I just read on the RTR forums...

[Dayve]

That in their next version, 7.0, when the Marius reforms take place, Gaius Marius is going to appear with a legion!

I was under the impression you couldn't make historic generals appear one a campaign had started?

[Cheexsta]

It says that? Heh, I need to read the 7.0 threads more...

Anyway, yes you can make specific characters appear, however they won't join your family tree. It'd be sorta like recruiting a general in BI.

However, I don't know all the details on this 7.0 feature so I can't really say for sure what's happening.

[Dayve]

Well i took your advice and looked for the platinum version of 6.0, and in my search i happened to come across a RTR 7.0 thread which i happened to enter just to see what 7.0 would have and just happened to skim through and see something like: "What better for the Marian reforms than to have Marius himself appear with a legion!?" Along those lines... Don't ask me where i found it, the RTR forums are big and i haven't been there in a year.

[Dooz]

Don't ask me where i found it, the RTR forums are big and i haven't been there in a year.

A year of playing EB . Just sayin!

[amritochates]

Rtr 7.0- Bi

Eb 0.8- Rtw1.5

[Avicenna]

Maybe it's like the Slavs, Romano-British, RE rebels and Ostrogoths spawning? It's BI after all.

[edyzmedieval]

I'm really curious why the guys want to stick to the normal RTW....
BI 1.6 has a better AI.

Plus, we won't get any more patches for 1.5.

[Cheexsta]

The 1.5 and 1.6 AI is pretty much the same, from what I've seen (using RTR Platinum and simply using the BI exe to run it). Hell, the exes seem like they're pretty much duplicates, except one looks inside bi\data and the other looks inside data, and the 1.5 exe has a few BI options disabled (hordes, for example).

[econ21]

I've played the Imperator mod for RTR - it has AI armies spawning at certain points (Pyrus, Hannibal etc). I think it's a good way to keep the campaign more dynamic (like the Mongols arriving in MTW) and also maintain the challenge.

[Epistolary Richard]

Yes, it's perfectly possible to have specific named AI generals appear at certain times in RTW, but as Cheexsta says, they just won't be part of your family tree.

You can do a lot of things to reproduce what historically happened - force diplomatic settings, start wars and so forth, but it kind of goes against EB's 'setting the table' ethos. As I understand it, EB's goal is to make the set-up in 272BC as historically authentic as possible - but after that it's up to the player as to how he wants to develop his alternate history. That's why several of the military reforms in EB are dynamic and dynamic conditions for the rest are being developed. The historical characters of 272BC are in there - after that, it's up to the player to develop his own mighty generals and wise governors.

[Dayve]

But it would be nice to have Marius or Caesar appear... Not being a part of the family tree matters not, since the Romans had no kings and never passed the power down to their sons anyway...

[VandalCarthage]

The conditions for those things could never be properly representative. It'll be a little odd having Hannibal spawn in Northern Spain if you've already invaded Italy, or in game, you're completely focused elsewhere and the Spanish buildup never occured. It's really not a viable option in our mod, unless we scripted every turn, and the player had no control over the events - that would be true accuracy

[Avicenna]

Edyz: not everyone is going to have BI or will get BI.

Could you script historical natural disasters though? They'll definitely happen no matter what us puny humans do. Also, perhaps include invading armies from the East if they actually occured? I'm not so sure about this because I'm not clear about the history there, but if these invasions did happen it'd be great to see them.

[Moros]

not completly true. A lot of natural disaster are directly caused or indirectly caused by humans.

[tk-421]

I think that it would be neat if EB made important historical generals appear appear at certain times. I've never liked that all the rulers generals are family members. It would be cool if say, Julius Caesar appeared with a small army in the Roman capital in 60 or 70 BC. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a trigger for a Gallic War or a Civil War, it would just be a historical character appearing, that, if the players chooses, could fight a Gallic War or some other war. Plus, having historical generals available would allow for more of the cool biographies in the traits screen thing.

[abou]

I think it is a bit much to use historic characters beyond what is available at the start. I will say, however, that spin-offs of EB featuring campaigns with historic characters would be quite awesome. I think there is one RTW vanilla mod that follows Alexander the Great, but I have no idea what goes into making one of those.

[khelvan]

Why wouldn't we go to BI? Because we would have to buy it. And so would everyone who wants to play EB.

Moving to BI is a major decision that we will make based on the merits of BI. And at the moment, I don't see anything that would have us clearly moving over.

[Dayve]

BI IS TEH SUX

[nikolai1962]

I think historical characters are best suited to scenario type mods where the initial setup is built around a smaller time frame.

Personally speaking :)

[edyzmedieval]

BI doesn't suck, it just gets boring after some time. I basically bought BI for some playing and fun, but mostly for modding purposes.

[Mellow Horde]

Why wouldn't we go to BI? Because we would have to buy it. And so would everyone who wants to play EB.

Moving to BI is a major decision that we will make based on the merits of BI. And at the moment, I don't see anything that would have us clearly moving over.

THAT is a five sentence rational for gaming companies to avoid making their games "too modable." If too many folks see this as a choice of getting a mod or buying the expansion, game companies will have second thoughts about leaving that choice up to us.

Disclaimer I have not bought BI yet but probably will to play future versions of EB and/or RTR

[khelvan]

Sorry, but we don't make our decisions based on making some sort of statement about the industry. If a given expansion had enough content that we could use to improve our mod such that it would warrant the expense, we would move to it. Perhaps gaming companies should use that as rationale to improve their expansions, not justify making their games less moddable.

Modding never seemed to hurt expansion sales for certain other moddable strategic games. Games companies may use it as rationale, but it is rationalization, and not a true reason.

[Chester]

Bi is not bad. The skins are terrible and the factions are poorly done. But the mechanics are interesting.

I bought it for the potential mods and have not played it for months. CA was busy on MTW2 to actually care about a rome mod. You can tell when you first view the skins.

[Krusader]

I think that it would be neat if EB made important historical generals appear appear at certain times. I've never liked that all the rulers generals are family members. It would be cool if say, Julius Caesar appeared with a small army in the Roman capital in 60 or 70 BC. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a trigger for a Gallic War or a Civil War, it would just be a historical character appearing, that, if the players chooses, could fight a Gallic War or some other war. Plus, having historical generals available would allow for more of the cool biographies in the traits screen thing.

Would it? For some yes, for some no.

Personally, I'd be a bit "disappointed" in lack of better words, if Hannibal showed up in Iberia, even though there already was a Carthaginian army or two in Italy, or if Iberian was totally in Iberian control. Wouldn't be so historically correct.

I concur with what Epistolary Richard said. EB's aim is to make everything as historically correct as in 272 BC, and let the player shape the following history.

[edyzmedieval]

Well, at least we found out what the real aim of EB is.

[Urnamma]

I'm really curious why the guys want to stick to the normal RTW....
BI 1.6 has a better AI.

Plus, we won't get any more patches for 1.5.

We don't, necessarily. Once we release for 1.5 there'll be a discussion about moving over to BI.

[Angadil]

Well, at least we found out what the real aim of EB is.

What Epistolary Richard said had already been stated a bunch of times. It's not like it took this thread to extract that particular piece of information

[Proper Gander]

BI doesn't suck, it just gets boring after some time.

indeed.... 10 minutes for me.... *ahem*

[Rodion Romanovich]

I think that it would be neat if EB made important historical generals appear appear at certain times. I've never liked that all the rulers generals are family members. It would be cool if say, Julius Caesar appeared with a small army in the Roman capital in 60 or 70 BC. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a trigger for a Gallic War or a Civil War, it would just be a historical character appearing, that, if the players chooses, could fight a Gallic War or some other war. Plus, having historical generals available would allow for more of the cool biographies in the traits screen thing.

The problem is, by 60 or 70 BC I'll already have conquered Rome and eliminated the faction if I'm Arverni, Aedui, a hellenistic faction or Kart Hadastim I think regularly spawning some hordes of rebel units at the map edges could be interesting to force the player to maintain garrisons everywhere, but in other places it would be strange gameplay-wise IMO.

[Proper Gander]

I think regularly spawning some hordes of rebel units at the map edges could be interesting to force the player to maintain garrisons everywhere, but in other places it would be strange gameplay-wise IMO.

i wish i could do that. but i need all my armies up on the various fronts, the high upkeep doesn't usually allow me to "garrison the land"...