Preview: The Getai

[Epimetheus]

I'm curious, is that map of Getia indicative of the new stratmap, or is it just something conjured up for the sake of this preview? I notice this because each region seems to have exactly two "forts", and the coastal regions have one "port" specifically marked out.

[Foot]

I'm curious, is that map of Getia indicative of the new stratmap, or is it just something conjured up for the sake of this preview? I notice this because each region seems to have exactly two "forts", and the coastal regions have one "port" specifically marked out.

That is not representative of the strat map in game, and should be taken as nothing more than a tool to aid in the understanding of where the Getai were to be found.

The only maps that will be representative of the strap map in game are screenshots of the strat map in game.

Foot

[podoh]

That is not representative of the strat map in game, and should be taken as nothing more than a tool to aid in the understanding of where the Getai were to be found.

The only maps that will be representative of the strap map in game are screenshots of the strat map in game.

Foot

It may not be strictly representive, but does it show the amount of forts we can expect per region?
It would be awesome to have so many (in my opinion, off course).

[-Finn-]

Very nice! Glad to see this mod progressing nicely.

[The General]

It may not be strictly representive, but does it show the amount of forts we can expect per region?
It would be awesome to have so many (in my opinion, off course).

Nine sieges for three provinces is awesome?

With TW pathfinding?

[bobbin]

I'm pretty sure you can only have one PSF per province.

[seienchin]

Wow. EBII has a really realistic look.
But still, I see some problems with distuingishing units from each other coming. Like in IBII which is nearly unplayable because of its realism

[Belisarius II]

Well those units are much better than I expected, especially how the shadows fall on the unit, gives it a more realistic look.

[WarpGhost]

I'm pretty sure you can only have one PSF per province.

What is PSF? I've seen it used before (something about a quasi-settlement?).

[A Very Super Market]

Yes, a permanent fort. Quasi-settlement in that it simulates other towns in the region and can be defended as such.

[Ludens]

What is PSF? I've seen it used before (something about a quasi-settlement?).

PSF means permanent stone fort. It's a feature in the Britannia campaign of the Kingdoms expansion. Instead of giving the player the ability to build temporary wooden forts, like in R:TW and EB1, the campaign map starts out with many permanent stone forts already in place. These forts do not collapse when abandoned and are more tricky to storm. However you cannot build new ones, or raze old ones for that matter, so you need to keep them garrisoned to prevent the A.I. from taking over*. On the plus side, the first two units garrisoned in a PSF will be free of upkeep.

* At least, this happens if the A.I. gets its act together. But my limited experience with the Britannia campaign suggests that the A.I. treats them as if they were the old, temporary, wooden forts.

[podoh]

Nine sieges for three provinces is awesome?

With TW pathfinding?

Well, you can look at it that way.

But:
1) I like to roleplay that I don't take a whole province at once; that when I've conquered the capital I still need to subdue several other parts of the province.
(For example: I don't build mines when I don't really control the part of the province they're in.)
2) I hardly ever assault cities/forts. I wait till the siege time runs out, which results in a surrender or a field battle.

So for my style of playing, 2 forts per province = awesome. Especially if those forts would represent real historical settlements.

[The General]

Well, you can look at it that way.

But:
1) I like to roleplay that I don't take a whole province at once; that when I've conquered the capital I still need to subdue several other parts of the province.
(For example: I don't build mines when I don't really control the part of the province they're in.)
2) I hardly ever assault cities/forts. I wait till the siege time runs out, which results in a surrender or a field battle.

So for my style of playing, 2 forts per province = awesome. Especially if those forts would represent real historical settlements.

I like to roleplay that by winning field battles (and thus forcing enemy armies to retreat towards safety/into settlements) my armies take over land, even if the game can't simulate that. (I love the Europa Universalis system of controlling/owning provinces and peace negotiations...) For example, when my Aedui army crossed Tiber and defeated a Roman army at the other side, my army "took over" the areas north of Rome as the opposing army retreated behind the city walls.

I, too, very rarely assault fortresses/settlements, but that's because I absolutely detest x:TW siege battles. The path finding is horrendous, unmanned (!) towers slaughter warriors by the dozens and even the peasant-iest levies are ready to fight to death for the [town] Square. While sally battles are not as horrible as assaults, it's quite annoying to wait for those exhausted 5-man units run back to you from the town square (unless you manage to rout the whole enemy army at the same instance). *Rant rant rant*

If only, if only field battles could (be it temporarily) move borders.

[WinsingtonIII]

This is so beautiful. EB team, you have done great work as always. The units look stunning, and I'm really liking the province description buildings for each province. They add a lot of depth and are very interesting.

Just in case the unit descriptions posted here are to be the unit descriptions in-game, I just thought I'd point out a typo so it isn't there in-game. In the Komatai description, it says "the distruction of Helis" when it should be "destruction." Just letting you know.