Suggestions for v0.8

[khelvan]

Our next version is almost certainly going to be v0.8, based on the progress we have made. This will include at least 20 new units, and probably we'll be moving to RTW v1.5, if things continue to go well.

Please feel free to provide suggestions regarding this new version.

[cdbavg400]

If the move to 1.5 goes as anticipated, will the Yuezhi be replaced for another faction?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I'd look for Yuezhi to hang around a little longer. Even if there is another faction in the future, it won't happen overnight. It would take a while to get things in order (you can probably tell the Yuezhi were our newest faction anyway - as they had lots left undone).

[Ambiorix]

If you are porting I guess we'll have to wait a long while for it then =( In any case I was wondering if ethnicities for the Sweboz and Carthage will be in .8? Unless they are already in right now I haven't checked yet.

[Cheexsta]

Since 1.5 (or was it 1.3?) introduced the ability to change the name of a settlement you owned (it's a rtw\preferences\preferences.txt option), would it be possible to have the advisor pop up and tell you what that settlement was called by your faction once you conquer it? For example, if Rome was to conquer Kart-Hadast, Victoria would pop up and tell you that the Romans referred to it as Carthago and would tell you how to change the settlement's name.

Also, I know that you guys make your own formations files, but would it be possible to look into using a (modded, obviously) version of Darth's latest formations? I haven't actually checked them out yet, but they seem like a vast improvement over previous versions...

And how about night battles?

[Christianus]

This realy is a wonderfull idea indeed!

[cunctator]

Since 1.5 (or was it 1.3?) introduced the ability to change the name of a settlement you owned (it's a rtw\preferences\preferences.txt option), would it be possible to have the advisor pop up and tell you what that settlement was called by your faction once you conquer it? For example, if Rome was to conquer Kart-Hadast, Victoria would pop up and tell you that the Romans referred to it as Carthago and would tell you how to change the settlement's name.

Wow, great idea. I didn't know that this is possible with 1.5

[the_handsome_viking]

I think there should be a unit with magical powers.

I also think that some Celtic factions should have female generals, preferably good looking ones.

I think there should be at least one dinosaur unit.

I think there should be more naked men units.

I think the Belgae should be in it just because the Romans were a bit warey when fighting them.

The Galatians would also be a cool faction.

There should be a faction of pirates.

There should also be sea monsters.

[Jarardo]

1.Yes I like the female celtic leaders. And oh boy, do they like me. But seriously, that would be good. And yes, no ugly, MTW style inbred princesses please. Or would those be realistic? I hope not. Man those MTW chicks were horrid.

2.I dont know if you guys plan on making a kretian archer unit? From reading the toxoi description as Makedon I figured there would be one. But sadly, there isn't, so I ended up slaughtering all the kydonians for vengeance, I call still hear there pathetic pleas for mercy.

3. Pron.

4.The AI seems to have a hard time taking over rebel cities. I can appreciate the challenge for a human player, but I would rather fight against larger factions. I've watched the Gelai(sp?) besiege Sardika(??-the city north of pella)-for maybe 5-7 turns with between 1-3 stacks in the area, they reduced the number of rebels in the city but eventually gave up. So I slaughtered all of them too.

Okay 5. will night battles be able to be implemented with 1.5?

6. Faction called "Oblivion only comes on DVD's" that I can slaughter while it begs for mercy.

Okay 7. A "Laugh at my own wit" button.

[khelvan]

As far as I know, we can't do a mix of male and female leaders; we would have to choose one or the other. It really doesn't make practical sense to have female leaders, due to the various system limitations. It would be a complete overhaul to switch a faction over to female leaders.

Certainly, given the information Ranika has posted here before now about female leaders, I don't think they will be in our plans.

A Cretan archer unit is planned, but please don't stop slaughtering them on our account.

[Jarardo]

Have you guys considered changing the start date? I know its a realism mod, so you dont want to make the roman reforms happen before they did historically, but it seems to leave out a huge part of the game. I know I havent paid close attention to the dates of all my campaigns in RTW, but I really doubt even with Vanilla years I've ever gotten to 107bc. Its six hundred some turns isnt it? Does anyone ever get there?

It just seems like a huge part of the game thats missing, I would say even more so for people who really like to play Rome. I normally just want to fight against the roman units.

Otherwise, look at the baloons!

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We do love balloons, but trust me, there is one thing that cannot change whatsoever for this mod, and it's the start date. Diplomacy has been painstakingly researched for 272, faction start positions, family names, family positions, family ages, scripted events. Those things would take quite a while to try and move - and huge discussions over any manner of stuff related to them would be thrown out the window if a different date was selected. Also - the reforms will not be dependent on any years - they are going to be dependent upon what you do as a faction, so they could come a lot earlier possibly.

[cunctator]

Remember that some of the new units represent also a kind of technical progress, that can't be infinetly accelerated. Also if you want to fight against marian or even imperial units the AI romans have to become a major power by themselve, before they get them.

Epistolary Richard is preparing a late period mod submod for EB that will start in 107 BC with marian romans.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=51956

[mcsquared]

I have been playing the beta EB for the past few weeks and would like to congratulate the EB team for an absolutely excellent job! The one suggestion I would like to to offer concerns the EB map. There are many little islands that are "invisible" to both land troops and ships. I understand that for realism purposes that these little islands are included on the map. However, since they are "not there" from a player perspective and that they they are too small to have anything but a square shape, they detract from the overall appearance of the map, I would suggest removing most of them.

[Dayve]

I just installed RTR 6.0 again to play whilst i wait the next EB version with the added units and more polishedness and whatnot... I can't play it. EB has made RTR obsolete even though it is still a beta... When it's released fully i can see RTR becoming entirely obsolete, even its future builds.

They're quite hostile to EB fans over at the RTR forums... Just mentioned a while ago that although RTR is more finished, it is second best. The response i got was something like "We don't f** need EB fanboys here." ...But it's true... RTR IS second best now that EB is here... RTR isn't even realistic when compared to EB, but anywho, RTR is unplayable for me now.

Any rough estimation on the date for the 1.5 port yet?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

You'll get no precise dates or even estimates of dates (for release of the build), but I think we have just about reached the tipping point where we move all of our efforts from porting to adding new stuff to the build now and correcting some things that we wanted to wait till after the port to handle. At least that is what seems to be the case from my point of view.

[edyzmedieval]

I hate RTR. I don't even wanna go to their stupid forums....

Anyways, thanks Teleklos. That's awesome news.

[mcsquared]

As a person who has played BOTH RTR and EB, I find both games very enjoyable. Yes, they are different but I believe that that is a good thing in that there are different experiences to be had playing both games. I do not make comparsions and will not criticize the hard work that BOTH RTR and EB people have done to give us these improvements in RTW at no cost to us! However, because of all the fun I have had playing both RTR and EB, I will tell you one game I will NEVER play again: original RTW!

[Delig]

Why not add more provinces to the game? Especially in Greece, oh and I couldn't see Thermon in greece so why not add that, and then add the oracle,which would make it that any troops trained at Thermon have a morale bonus, ote I must admit I am more of a RTR 6.0 player, so I am use to alot of provinces.

[Geoffrey S]

They're already at the max number of provinces the Rome engine will allow.

Why is everyone so fascinated by more provinces in Greece? It's hardly like it played a major role in the period as depicted.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

too many provinces often leads to seige after siege after siege... and greece is already bad enough as it is... p.s thermon is in there

[edyzmedieval]

Maximum number of provinces for EB anyhow. It's good as it is, though the map has a lot of bugs and needs to be improved.

[stalin]

too many provinces often leads to seige after siege after siege... and greece is already bad enough as it is... p.s thermon is in there

greece is not as bad as it was in another mod which I dare not mention

[Teleklos Archelaou]

It is appropriate though I think that the KH is the only faction that never ever seems to acquire any sort of empire or large landholdings in EB AI progression.

[Avicenna]

Welcome to the org Delig!

Thermon is already in the campaign, as is the oracle at Delphi, which appears as a building in Thermon. I think it does give morale bonuses already.

@Geoffrey: because Greece's history is quite famous amongst most people, as are many of her city states, and not all people are interested in and read about classical history. Greek myths, being so well known, also help in giving most people the impression that Greeks were very influential (which they were) and therefore powerful.

[Daedalus]

First of all, congratulations to the achievement of advancing a great game (vanilla RTW) to a brilliant one (EB)! I salute your passion and dedication, EB-dev's! You do make life more enjoyable. AND instructive on things that once were.
Now, ever since I discovered the fun of playing the original RTW two details in it have bugged me, and they still bug me in EB. Perhaps you guys can do something about it.
1. The GLARING red line marking the end of the battle field, destroying the mood which the setting, most often a beautiful landscape, is creating. I find it a bit odd that, when everything else in the game is geared for realism, this practical detail for the game is not. Why can't the border line be marked in a more discreet way, say, a darker shade of the grass, if the line passes over grass, and a darker shade of the rock, if the line passes over rock? It's important to know where this line goes, for tactical reasons, but I don't believe it's necessary for it to be THAT visible (you get a rough idea where the line goes by looking at the minimap). It think you can get a significant boost of the 3D-feel of the open vistas etc if you can make this line disappear from afar and only discernable when up close.
2. The anonymity of the individual unit. Sometimes, when a particular unit has made a heroic effort in saving the battle, for instance, I would have liked to be able to keep track of this unit's fortunes and career from then on, having earned a famed status among the regular multitude of units. But, as soon as I stack this unit with another unit of the same kind, I don't know which one is which. If something could be done to remedy that, I think battles in which units with a known history participate will be even more exciting, since more is at stake: not only the outcome of the whole battle, but also the outcome for the individual units (you don't want to lose a famous unit - other units don't matter that much). Maybe individual units from a civilized faction could be identified by the order number and region in which they were created, like "Century VII Latium" for the seventh Roman unit (of a particular kind) trained in Latium. Or by the naming system for new units used at the time, whenever there was one. For factions which historically did not even fight in closely defined units one could perhaps go along the way which village they are from (taking them all untruthfully as coming from different small villages, for the sake of added interest), like "Warband of (name of village)". Another way is to go through the name of the unit's captain, but that would mean that the captain seemingly survives all battles for a couple of centuries, if the unit survives that long. Not so good. Well, I'm out of ideas...

What do think, EB-dev's and EB-fans?

[edyzmedieval]

Sorry man, but you simply can't do it because of the RTW engine. Both of them.

By the way Edyzmedieval why do you hate me?

I feel like I'm t3h big clown from Monty Python's Circus, being left out. I don't get it.

[stalin]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54474
ROFL

[edyzmedieval]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54474
ROFL

BIG LOL, ROFL and LMAO.

Twas a guy on TWC who got RTW BI before everybody. And I hated him for that.

Basically a joke. Nothing serious. My copy came 4 days after.

[stalin]

I know I couldn't post here since I was a junior member and way to impatient