Is EB 1.2 the most sophisticated turn based computer strategy wargame to this date?

[antisocialmunky]

Master of Orion 3 was the most complex thing I've ever played... except it wasn't really a game... or fun... or playable...

In Antarian Galaxy, turn based game plays you!

[Geticus]

Master of Orion 3 was the most complex thing I've ever played... except it wasn't really a game... or fun... or playable...

In Antarian Galaxy, turn based game plays you!

I was wondering about that one, I played MOO1 a lot back in the day, Klackons FTW. I didn't play MOO2 much but I know some consider it the best of its genre. But I think the tactical system of the early MOO games was a lot simpler than EB.

[Randal]

He's not referring to tactical battles, but to the economy and the running of the empire.

The economy in MOO3 is so complicated no human can handle it without AI assistance. Or monk-level patience and time-commitment.

[Apázlinemjó]

I think EU3 with the expansions is more complex, but as Jabarto said it's not turn-based. If we are talking about turn-based wargames, well you'll laugh at me, but I think Heroes 3 and 5 with the expansions are quite good too.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I think EU3 with the expansions is more complex, but as Jabarto said it's not turn-based. If we are talking about turn-based wargames, well you'll laugh at me, but I think Heroes 3 and 5 with the expansions are quite good too.

I think what makes EB/RTW so much better than EU3 is the (R:TW engine) battles. If one could combine certain aspects of EU3 stratmap realtime play, factions/in-fighting/subfactions etc.) with the battle engine of R:TW (with some of the AI mods incorporated), the sea battles of E:TW and the cultural background/militay units and know-how of the EB team then I would likely become a hermit, deeply entrenched within the alternative 'reality' of that game. So, its probably as well that it doesn't exist.

[Claudius]

CA should just contract Paradox to code their diplomacy system.

Also EU: Rome while extremely flawed and barren introduced some interesting features in its Vae Victus expansion. I wish Rome TW had a comparable political system.

[Starforge]

CA should just contract Paradox to code their diplomacy system.

Also EU: Rome while extremely flawed and barren introduced some interesting features in its Vae Victus expansion. I wish Rome TW had a comparable political system.

I know there tends to be camps of followers regarding game companies but given their last few releases, CA should pay Paradox a consulting fee for ideas as they have great ones but stay as far away from their coders as possible. They would simply be tripling their release bugs (if the games worked at all.)

[Apázlinemjó]

I think what makes EB/RTW so much better than EU3 is the (R:TW engine) battles. If one could combine certain aspects of EU3 stratmap realtime play, factions/in-fighting/subfactions etc.) with the battle engine of R:TW (with some of the AI mods incorporated), the sea battles of E:TW and the cultural background/militay units and know-how of the EB team then I would likely become a hermit, deeply entrenched within the alternative 'reality' of that game. So, its probably as well that it doesn't exist.

Well, what "we" would need from the TWs are the battles, the units and the maps which look better than in EU3 in my opinion, nothing else.

[vartan]

EB 1.2 is a mod for a wargame. That wargame would do well to have been made with many more things in mind.

[jabarto]

I think EU3 with the expansions is more complex, but as Jabarto said it's not turn-based. If we are talking about turn-based wargames, well you'll laugh at me, but I think Heroes 3 and 5 with the expansions are quite good too.

Heh, how could I forget to mention my all-time favorite game series? Heroes 2 was solid gold.

[Zarax]

Do not underestimate the RTW campaign engine, especially with BI.
AI does know when it's beaten and will negotiate peace with you just like in paradox games, but unfortunately the "I'm beaten" parameter is coded in a relavitely narrow window.

This is unfortunately not seen in most mods as modders always give extra money to AI one way or the other, plus the "snowball effect" plus the huge trade multiplier effect which makes income grow much more than in a linear way.
This basically causes AI to think "I'm rich, I still have a chance" while we know better.

Once you "deflate" the economy AI becomes more passive (which in player's eyes is a bad thing) but less money also means that the player will be slower as well.
On the bright side, it allows you to see things like a faction you're bordering and you've been at war with for 20 years asking your for peace if it comes under pressure on another front.

This may or may not also be affected by the presence of another hated institution in game: the senate.
While I'm still researching that front, descr_senate.txt is the only txt file in game that shows an editable AI threshold, although the lack of research and testing does not give a 100% correct estimate of its effect globally.

That said, EB's huge amount of historical reseach and gameplay mechanisms bring a very solid layer of sophistication in game that more than compensates for AI flaws and gives the experience we all love.

[SlickNicaG69]

I think the main reason any TW game, including any of its mods, are considered "sophisticated" is not because of the turn-based campaign aspect, but really, because of the extreme sense of reality exhibited by its real-time battle format.

To understand my point, just imagine EB with all the wonderful campaign map features, such as traits, government, ancillaries, etc., but without adjustments to the unit rosters (i.e. still possessing the good ol Roman War dogs, etc.). I believe few would deem it a vast improvement over the standard (vanilla)... it would merely be a virtual encyclopedia on Classical Military and Politics.

Thus, the sophistication comes in the updated unit stats and rosters and the level of balance it affects.

It is obviously much more enthusiastic to play a game, especially with its historical perspective, to know that it is as balanced as possible and as realistic as possible, as well. EB does that, in a vast way, over the Vanilla standard, which greatly underestimated the power of barbarian factions in the game.

However, one should not assume that just because EB is the most sophisticated out there, that it is unwise to challenge its inconsistencies - namely, that though the changes have caused the barbarian factions to be more accurately portrayed, it has led to many undesirables, such as the phalanx/hoplite and cavalry v. skirmishers, and frankly, an unbalance in the game that seems to be skewed towards the barbarians.

To reinforce my statement I offer as evidence the comparison of the Pontic Lt. Spearman and the Pontic Heavy Infantry - namely the discrepencies one sees when looking at each units defense skill values, morale, training, etc... these effects, although subtle, have a deep balancing effect, and could explain why such "levies" are so good vs your heavy armored horsemen...

[antisocialmunky]

I was wondering about that one, I played MOO1 a lot back in the day, Klackons FTW. I didn't play MOO2 much but I know some consider it the best of its genre. But I think the tactical system of the early MOO games was a lot simpler than EB.

Playing MoO3 is like filling out your tax forms.