disapointed with rtr, you are my last hope

[Jebus]

i already see an entire army of those blokes marching

I'd sure flee...

[jerby]

I'd sure flee...

would scare elephants to death

[Dux Corvanus]

would scare elephants to death

...or make them laugh to death, which is all the same...

[jerby]

...or make them laugh to death, which is all the same...

even chariots would biet teh dust. the horses woudln't mind, but the riders would fall of and roll on teh flour and laugh their asses off

[Revelation]

Hey, at least RTR is available. EB is still in the "wow, looks great" stage and has been since the dinosaurs.
I'm beginning to thing the "countdown" thread is the game!

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Hey, at least RTR is available. EB is still in the "wow, looks great" stage and has been since the dinosaurs.
I'm beginning to thing the "countdown" thread is the game!

Was somebody talking here? Looks like it's been almost three days since RTR was being discussed (and in a civil manner I might add, till...).

[Revelation]

Nothing un civil about my post mate. Just stating facts. Yes EB looks great. It's just not out yet. RTR is and it's a huge step up from vanilla.
No RTR vs EB here.
It is no secret EB has been in development for bloody ages.
So get off your high horse Tel.
Touchy touchy!

[Teleklos Archelaou]

So get off your high horse Tel.
Touchy touchy!

Hey, at least it's much easier to spot trolling posts from up here.

[Mongoose]

And then run down the troll as he flees!

No offence, but saying stuff like "the countdown is just one giant conspiracy!" is, well, kinda pointless? Honestly, do you think mod is finished but they are with holding it because they are evil? Which is more likely:


A:The mod is finished and has only not been released yet because the EB team members are evil B******* and are probably in league with aliens.


B:the mod is incomplete and they don't want to release something that is unfinished.

I repeat, which is more likely?

[Revelation]

I did not say anything of the sort, nor did my post imply it.
But hey, interpret it anyway you like.
Meanwhile, i'll just go about my business of upsetting insecure individuals here at EB forums.
Someone needs to act the forum whore and it may as well be me.

[Ninefingers]

Howdy...long-time lurker here.

I just thought I'd chime in and give my thoughts on the RTR vs EB matter. RTR 6.0's a good mod, but in my opinion sacrifices too much gameplay for abstracted realism. There are a variety of issues in the mod which I feel detract from enjoying a campaign for its own sake, and seem to be included almost solely to cater to the "realism or death!" crowd. Which is a bit disappointing.

That said there are some brilliant concepts in the game (AoR, for instance) and it's certainly proving rather entertaining for the time being, but I can't help feeling a little disappointed in the general feel of it. I do hope that the EB team understand the importance of balancing realism with gameplay in order to have a mod that is fun before accurate.

Though I have to say this, even though EB hasn't been released yet it already has a leg up on RTR by using the mundus magnus map. The one in RTR is so horribly cluttered in some places, and so desolate in others that the flow of the game is really disrupted at times.

Anyway, so far the previews have looked fantastic! Good luck to the team and thank you for taking the time to take on such an enormous project.

[jerby]

very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing. and with balancing it woudl mean: all factions are equally strong.
tthey do this because 'facions' werent equal! all factions will be playable, but some easier than other. the seleucids had an armor-quality-advantage. so they will get it.
still, a competent player can win the game with any faction...balancing by history.
This way, when teh compuetr simulates the other factions (when you are, say: Rome) the factiosn that were, historically, better. will 8/10 times be better.
instead of CA's eggies destroyign everything in their path..
But this is all faction-balancing. but unit balancing will be the same.

[Ninefingers]

"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."

That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.

[jerby]

well. EB is not into "getting as much DL's as possibe" it's not part of 'the gaming industry' they're just a couple of lads who like history.
and history over balancing. means history o ver balancing. and not: all history and to hell with balancing. Units need stats, and stats aren't obtained by history..the only refernes they have for 'stats' are sources of weapon quality, armor quality and training skill...
and i must say..if you look around. they also enhanched the animations a bit. and if they include soem stuff from Darth's (like the units continuely fighting, no pausing, wichhe claims to have accieved) it will still be a great mod..

history-balancing. the one doenst exclude the other...it's the gamers job to alternate history, or to relive it. EB just want to make sure the starting is accurate, and teh units are.
even with EB, RTW will still be RTW..even if a mod focused completly on 'perfect balancing' it will still be RTW...

and if you dont like it..there's always RTR..

[SaFe]

"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."

That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.

I think the fun comes when you try to achieve something with a faction, historically that culture won't be able to do.
Makes more fun, as to have balanced unit stat.
One problem might be multi player battles.

[jerby]

nah, no problem..just balance the unit costs( in export_descr_unit, you there have 3 costs: capmaign recruit, campaign upkeep, custom battle cost) so the faction that has 'weaker' units, and was historically 'a bump in the road' would have lowered costs.

but again, i should nota that there's no real weak faction..it all comes down to the terrain, and the player..

so, except the 'weird maerketing strat' what do you fear that is going to happen?

[Krusader]

"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."

That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.

And get RTW? I do understand your point, but historical accuracy has been EB's main goal, and we're trying to achieve that. And we're not part of the gaming industry in as we get paid for doing this, or charge people for the MOD.

However, we have run several campaigns with the "-ai" tag at console, and it seems the factions are balanced, as no game yet has had the exact some outcome. In one campaign Makedonia became the greatest power on in the Balkans, while in the next the Koinon Hellenon did. In another game Pontos was snuffed out early on, but in another they conquered all the provinces between Pergamum and Persepolis and taking almost all of Arabia. No faction has been the superpower in every campaign, and no faction has been killed off fairly early or not expanded at all.

So we have managed to get some semblance of balance.

[jerby]

Pontus a superpower? oke, something new..

[Tux]

and i must say..if you look around. they also enhanched the animations a bit.

Pardon me, a bit if you call 5 new important skeleton, like 2 handed swordsman, 2 handed pike(foot and mounte) and so on a little enhanchement
this means you would prefer that a 6 meters long pike to be held with one hand(CA style baby) or 1.5 meter long sword to be held with one hand, or that an unit would stab with and axe, etc.

[jerby]

i know, you do great work...afaik you're one of the few peopel around the forums who can actually do it..
it was a huge understatement, i know. but it was just an example to ninevingers that EB does more than reskinning...
btw, 2 handed swordsmen? sweboz? i've only seen the new pike-walk and the 2-handed-pike-cav-charge-holding point (nice word )
and you forgot the overhead stabbing hoplites..

[Greek_fire19]

Yeah, you'll be playing some game as the Ptolemaics when suddenly the monsterous legions of the Thracian empire descend upon you...boy won't you be confused.

Hell, even the gauls might have a chance

[jerby]

Hell, even the gauls might have a chance

sarcasm alert

[Angadil]

"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."

That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.

Jolly good EB is not involved in the gaming industry then...

Also, I think that probably EB's policy, or, perhaps bettr, "philosophy", is not "history before gameplay" or "history before balance". Rather, our motto could well be something like "History IS gameplay". Or "History IS balance".

History is chock full of trade-offs, constraints, limitations. All factions had weaknesses and strengths historically. How well they did depended on how astutely they exploited the latter and minimized the former. Our belief is that, if you're willing to go the extra mile, that system of checks and constraints can be brought into this game.

So, we are convinced that by bringing history in, we also bring "balance". Of course, this "balance" is not of the "Let's give the Sarmatians the onagers they never had so they won't be disadvantaged at sieges compared to the Romans" kind. Instead, we turn sieges into one of the challenges that the Sarmatian player will have to overcome. A, totally historical, hard time at city-taking is one of the elements that will balance out the equally historical advantages the Sarmatians do have (good, varied cavalry at prices they could afford very well, for example).

That is just one example of many, but I hope it will demonstrate how, if you look for it, history is a true mine of gameplay and "balance" at all levels of the game. Even within all the limitations of the RTW system. Also, I would hope that example will show that EB's search for historical accuracy encompasses many things besides the depiction of troop types. And the beneficial effects of it in the "fun" department (such a fuzzy and subjective concept, in any case).

[Tux]

i know, you do great work...afaik you're one of the few peopel around the forums who can actually do it..
it was a huge understatement, i know. but it was just an example to ninevingers that EB does more than reskinning...
btw, 2 handed swordsmen? sweboz? i've only seen the new pike-walk and the 2-handed-pike-cav-charge-holding point (nice word )
and you forgot the overhead stabbing hoplites..

Ah yes i forgot those, i don't think i'm the only one just that others are to lazy and prefer modeling but since i don't skin i had to do this. Not only sweboz, dacians(falx) and britons(sword) i also know of,maybe other factions also but i don't know of others than mentioned.
If just saw an new animation, there are tens more to see.

[jerby]

yeah, those random 'the unit is bored' animations...
were those 2 handed swords used for slashing and stabbing? or just slashing? if so, whats wrong with teh 2 handed axe? or will it be swung over the head?

[Tux]

yeah, those random 'the unit is bored' animations...
were those 2 handed swords used for slashing and stabbing? or just slashing? if so, whats wrong with teh 2 handed axe? or will it be swung over the head?

Just slashing, the 2 handed axe had some stabbing anims so i use the slash ones to replace them and create new ones.

[jerby]

wtf, 2 handed axes stabbing? that's something new..

[Tux]

wtf, 2 handed axes stabbing? that's something new..

You haven't notice this in vanila?! You should go and see...

[Mongoose]

And get RTW? I do understand your point, but historical accuracy has been EB's main goal, and we're trying to achieve that. And we're not part of the gaming industry in as we get paid for doing this, or charge people for the MOD.

However, we have run several campaigns with the "-ai" tag at console, and it seems the factions are balanced, as no game yet has had the exact some outcome. In one campaign Makedonia became the greatest power on in the Balkans, while in the next the Koinon Hellenon did. In another game Pontos was ed out early on, but in another they conquered all the provinces between Pergamum and Persepolis and taking almost all of Arabia. No faction has been the superpower in every campaign, and no faction has been killed off fairly early or not expanded at all.

So we have managed to get some semblance of balance.

Good very nice to hear the EB will be abit less unbalanced then vanilla RTW.......

"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."

That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.

What most people fail to see is that vanilla RTW is not "game play > realism"
Instead, sadly, it is "lack of realism>balance" Have you noticed that the only powerful factions are "egypt", the romans and what ever faction you are playing as? why? the vanilla game is both asininely ahistorical AND asininely unbalanced. Take cavalry for example: In vanilla RTW, a unit of cavalry can charge through a phalanx. Does this help unit balance? NO. Does it improve realism? NO.


EB will be both better balanced then vanilla RTW and much more realistic. history was far more balanced then RTW, more balance plus realism can only be a good thing, right? OK, you will lose some of the "fun" units like "flaming war dogs", but look at what will take their place*!




https://img72.imageshack.us/img72/65...screen18ia.jpg








besides, "flaming war dogs" Both unbalance the game and make it less realistic


*yes, the do take their place. The unitmodel limit is very low so war dogs had to be deleted.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

the vanilla game is both asininely ahistorical AND asininely unbalanced. Take cavalry for example: In vanilla RTW, a unit of cavalry can charge through a phalanx. Does this help unit balance? NO. Does it improve realism? NO.

Both unbalance the game and make it less realistic

No truer words have been spoken lately...