Suggestions for v0.8

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I keep saying we need to remove them too. Oh well.

[Megalos]

I see that the SPQR mod uses something called the "garrison script" that causes an army to be spawned inside a settlement whenever an enemy army approaches it.

I kinda like this feature, as it represents the local or levy force more accurately not to mention making siege assaults a whole lot harder!

I'd really like to see this implemented into EB, but is it possible to make the levy units dissapear if the enemy army moved away from the settlement?

regards

mega

(p.s sorry if this has already been mentioned, as I've not read the whole thread!)

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I honestly don't know the order of events, whether we started thinking about it at the same time, or whether it was his idea but he posted it in the EB internal forums, or whether we all talked about it together, or what. But I will definitely say that we have thought and talked a lot about it, but not lately. Kudos to LT for getting it implemented in SPQR.

[Dayve]

Ok then, if the cities represent the most important in the province, remove large and epic walls since it is they that have the supremely unrealistic repeating ballista towers.

And by the gods that reminds me... Siege towers have to have their gatling guns removed.

[Tyfus]

So I've thought of a couple things I haven't really seen discussed so I thought i might as well just through them out there.
first of all when playing as the Casse i noticed that when the warcry ability is used the units do their whole shield banging thing but I only hear about 1 or 2 guys actually yelling whereas in vanilla it actually sounds like all the men in the unit are letting go with the most vicious warcry's they can think of. If this could be fixed that would be cool because I really like hearing those barbarians scream.
I just realized that this might be only a problem on my game so if it is, some help with fixing it would be appreciated.

second I think it would be really cool if on the battle field you and the AI can only see what is within the line of sight of the units in the respective armies. baiscally what this would mean is that if a unit were behind a hill the opposing army couldn't see it and therefore it would making flanking manuevers and traps much more possible by using the terrain to hide your numbers from the enemy.

This is probably not possible now i think about it because normally a unit must be stopped for it to be hidden, but if it is possible I think it would be a great addition to the battle experience.

keep up the great work.

[Slider6977]

Do you have the Restrict Camera option selected in the battlefield settings? The reason it is there is to solve the exact problem you describe. Therefore you can not simply roam the entire battlefield with the camera.

Ok then, if the cities represent the most important in the province, remove large and epic walls since it is they that have the supremely unrealistic repeating ballista towers.

And by the gods that reminds me... Siege towers have to have their gatling guns removed.

Epic stone walls are the only ones with Ballistas. Large stone walls do not and are only capable of shooting arrows out the sides of the tower. I don't think this is a big deal. I'm positive that historically these type of towers built on a stone wall would have ablility to fire in all directions, with enough archer windows to provide this. Just because the windows are not shown on the actual structure is not a big deal. I'm sure ballista towers would be hindered in this way, so if there were a way to keep them but limit firing of ballista rounds only to the direct front of the tower, that would be excellent. But Im positive that is not possible, just as removing archer fire from the seige towers is not possible. Which, again is historically accurate. The Romans even used to load repeating ballistas in their large towers. My only problem with that is the accuracy of the arrows.

[Tyfus]

I understand that the idea behind the restricted camera is to give the smae effect but it is so unwieldy and it doesn't actually give the same sight as your units and it certainly doesn't stop the AI from seeing your units. what I'm talking about is invisiblity of the unit if it is not in the line of sight of any enemy unit. As if it were hiding in a forest or skirmishers in long grass. the unit would not even been shown on the map to the enemy.

[Foot]

I understand that the idea behind the restricted camera is to give the smae effect but it is so unwieldy and it doesn't actually give the same sight as your units and it certainly doesn't stop the AI from seeing your units. what I'm talking about is invisiblity of the unit if it is not in the line of sight of any enemy unit. As if it were hiding in a forest or skirmishers in long grass. the unit would not even been shown on the map to the enemy.

That unfortunately is impossible to mod, but i completely understand what you mean.

Foot

[Tanit]

I've just thought of something. One reason that peasants and units like the Urban cohorts were not included was that they would never realistically leave their city. Should EB ever have the unit slots to include them it could be done by giving their campaign map equivalent a movement value of zero so that once raised in a city to defend it, they could never leave. Just a thought.

[Markus_Aurelius]

What i would really like to see in the upcoming release is a bigger effect of climate on all units. An army of the Aedui would never stand a chance in a desert region when fighting the desert folke. As it is right now you could do as you please and you wouldnt notice a thing. Also desert warriors owning germans in the snow is not realistic.....

[Tyfus]

[QUOTE=rcross]first of all when playing as the Casse i noticed that when the warcry ability is used the units do their whole shield banging thing but I only hear about 1 or 2 guys actually yelling whereas in vanilla it actually sounds like all the men in the unit are letting go with the most vicious warcry's they can think of. If this could be fixed that would be cool because I really like hearing those barbarians scream.
I just realized that this might be only a problem on my game so if it is, some help with fixing it would be appreciated.QUOTE]


I know this is a small problem and possibly only on my comp but is there any kind of a fix for it and will it be addressed in .8
It's just kind of a pet peeve for me.

[Markus_Aurelius]

i remember a good old mod for rtr that made barbarians scream like crazy. It probably is compatible with EB

[Tyfus]

i remember a good old mod for rtr that made barbarians scream like crazy. It probably is compatible with EB

Any additional info would be great. I'm not terribly slick with modding the game myself and I don't want to screw it up because of my lacking skills . Is this problem noticed by others on their versions of EB?

also is there any plan to incorporate the sheild wall ability into the barbarian tribes or would that be historically inaccurate?

[Markus_Aurelius]

Oh yeah the mod is called WarCry mod, it was first made for spqr mod, ill test it soon and tell you if it is compatible, if you want to download it just do a google search or somthing along those lines

[Tyfus]

Thanks, I'll try messing with it a bit after I back up my files.

[Markus_Aurelius]

i cant get this to work sry there looks like it aint compatible, it doesnt ctd it just wont make the sounds....

[Tyfus]

Bummer...
EB members, is there any way you could improve the warcrys for the next version I think it would be really popular...

Thanks for trying though Markus

[Markus_Aurelius]

I think the the reforms of certain nations, such as the Carthiginians, who modled there late units after the roman style,were gained by lets say recieving a crushing defeat by roman poliybian legions. It would be much the same as the cataphract reforms of selucia. The General would get lets say "Intrigued by roman tactics and equipment" trait and this would unlock the late carthaginian mail wearing liby spearmen and pikemen. It would have to be after the polybius reforms because this is when roman chain mail was introduced

[Sdragon]

Problem is that will leave the player stuffed if he destroys out Rome before that happens. Won’t get any of the cool units then!

[Sarkiss]

The settlements we have on the map are the most important settlements for the provinces they inhabit and stone walls were a common site for these big cities.

yeah these are the most important ciites but:
1. there is still a difference between them. you cant have 199 Romes on the map, can you?
2. removing epic walls you'd still have stone and large stone walls left. imo, thats enough of a variation.
remove skyscraper please

Problem is that will leave the player stuffed if he destroys out Rome before that happens. Won’t get any of the cool units then!

and he shouldn't get them if that's the case.

[Markus_Aurelius]

Problem is that will leave the player stuffed if he destroys out Rome before that happens. Won’t get any of the cool units then!

As we all know EB is based on utter realism (at least i believe). If the player/computer does beat up the Romans than like sarkiss said they should not get them. Now lets move into some basic Historical common senses. If the carthiginians, in reality, defeated the romans in all there battles or maybe only losing a few close battles, than what need would there be of a reform? If there forces were beating back the romans on all fronts than why bother with all the hastle and expenses to develope new armour and weapons and than distribute them.

[Sdragon]

There are more than just Romans who could cause a problem that could realistically result in the reforms. Anyway it's not very realistic for Carthage to take all of Italy and leave a single city for Rome because they want to see what nice toys their enemies will make for them to copy.

[Markus_Aurelius]

maybe (if this was included which 99.99 out of 100 chances it will not be) than maybe the crushing defeat is a bad way to get it. Instead maybe just a couple of plain losess, close or clear defeats. I just think this would be a much more interesting way of gaining the reforms. it may be a complete idiodic idea, but we would never know if it was never tried.

[Tyfus]

Attention!! EB modders could some one please check out this thread in the bug reports and technical problems forum it's called,

Re-enforcement deployment Problems

I think. So far no one seems to know why we are having this problem and if anything is known by the more knowlegable members it would be nice to have some feedback. Alternatively, if no one at all knows about why we are having this problem then could something be done about it because it really interferes with the enjoyment of the gameplay.

thanks to all

and even though everyone has said it before, this mod is totally AWESOME!

[NeoSpartan]

OK I was thinking.... I remember reading that Roman Reforms were going to take place as a result of a "Trigering Event" rather than waiting a longgggggg time to get them.
Is that going to be implemented in EB version 0.8????

oh and if it is.... Have you guys made unit card for Legions with Lorica Segmenta (bacame standard issue around 5AD). I really miss it.

[orwell]

OK I was thinking.... I remember reading that Roman Reforms were going to take place as a result of a "Trigering Event" rather than waiting a longgggggg time to get them.
Is that going to be implemented in EB version 0.8????

Yes.

oh and if it is.... Have you guys made unit card for Legions with Lorica Segmenta (bacame standard issue around 5AD). I really miss it.

I imagine if it was going to happen, it would occur with the augustan reform.

[Ceasar14]

You guys should get some skins and models from Res Gestea. They have the best looking models I have ever seen. They use the ununified Rome so thats why they have different colors. You Devs should look into it and maybe include some.

Take a look at these Roman ones.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=50286

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=50654

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=51033

Heres the homepage.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=149

[Avicenna]

Ceasar: EB's focused on realism, with the units being as accurate as possible, meaning plain coloured clothes for the Camillian Roman soldiers.

[cunctator]

Prometheus, the creator of Res Gestae already made most of our roman units. However we use lower res textures than RG to increase performance on slower PCs, so our roman won't look as petty, also we can't always use the same models as in RG, due the 255 models limit and finally our campaign starts earlier and ends 55 years before the RG campaign, so we can't use all the imperial style units/skins.

OK I was thinking.... I remember reading that Roman Reforms were going to take place as a result of a "Trigering Event" rather than waiting a longgggggg time to get them.
Is that going to be implemented in EB version 0.8????

oh and if it is.... Have you guys made unit card for Legions with Lorica Segmenta (bacame standard issue around 5AD). I really miss it.

There will be no Lorica Segmentata unit in EB, it was only introduced at the very end of our timeframe and much to rare to justify a largely identical legionary unit just with another kind of armour instead of a more common and diverse unit for late romani.

[Avicenna]

Now for an idea I just came up with:

what about giving Krete the Knossos palace as a unique building?