly strong v. missiles: this has since been fixed. If for some reason the fix isn't present in the new version, I can guarantee it'll be there in the next release.
before I answer this, please do me a favor: answer my questions directly.
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕:
I think that you have underate the power of bow and arrow.It is bow and arrow alone that forge Mongolian empire.
you do realize this isn't the middle ages, right?I think that you have underate the power of bow and arrow.It is bow and arrow alone that forge Mongolian empire.
As to the Hellenistic time-period: the main bow types which have been found from this time-period (notably the yrzi bow) had at best only about half the poundage of the Mongolian bow (so no more than ~80 Pounds draw). This, combined with the lighter arrows used, will make for a weaker missile. I'm sorry, but I can't apply Mongol tech to the hellenistic timeperiod.
Originally Posted by :
That is the light cavalry when I fight khiva as parthia.
that doesn't answer my question: what is the name of the unit? cavalry units could have been recruited with a veriety of stats...That is the light cavalry when I fight khiva as parthia.
though if it's what I suspect, then the unit has a shield, and in this case is well protected. That's a limitation of the engine, and not my problem. Just maneuver your men to the opposite side, or to the back of the enemy. EDIT: and get up-close.
Originally Posted by :
The arrow should be more powerful.
see my comment above...repeating something won't make it the right idea.The arrow should be more powerful.
Originally Posted by :
A light cavelry is very vanerable to arrow.
which is why it only took you ten minutes to annihilate the unit....(hey, you said it, but you won't tell me more: and again, 10 minutes is fast. I saw Sargon of Akkad destroy a serious army "easily", and it took him only ~10 minutes).A light cavelry is very vanerable to arrow.
And dude, we all know unarmored cavalry is going to be vulnerable: we're not stupid. Problem is, I can't judge the validity of your comment, if you won't answer the questions I posed:
Originally Posted by me:
-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)
I'm not asking you to solve a calculus equation: I'm asking for a proper description of the battle you fought, which you claim took you 10 minutes to resolve. simply telling me you had 4 units of horse archers kill off "light cavalry" in 10 minutes isn't detailed enough for my purposes.-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)
seriously, think about it: how can I do my job, if I don't even know what on Earth was going on in the battle? don't you want me to fix any mistakes (if they even exist)? or are you just gulling me?
Originally Posted by :
.What is the difference between light and heavy cavalry?
most light cavalry have between 1 and 3 armor, and defence between 3 and 6. They tend to be used for skirmishing and harrassing, and have loose formations..What is the difference between light and heavy cavalry?
most heavy cavalry are between 7 and 17 armor, and defense between 6 and 9. Their job is to charge into other cavalry and into infantry (with caveats...)
that's assuming shields aren't involved. for all cavalry, this can be between 2 and 4...
of course, you'd know that if you actually read the stats for the units...
Originally Posted by :
Please widen the gap between light and heavy cavelry ,between light and heavy infantry
dude, if you can't tell the difference between light and heavy units at this stage, I can't help you. I'm sorry.Please widen the gap between light and heavy cavelry ,between light and heavy infantry
EDIT: also, what version of EB II are you running? if you're using an old version, there was a bug in it that made cavalry overly strong v. missiles: this has since been fixed. If for some reason the fix isn't present in the new version, I can guarantee it'll be there in the next release.
Ok，maybe.I dont know how much is the casualty of the arrow at that time.Could you make the troop more easily to run or rout?They are not modern tropp.Willingness to casualty is more important than weapon does to increase the power of a troop.Normally,If a troop is willing to take half the casualty and they will stilll fight.They will make a formidable force. Ten percent of casualty will normally make a troop run away.Large part of cusualty will apear in the chasing.This could make the battle shorter.
Could you add a trophy system?You can win a fortune when you defeat a large force in enemy zone.It will help the nomad in their begining.In history,Nomad is pillaging and pillaging untill they become the conqueror of the district.Could you cancel the upkeep cost for nomad troop?I know that mongolian troop does not have payment .They even need to pay tribute to their rulers with their sheep or cow.Their income is the trophy.This should be the same as the early saka
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕:
Ok，maybe.I dont know how much is the casualty of the arrow at that time.
I see.Ok，maybe.I dont know how much is the casualty of the arrow at that time.
Originally Posted by :
Could you make the troop more easily to run or rout?They are not modern tropp.Willingness to casualty is more important than weapon does to increase the power of a troop.Normally,If a troop is willing to take half the casualty and they will stilll fight.They will make a formidable force. Ten percent of casualty will normally make a troop run away.Large part of cusualty will apear in the chasing.This could make the battle shorter.
The morale system is actually the lowest known of any mod: most light cavalry are anywhere from 2-4 morale points, and discipline levels are also low. I simply can't make it lower: direct testing (and literally a couple dozen complaints) made it clear that any lower, and insta-routs (without any fighting) would become too common. It's a limitation of the engine.Could you make the troop more easily to run or rout?They are not modern tropp.Willingness to casualty is more important than weapon does to increase the power of a troop.Normally,If a troop is willing to take half the casualty and they will stilll fight.They will make a formidable force. Ten percent of casualty will normally make a troop run away.Large part of cusualty will apear in the chasing.This could make the battle shorter.
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕:
Could you add a trophy system?You can win a fortune when you defeat a large force in enemy zone.It will help the nomad in their begining.In history,Nomad is pillaging and pillaging untill they become the conqueror of the district.Could you cancel the upkeep cost for nomad troop?I know that mongolian troop does not have payment .They even need to pay tribute to their rulers with their sheep or cow.Their income is the trophy.This should be the same as the early saka
you mean the spoils of war script?Could you add a trophy system?You can win a fortune when you defeat a large force in enemy zone.It will help the nomad in their begining.In history,Nomad is pillaging and pillaging untill they become the conqueror of the district.Could you cancel the upkeep cost for nomad troop?I know that mongolian troop does not have payment .They even need to pay tribute to their rulers with their sheep or cow.Their income is the trophy.This should be the same as the early saka
@Gigantus: do we already have this? if not, would it be workable?
I would have to check, but I believe we have something like that in place - part of the financial script I think.
There's already a spoils of war script. And there's a nomad pillage script (they get income from causing devastation).
We can't "cancel the upkeep of nomads", you can't vary upkeep by faction. Upkeep is the same for every faction who can recruit a unit, there is no way to change it for one faction or factions. Nomads already have lots of free upkeep slots in their nomadic government buildings, that's the means by which you get cheap armies.
We can't "cancel the upkeep of nomads", you can't vary upkeep by faction. Upkeep is the same for every faction who can recruit a unit, there is no way to change it for one faction or factions. Nomads already have lots of free upkeep slots in their nomadic government buildings, that's the means by which you get cheap armies.
I am quite disappointed with M2TW engine.You cant make a total historical things out of M2TW engine.It is too bad.I think you can make it better in Mount and blade.It has the supply line.It has conflict within and without,between the king and the noble.Please make a civil war system .The king can only control the development in his own capital in the east.They dont have the absolute power.Many city should be made self govern.Player cant held total power over them.They could only get their tribute and the army when they .I dont know where is it possible.I just know the parthia is very very unhistorical....
There is already a supply system in the traits.
Civil war/internal conflict is in progress, alongside factional resurgence which was implemented already for the upcoming release and helps represent this (2.2).
Civil war/internal conflict is in progress, alongside factional resurgence which was implemented already for the upcoming release and helps represent this (2.2).
Just because I don't think it merits a whole new thread. The ambient settlements on the Twitter account....are they going to be used for the permanent forts? I ask only because, although I'm aware that those battles (the permanent forts) are supposed to 'approximate' field battles, the way the defending armies retreat and rally at a certain point on the map always looks odd to me. The addition of these ambient settlements would make that behaviour seem more....natural.
Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus:
Just because I don't think it merits a whole new thread. The ambient settlements on the Twitter account....are they going to be used for the permanent forts? I ask only because, although I'm aware that those battles (the permanent forts) are supposed to 'approximate' field battles, the way the defending armies retreat and rally at a certain point on the map always looks odd to me. The addition of these ambient settlements would make that behaviour seem more....natural.
PSF's are out in the next version, the CAI can't handle them.Just because I don't think it merits a whole new thread. The ambient settlements on the Twitter account....are they going to be used for the permanent forts? I ask only because, although I'm aware that those battles (the permanent forts) are supposed to 'approximate' field battles, the way the defending armies retreat and rally at a certain point on the map always looks odd to me. The addition of these ambient settlements would make that behaviour seem more....natural.
The next release will correct the crash when you select all units in custom and multiplayer battle setup as you can only play early as well hotseat that will be awesome
Originally Posted by Lizardo:
The next release will correct the crash when you select all units in custom and multiplayer battle setup as you can only play early as well hotseat that will be awesome
We've corrected the Late-era crashing, but the All crash is un-fixable. It happens because there are too many units to display if you allow literally everything. I'm not sure what the limit is, but the current 260-something is too many.The next release will correct the crash when you select all units in custom and multiplayer battle setup as you can only play early as well hotseat that will be awesome
There's no way around this; to avoid campaign crashes, every unit has to be on the ownership for every faction, just in case it somehow ends up passing into the ownership of a faction we might not have predicted.
The alternative is to have a second EDU just for multiplayer/custom battles, but that would still not be able to allow a faction to recruit every unit.
I think you should add a conscrption system .in ancient there is little standing army.All the army was made up of mercenary or conscription.we can make use of the mercenary system.general can summon a stack of army when it is needed.But it should be dismissed as soon as the danger is over or it will bankcrupt you and severely injure the local economy
I think the major drawback for EB2 and all total war seri is the map.There is only one city in one vast region.Does anyone have maps belong to this time range?especially for the ancient iran.I want to know how much iran is exploited at that time.thanks
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕:
I think you should add a conscrption system .in ancient there is little standing army.All the army was made up of mercenary or conscription.we can make use of the mercenary system.general can summon a stack of army when it is needed.But it should be dismissed as soon as the danger is over or it will bankcrupt you and severely injure the local economy
Sorry, but this is a gross oversimplification that overlooks the pretty huge variations by region and culture as to how they arranged their military affairs.I think you should add a conscrption system .in ancient there is little standing army.All the army was made up of mercenary or conscription.we can make use of the mercenary system.general can summon a stack of army when it is needed.But it should be dismissed as soon as the danger is over or it will bankcrupt you and severely injure the local economy
I've noticed when arranging units into a column formation, the unit with a siege engine (ram, tower, etc.) is placed behind other units in the column. Any way to change this so that they're placed up front?
Originally Posted by Baphemous:
I've noticed when arranging units into a column formation, the unit with a siege engine (ram, tower, etc.) is placed behind other units in the column. Any way to change this so that they're placed up front?
Siege engines (ballista, onager) are always sorted to the back, ram and tower fall into the same category. You will have to give them their own formation.I've noticed when arranging units into a column formation, the unit with a siege engine (ram, tower, etc.) is placed behind other units in the column. Any way to change this so that they're placed up front?
At least initially Athens, Sparta and Rhodes have only fishing villages for ports, so they get no trade revenue and have no safe haven for fleets. Is this intended or just a bug?
Originally Posted by Thaatu:
At least initially Athens, Sparta and Rhodes have only fishing villages for ports, so they get no trade revenue and have no safe haven for fleets. Is this intended or just a bug?
It's a bug fixed by the 2.2a patch (see the original post in the announcement thread).At least initially Athens, Sparta and Rhodes have only fishing villages for ports, so they get no trade revenue and have no safe haven for fleets. Is this intended or just a bug?
Damn, I though I installed the patch. No bug reports from me then.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO