ALEXANDER EB

[Maksimus]

eaem should be save game compatible but with the new start setup that will come out i would suggest new game.

Hmmm.. i will give you my take on how much historic Eaem is, shortly, its much more historic than Vanilla EB and + it adds much more game fun balance.
Why?
Few examples are; EB devs deliberately (i think that they have votes when they make some strategic changes or something) making settlements under developed so that the player would have more fun building etc (which is not historical). Also, they have deliberately underpowered much of Lationo-Hellenic units and their Cavalry + Elephants (which is not historic and i have had that proven by real horsemen and facts), and have seriously overpowered much of Germano-Celtic factions units such as infantry and slingers. Dacians are represented as underdeveloped in infrastructure as the Celts (where as they were much more advanced and had paved roads, stones walls, buildings, and great palaces etc).

And to the point of KH and their units hmmm, at that time the Successor units and armies were literally passing from king to king when they felt there will be victory, alot of Antigonos army simply just passed to Pyrr, and alot of Greeks from abroad were fighting as mercenaries and in macedon style, cavalry nobles that were from other parts of todays greece or Asia Minor also did fight for different sides.
Note here that KH faction neve really had existed, so you are actually having much deeper game experience realising how mixed it was, ......... army of Pyrr joined other armies after his death, and so did the units from italy he brought over with him. Something like Celts that were on Egypt side :)

[Darth Revan]

eaem should be save game compatible but with the new start setup that will come out i would suggest new game.

Hmmm.. i will give you my take on how much historic Eaem is, shortly, its much more historic than Vanilla EB and + it adds much more game fun balance.
Why?
Few examples are; EB devs deliberately (i think that they have votes when they make some strategic changes or something) making settlements under developed so that the player would have more fun building etc (which is not historical).

but then there's the issue of your faction loosing its entire money in the first 6 turns or so.....thats why the EB team made it ahistorical....History should be mantained but not at the cost of gameplay.....& pls people pls don't fight at history 'cause at the core it is a game....its nigh-impossible to achieve total perfection as of today's technology......

[Maksimus]

@Vartan
Wait you say they didnt? I have books that made me think they have, so but.. they not online here is what I manage to dig from that still saying elephants were rare but were in armies.
And Caesar had Elephants as well.
You didnt know about this?

Many books i have arent from online but one is I think.
A dictionary of military history and the art of war By André Corvisier; Its clearly said no Hellenic army after Alexander and until Roman invasion
that was decent vent to war with no elephants.

Also. The first European to acquire elephants was Alexander, after Persian war and later after subduing Porus and the power of the Indians; after his death others of the kings got them but Antigonus more than any; Pyrrhus captured his beasts in the battle with Demetrius. When on this occasion they came in sight the Romans were seized with panic, and did not believe they were animals. For although the use of ivory in arts and crafts all men obviously have known from of old, the actual beasts, before the Macedonians crossed into Asia, nobody had seen at all except the Indians themselves, the Libyans, and their neighbours.

By the time Alexander reached the borders of India five years later, he had a substantial number of elephants under his own command. When it came to defeating Porus, who ruled in the Punjab region of modern day Pakistan, Alexander found himself facing a considerable force of between 85 and 100 war elephants[9][10] at the Battle of the Hydaspes River. Preferring stealth and mobility to sheer force, Alexander manoeuvered and engaged with just his infantry and cavalry, ultimately defeating Porus' forces, including his elephant corps, albeit at some cost. Looking further east again, however, Alexander could see that the kings of the Nanda Empire and Gangaridai could deploy as between 3,000 and 6,000 war elephants. Such a force was many times larger than the number employed by the Persians and Greeks, which discouraged Alexander's small band of men and effectively halted their advance into India.[11] On his return, Alexander established a force of elephants to guard his palace at Babylon, and created the post of elephantarch to lead his elephant units.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant

Here is list of elephants i shortly found on web of their use in battle which I think is too small
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._war_elephants
http://www.clickfire.com/military-us...-roman-period/
future reading - http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Al-Ele.html

Even Caesar had Elephants.

**Polyaenus records that “Caesar had one large elephant, which was equipped with armor and carried archers and slingers in its tower. When this unknown creature entered the river, the Britons and their horses fled and the Roman army crossed over (VIII, 23.5).” In this case the elephant was the sole reason for the advance. Clearly, the elephant had the ability to provoke fear in the enemy even if in reality the beast was an unpredictable weapon. Hannibal knew of this psychological effect as Pliny relates an account which declares that “Hannibal pitted a Roman prisoner against an elephant, and this man, having secured a promise of his freedom if he killed the animal, met it single-handed in the arena and much to the chagrin of the Carthaginians dispatched it. Hannibal realized that reports of this encounter would bring the animals into contempt, so he sent horsemen to kill the man as he was departing (VIII, I.16).” Obviously Hannibal was trying to protect the gruesome reputation of his living weapons.**


@Darth Revan
no game can pefect it >D

[vartan]

Quick. Tell the EB team now, so that EB 2 will be the historical mod we've all been waiting for and not 300-style!...

[Maksimus]

huh? why would I bug them with anything, they dont really listen to anyone, i will just make my own mod. I did made EB based mod because i liked the map and factions as well as very nice text.
Eaem finished in UK PC magazin after all, so not so bad.
Tho, RomaS just could be the next big modification I remake if i get time.

[vartan]

huh? why would I bug them with anything, they dont really listen to anyone, i will just make my own mod. I did made EB based mod because i liked the map and factions as well as very nice text.
Eaem finished in UK PC magazin after all, so not so bad.
Tho, RomaS just could be the next big modification I remake if i get time.

Not entirely true. If the development team didn't listen to the players, the mod wouldn't be what it is today.

[Maksimus]

I said ''dont really listen'' as if they will not change things they don't like in majority, and even if you have rly good sources and profesionals on your side. I havent said they entirely dont care. However, in example of cavalry and elephants EB vanilla is severally unhistorical and unrealistic, and there have been plenty of open discussions mostly on TWC that I participated where EB vanilla changes were suggested. However, nothing happened etc. This is just one out of many examples during the past years.