First impression/ suggestions

[nic]

Thanks for making this mod, first of all. While Rome Total Realism is obviously much more polished and complete at this stage I think that with time Europa Barbarorum can be even better. I have a few suggestions.

Cavarly need a MUCH greater charge bonus. Cavalry no longer have any real shock value and basically pull up next to the enemy and start stabbing or thrusting. This means that hammer and anvil tactics no longer work as a cavarly charge in the flank or rear is virtually meaningless. Usually a cavalry charge would shake the morale of the ememy due to the impact. Not anymore. Cavarly now have difficulty even taking on skirmishing troops.

I like the way the cost of units and buildings has risen. It means that large battles now really mean something and can be decisive. The large cost of naval fleets adds importance to the naval aspect of the game; ships are no longer a throwaway asset.

The Chinease faction should probably be replaced with the Ilyrians, Numidians, Mauryans or Nabeteans. Each of those factions was more influencial in the time period. Mauryans would be good because it would be interesting tactically; a faction that relies on elephants for tactical sucess!

You should probably look to switch to the BI engine in the future. Not only for night battles and swimming but also for the vast new possibilities that the scripting open up.

Overall, great mod!

[QwertyMIDX]

None of the factions you suggested replacing the Yuezhi (I think that's what you meant) with are good options. The Illyrians are a bunch of disunified tribes, the Nabeteans are nomads, not Petra dwelling masters of trade, for most of EB's time frame. The Mauryans are only partially on the Map, and they looked south for expansion not North and West. The Numidians, well, they were clients of the Romans or Carthies for the vast majority of the time frame. Important in the same way the Italian people were, not much more.

Also, charge bonus is broken in 1.2. What you're actually complaining about is probably related to the speed or weight of cavalry though. Still, they shouldn't blast through a unit of infantry, don't expect to see that in EB.

[Arman616]

None of the factions you suggested replacing the Yuezhi (I think that's what you meant) with are good options. The Illyrians are a bunch of disunified tribes, the Nabeteans are nomads, not Petra dwelling masters of trade, for most of EB's time frame. The Mauryans are only partially on the Map, and they looked south for expansion not North and West. The Numidians, well, they were clients of the Romans or Carthies for the vast majority of the time frame. Important in the same way the Italian people were, not much more.

Also, charge bonus is broken in 1.2. What you're actually complaining about is probably related to the speed or weight of cavalry though. Still, they shouldn't blast through a unit of infantry, don't expect to see that in EB.

Do you think night battles from BI can be duplicated for EB? And Imperia Romana is coming out for BI, another uber realism mod that is looking great, so maybe the EB team shouldnt have to worry about that right now.

[QwertyMIDX]

We're looking at night battles actually. We can use them once we port to 1.5, we're trying to find a way to do it without the torches though.

[Simmons]

We're looking at night battles actually. We can use them once we port to 1.5, we're trying to find a way to do it without the torches though.

Wow that would make things interesting

Would this also allow the "barbarians" to have more than 3 city levels?

[Arman616]

We're looking at night battles actually. We can use them once we port to 1.5, we're trying to find a way to do it without the torches though.

the torches are sweet though!

[QwertyMIDX]

Yeah, just like the head hurlers.

[fallen851]

Still, they shouldn't blast through a unit of infantry, don't expect to see that in EB.

Why shouldn't they be able to? At the battles of Granicus and Issus, seems like the Companions charged directly into Greek phalanxes and rolled them up nicely.

[Arman616]

Yeah, just like the head hurlers.

Are you implying that torches are unrealistic?

[LorDBulA]

Offcourse they are not realistic. Common, if you would like take enemy by surprise at night the last thing you would take with you would be torches.

[Arman616]

Offcourse they are not realistic. Common, if you would like take enemy by surprise at night the last thing you would take with you would be torches.

Not all armies needed to attack out of suprise. And how else would they be able to see at night? The moonlight isn't enough. And of course there was no night vision.

[QwertyMIDX]

Arman, in this thread you said both that heavy cav should be able to charge right through a phalanx and that troops in battle at night should carry torches. This is starting to make me feel kind of like this: .

[Arman616]

I didn't say say cavarly should charge straight through a phalanx, that was someone else. And what's wrong with torches at night? How else could anyone see at night IF they were to fight at night?

[QwertyMIDX]

Ah, sorry. Same avatar.

We'll likely increase ambiant light from the moon/stars/city under seige.

They didn't see very well, read the account of the night attack on Syracuse. Trying to fight a night battle was almost impossible, it was generally only used to suprise enemy camps or fortifications.

[Arman616]

Ah, sorry. Same avatar.

We'll likely increase ambiant light from the moon/stars/city under seige.

They didn't see very well, read the account of the night attack on Syracuse. Trying to fight a night battle was almost impossible, it was generally only used to suprise enemy camps or fortifications.

Ah i see. So even with torches, a battle still isn't well luminated? If that's the case, then I think night battles should be in EB for sieges and ambushes.

[QwertyMIDX]

Yeah, they would not be used to fight a pitch battle. Rather an attack on a city or an enemy camp would be the 'common' use of them.

[paullus]

I kinda like the broken charge bonus, since a lot of ancient sources sound like cavalry were great because they could stab from way up on their horse and intimidated foot soldiers, which is what they're generally good for in EB. My problem with charge bonus is when heavy cav slam into even very light infantry and pretty much just stop.

Night battles without the torches would be very cool...troops scaling walls by moonlight could look very awesome. Too bad you can't have units get confused and start killing each other...it would add an extra intensity to it.

[QwertyMIDX]

Yeah, that would be optimal.

[Kull]

Are you implying that torches are unrealistic?

If you are fighting with a two handed spear, the torch would be carried how? Or if you had a shield on one arm and a sword in the other, the torch would go.....? As an archer, bow in hand, drawing string back with the other and torch is placed....?? A javelineer carrying spares in one hand and hurling them with the other while the torch is held with...?? I could go on, but hopefully you see the point.

Even ignoring the "I-need-3-hands" problem, lets say you were out with a unit of your fellow swordsmen on patrol one night and saw a bunch of torches in the distance. Would you A) light some torches of your own and march off to confront them or B) sneak up on them unseen in the dark? More to the point, since units historically never marched around at night hoping for a pitched battle, all historical examples of night attacks involve one group attacking the camp/fort/city of the other. How many of these do you think involved the attackers using torches, and thereby eliminating the element of surprise? (Which is the ONLY advantage accruing to the attacker in a night battle.)

In sum. Torches = Wardogs, Headhurlers, Screeching women, etc.

Edit:

Ah i see. So even with torches, a battle still isn't well luminated? If that's the case, then I think night battles should be in EB for sieges and ambushes.

The above isn't directed at Araman626 (since he now "gets it"), but rather at anyone else who's unclear on the issue of torches

[King of the dutch]

Well Scipio lit up some torches at night and then proceeded to light up the carthaginian camp.

But the reason for CA to implement torches seems quite obvious: to see what you're doing. And they do look sweet.

[QwertyMIDX]

If we can't have night battles without torches (and if we can;'t avoid pitched battles at night) than we won't put them in.

[Arman616]

If we can't have night battles without torches (and if we can;'t avoid pitched battles at night) than we won't put them in.

I hope night battles are in somehow.

And, another question, what about battles that stretch onto night, or mid day to late afternoon? Maybe it's already there in the RTW engine but we don't notice it because our battles don't last that long. And I haven't gone that far in my EB campaign so i haven't had any huge battles yet.

[fallen851]

Wait a minute, you're telling me that history is wrong? The Companions didn't charge and break through the Greek phalanx that Darius hired at those two battles?

This would suggest that Alexander the Great never conquered Persia?

Those are some big claims.

I'm rather disappointed with some of your comments, such as this one from the TWC "If you're looking for quick battles that can be won almost soley by using heavy cavalry than you're playing the wrong mod."

How many battles were won quickly by heavy cavarly back then? I don't know, but just about every battle Alexander the Great pulled off seems to have been...

Worse is "Go for it, just know that you're making them (Gaesatae) less realistic."

I don't quite understand how you can say that someone reducing the armor rating of Gaesatae is making them realistic. It isn't like back then there was a book that said: "Gaesatae have an armor rating of 5". That isn't realistic, nor is it historical, or even in the spirit of historical study to propose than arbitary system based on "defence rating" and "charge bonus" and such could actually represent the battlefield. I don't know how anyone can do that, it certainly doesn't explain the myriad of battles that would have turned out differently if real life was based on the arbitary system used in RTW or any of its mods... this is a game, just like mathematics. Now mathematics for the most part happens to represent what goes on in the world, but as I said, the system used has many problems when applied to reality.

As for you stating we shouldn't rely on what "feels right", as a horseback rider, you and I should do a test (actually I've already done this). I'll get on my horse, and hold broomstick in onehand, and charge you directly and you can hold a long stick in one hand and try to dismount me.

The fact is you won't have enough power onehanded with a very long spear to be able to muscle the spear deep enough into the horse to dismount me, the spear will just get pushed backward out of your hands, and leave a relatively small wound in the horse, or just a mark on the riders shield. Many historians claims that the phalanxes actually hung their shields from their necks, and used the spears two handed, because their would simply be no way to control them effectively otherwise. Still, even with the stick in two hands the horse and rider will tear the spear out of your hands. A horse that was armoured would be even harder to stop.

You can test this at home actually using basic physics and a car. Suppose the horse (lets assume its a Friesian, possiby the closest thing to what knights rode: 1350 lbs) plus the rider rider (160 lbs) plus the equiptment (60 lbs), total in at 1570 pounds (712 kilograms), and lets say he is charging you (member of the phalanx) at 30mph, which is a reasonable speed I'd say.

Now compare the horses weight to a car, and then subtract the proper amount of acceleration from your car (assuming the car is heavier) to recreate the force created by a 1570 pound horse traveling at 30mph.

So go outside and have someone drive toward you at the speed necessary to recreate the force that the horse generates. Mount a protective pad on the bumper of said car (protect the paint) and target this area with a long pole. Now as someone drives toward you with the car equipped with a protective pad on the bumper at 15mph or whatever "Stand your ground" and stop the charge! I guarentee the car will tear the pole out of your hand. Now you can even arm a friend with a pole also and have to the two of you try to stop the car together.

Now explain to me how a phalanx stops heavily armoured calvary... (repeat the above procedure as many times as necessary to realize this question is rhetorical)

Anyone doing this does so at their own risk, and I am not liable for any injuries or damage to broomsticks or cars, but I'd like it very much to see a video tape of this.

[QwertyMIDX]

Using heavy cavalry without a proper hammer and anvil tactic, or some other combined arms tactic (HA's and heavy cavalry springs to mind as another highly effective combination) won't win you many battles is what I was saying, I thought that was pretty obvious.

Artifically weakening the Gaesatae, who get armor through the same system of equipment as every other unit, makes it less realistic.

Play warrior as much as you like, but the historical record, both ancient and early modern, points to the pike as one of the most effective anti-cavalry weapons in history, for whatever reason (the horse not being willing to charge seems to have been a major factor), the density of pikemen (and thus pikes) relative to the density of cav might also have something to do with it...you don't charge me you charge me and 20 other pikes.

If you awnt to believe that heavy cavalry was the wonder weapon of the ancient world and could defeat everything else then so be it, mod away. Just don't excpet EB to make heavy cavalry the atomic bomb of the ancient world.

Of course you fail to mention that at Granicus the mercenary greeks (who may or may not have been in a makedonian phalanx) were at time of his charge completely on their own, surronded (granted on high ground) and Alexander lost more men in this part of the battle than the rest of the battle combined, including his own horse in the first charge. It also doesn't seem as though he steamrolled them with a cavarly charge, but rather wore them down.

I believe this is a passage in question, from Plutarch:

But the enemy hardly sustaining the first onset soon gave ground and fled, all but the mercenary Greeks, who, making a stand upon a rising ground, desired quarter, which Alexander, guided rather by passion than judgment, refused to grant, and charging them himself first, had his horse [...] killed under him. And this obstinacy of his to cut off these experienced desperate men cost him the lives of more of his own soldiers than all the battle before, besides those who were wounded.

[Ludens]

Now explain to me how a phalanx stops heavily armoured calvary... (repeat the above procedure as many times as necessary to realize this question is rhetorical)

Firstly, there is only one known occasion of Alexander's compagnion cavalry beating a phalanx from the front and that was the Theban Sacred Band. In the battles against Persia, he always used hammer & anvil tactics where the mercenary hoplites where pinned by the Macedonian phalanx and the compagnions came in from the side.

Secondly, one pike against one horse it not going to make much of an impression, I agree. However, eight pikes (as they have multiple ranks and stand in a much denser formation than the charging horsemen) will. Especially if the horse is unable to manouvre due to being hemmed in on both sides by other horses. Also, the horse will probably be discinlined to impale himself. Lastly, a bright pikemen will put the but on the ground and let that take the blow.

No doubt a frontal-cavalry charge on a phalanx would have been much more messier for the pikemen than R:TW implies, but close-orders spear always were the bane of shock-cavalry.

[Craterus]

My first impression of EB was that it wasn't great.

It hasn't changed.

[Magnificant me]

Not all armies needed to attack out of suprise. And how else would they be able to see at night? The moonlight isn't enough. And of course there was no night vision.

the moon light very well could be enuff, if you can duplicate it proproly in the game. I have spent many a night walking around at night by the light of the moon at a summer camp i worked at for a long time (it was rather isolated so there was no light form the citys and all that), you can evin drive by it if it is clear enuf at night, this was in the sumer mind you, that being the time of year that a lot of the campaing was done. the only time night becomes a bother is when the moon is not out, you get into the trees, or when the moon is back behind a hill or some thing of the sort

[Teleklos Archelaou]

It's very interesting that within an hour or so today two people show up on the boards and express very negative opinions of our little mod, and that these two folks just happen to be the same ones who were badmouthing us months ago on this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=966519

Thought that was just a nice coincidence. So really, it's not that you just don't like EB now, but you were pretty sure you didn't like it months ago too, right? So this really isn't a "first impression" (though for most people I guess it isn't either, eh)?

[STuNTz2023]

what i dont understand is...why take a great mod, do everything u can to make it look bad, when these guys have spent time making it great..when you could jus shut up n go play another mod or mod vanilla to the way that u want?

[QwertyMIDX]

the moon light very well could be enuff, if you can duplicate it proproly in the game. I have spent many a night walking around at night by the light of the moon at a summer camp i worked at for a long time (it was rather isolated so there was no light form the citys and all that), you can evin drive by it if it is clear enuf at night, this was in the sumer mind you, that being the time of year that a lot of the campaing was done. the only time night becomes a bother is when the moon is not out, you get into the trees, or when the moon is back behind a hill or some thing of the sort

Yeah, we're looking at increasing ambiant light from moon/stars.