Just some small suggestions ;)

[pezhetairoi]

@ Treverer

Uh, sorry but...did you say Epeiros could conquer both Pella and -Thessaloniki-? o.o

[Treverer]

@ Treverer

Uh, sorry but...did you say Epeiros could conquer both Pella and -Thessaloniki-? o.o

Ooops, thank you for pointing me to that stupid error. I've corrected it.

[Maksimus]

Ok.
Main of my post was about.. exploatation of opponents barracks.. so you can't just boost your budget by destroying it - you will need to plan carefully.. That is first main thing i wanted to state

And the second and most important is to make army barracks available at the start for successor states and to make option of them to share their buildings.

Still, I don't think I have made myself clear - I was refering (if not to share the barracks) then to at least make some lower-end units available in enemies barracks to built..

So if I take Pella that has army barracks I would have an option to destroy them and build my own or to use them to some extent..
And it would be nice if you could use enemy barracks 'full' after you build your goverment? No?

[Thaatu]

Well I wouldn't call destroying other cultures' barracks an exploit, because building your own barracks costs more than what you'd gain from the sacking. Of course AI can't destroy buildings, so it's a moral question whether one chooses to destroy enemy barracks. Bear in mind establishing a military recruitment system isn't done in an instant. In a border province which switched sides repeatedly, like Judea between Ptolies and Seleucs, the people were familiar with both sides and served with both armies. That's represented by Ptoly and Seleuc barracks that have not been destroyed by either side. Bleep, I managed to confuse myself...

Let's try again.

In order for a faction to start recruiting units immediately after conquering a settlement, it needs to have owned the place previously and have built barracks there. If all the successor states shared their barracks it would mean that an unknown faction for the newly conquered peoples could recruit immediately from the populace, without pacifying the province or supressing the resistance, which wouldn't be too realistic.

[jhhowell]

Since the thread title is rather general, I hope I may piggyback on this thread.

I would like to suggest a tweak to the recruitment of Scythians in regional MICs. This almost exclusively affects Hayasdan, in practice. They can get Scythian horse-archers in the basic regional MIC, and riders (archers with some melee ability due to the lance) at level 2. My suggestion is that these two units be bumped up a MIC level, so Scythian recruitment would be foot archers at MIC-1, horse archers at MIC-2, and riders at MIC-3.

Reasons:
1. Easy access to horse archers makes Hayasdan campaigns easier than they would be otherwise. A handful of horse-archer units do wonders for squishing rebel stacks or the typical Seleucid mini-stacks invading your land.
2. Since Scythians are so easy to get, both Armenian Skirmisher Cavalry and Armenian Horse Archers are useless units. Javelin cavalry is far worse than horse archers, and the Armenian HA require a factional MIC-3 and cost more than the Scythians but have identical stats. If the Scythians took an extra MIC level to acquire, the jav cav becomes a plausible option for the early game*, and the Armenian HA might well be available in Armavir before Scythians can be recruited in Kotais or Mtmumble.

* = tangential suggestion: switch the starting unit of Aspet Hetselazor for a unit of Armenian Skirmisher Cavalry. That assures that the latter unit will see play, and since early game Hayasdan relies heavily on the bodyguards the loss of a unit of medium cavalry is not very significant.

[bovi]

It's a moral question whether one chooses to destroy enemy barracks. Bear in mind establishing a military recruitment system isn't done in an instant.

You should always destroy any barracks that you don't have the ability to use. It's unrealistic if the original owner retakes the place and can immediately recruit elites. Re-establishing the system might be easier than establishing it in the first place, but you've lost much of what the system consisted of as the place was taken by invaders.

[Maksimus]

You should always destroy any barracks that you don't have the ability to use. It's unrealistic if the original owner retakes the place and can immediately recruit elites. Re-establishing the system might be easier than establishing it in the first place, but you've lost much of what the system consisted of as the place was taken by invaders.

First of all, If you give me 5 members that after Destroying enemy barracks Build their owns - I will applause (this is not the same about Regional b's), because that is simply loss of time and money, and plus, you invest in your own barracks (in Homeland) UNLESS you Cheat?? maybe..
If you cheat in any way.. any realy, and this is for all that are in this thread - you have no real sence of my post.

Second, That prob where it is ''unrealistic if the original owner retakes the place and can immediately recruit elites'' is created by allowing CPU to bulid and have Army and Royal barracks in almost every city after .. I don't know.. 20 historic years.. That means it is realy bad for realisam and historic note that it is even available..

That is solved either by implementing 'CIty Mod' or making 10* longer construction time for barracks! And that wont 'give' cheap levies to CPU because CPU is not even building Elites all the time.. I have every proof for that..
- If you wont AI to use best units after building Army or Royal barracks you must DISABLE him to recruits 'lower-end' units after building Army or Royal B's..
So.. You see, this suggestions of mine are about dinamic's - Becaus you as a player can build Army And Royal barracks after 20 historic years while CPU has them (bcs of EBBS script) after 5 of 10..

My point is to Set construction times for Barracks *10 times and to make All Greek and Indo-Greek or Hellenic faction in general to use each other factions.. That is much more real that from what you stated Bovi..

These posts of mine are result of a simple wish to state my opinion of EB 1 - with a goal to make it better.. I realy like EB, so it is somewhat more pressure on me to express some of the solutins I have implemented in some of my mods - they worked very nice..

thank you

[Thaatu]

You should always destroy any barracks that you don't have the ability to use. It's unrealistic if the original owner retakes the place and can immediately recruit elites. Re-establishing the system might be easier than establishing it in the first place, but you've lost much of what the system consisted of as the place was taken by invaders.

I don't think it's that unrealistic. If you take a highly developed Pella, which is conquered by Epirus for a few turns, then taken back by Macs. If the barracks are destroyed, it'll take more than 7 ½ years to be able to recruit Silver Shields again. What could have realisticly happened during those few seasons that wiped out the memory of Argyraspidai? Personally, I destroy the previous barracks after a few years of occupation, unless I completely sack the place.


Maksimus, remember that if the barracks would take longer to build, you couldn't build anything else during that time. The AI would still focus on barracks, so it wouldn't prevent them from building them, but it would hamper their efforts to improve the settlements.

Edit: Oh, and remember that type 5 MIC can only be built with a type I government. That's sort of a "City mod" restriction, although I too am of the opinion that AI (especially Eleutheroi) developes its provinces too quickly. By 220 BCE there are almost no backwater places left, but that's a basic flaw in RTW.

[konny]

When we take "barracks" not as buildings but as the military organization of a province it wouldn't be unrealistic if all factions share the same local barracks, and if factions of the same culture (for example all Hellenic or all Cetlic-Germanic) would share the same factional barracks.

Local barracks represent a state of military constitution that is genuine to a given province or its population, regardless who controlls it. Therefore it should not be necessary for a new conquerer to establish these institutions as long as some one else had established them before, or there are this old that they are set at game start.

If, for example, the Sweboz conquer a Greek polis in EB they are able to raise Greek Hoplites; but only after installing the appropiate buildings/institutions. When you think it over, it doesn't make much sense, because they are able to raise Hoplites since the local militia is organized in a way that leads to the Hoplites as the major arm. The Hoplites were allready there before the Sweboz, or whoever, came. The Sweboz themselves have nothing of the kind to offer to a new conquered province that would lead to a Hoplites-Army.

So, you could create a recruitement system in which the basic units that about everyone can raise in a given province come from the lowest local MIC and that this local MIC is allready placed at the start. It would be correct, because these unis are the local militia that fight and are equipped in their traditional way, long since before the game starts.


That is not meant as a suggestion to redo the EB recruitement system, so no need for "we won't do"-answers.

[bovi]

I don't think it's that unrealistic. If you take a highly developed Pella, which is conquered by Epirus for a few turns, then taken back by Macs. If the barracks are destroyed, it'll take more than 7 ½ years to be able to recruit Silver Shields again. What could have realisticly happened during those few seasons that wiped out the memory of Argyraspidai? Personally, I destroy the previous barracks after a few years of occupation, unless I completely sack the place.

The highly developed Pella won't be as highly developed anymore after months or years of occupation where the new rulers are recreating a MIC in their own image, or even just laying waste to the infrastructure of the previous owners. While I am not sure what the differences are between Epeiros and Makedonia's MIC models in particular, I am sure that there were good reasons for not using the same.

You are talking about elites being available immediately upon recapture, elites who used superior equipment and were training a long time to be such elites. Why would their intermediate masters allow them to train in the enemy's fashion while under their rule? 7,5 years may or may not be a more precise time scale for rebuilding what was destroyed or damaged or killed during the occupation than no time at all. Still, it means a representation of the investment needed to rebuild to the previous level, considering getting men of eligible age to be soldiers, training them for years, getting blacksmiths trained (or imported) and the infrastructure those need, etc.