Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

[QuintusSertorius]

Will the Sweboz have a recruitable sword-version of the Halithoz unit someday or will it only be a Bodyguard unit?

No, they're bodyguard-only. Nothing stopping you adding them as a recruitable unit in your own game, though.

[Tactics Mayers]

No, they're bodyguard-only. Nothing stopping you adding them as a recruitable unit in your own game, though.

Will the Sweboz have any native sword units or all of their units are limited to wielding spears or clubs? This pretty much limits their offensive power and a sharp disadvantage against the Cetlic Factions since Sword Units are now very powerful against spear units.

[Rad]

Actually, this raises a question or two...

What's the current mod's stance on spear vs sword? To whom is the advantage given?

If all other things are equal, a formation of spearmen will beat a formation of swordsmen, due to range advantage and the ability to present more weapons against the enemy at one time. They're (un)surprisingly great in single combat as well. The one place they don't work amazingly are confined spaces.

Swords worked well for the Romans because those guys had very large shields, more armor etc - they had a way to mitigate the spear's advantages.

[nvm]

A few nitpicks-

Neizes are stated to be "Areuakoi Levy Spearmen" in their description, but they are actually classified as Skirmishers in game, which means they start with skirmish mode turned on and I keep confusing them with actual skirmishers. Meanwhile levy spearmen of other cultures {Celtic, Germanic, even Numidian} aren't like that. Is this intended, and where would you say they belong more?

As Areuakoi you can't actually recruit Scutarii {Medium Swordsmen/Spearmen} with any of your governments/colonies, the only way is to establish an Allied Government. Is this intended?

[QuintusSertorius]

A few nitpicks-

Neizes are stated to be "Areuakoi Levy Spearmen" in their description, but they are actually classified as Skirmishers in game, which means they start with skirmish mode turned on and I keep confusing them with actual skirmishers. Meanwhile levy spearmen of other cultures {Celtic, Germanic, even Numidian} aren't like that. Is this intended, and where would you say they belong more?

They're a hybrid skirmisher-spearman, just like the Numidian levies (and the Ligurian Spearmen). Their classification doesn't actually mean a great deal, it tells the game where to put them in the initial formation, but that's it.

As Areuakoi you can't actually recruit Scutarii {Medium Swordsmen/Spearmen} with any of your governments/colonies, the only way is to establish an Allied Government. Is this intended?

You can recruit them in the Coalition government (after the Iberian Panoply Reform), and also the Band of Mercenaries and Area of Mercenary Recruitment colonies.

[Tactics Mayers]

Is it possible to create a sucession revolt script? Basically, everytime a faction leader dies, there is a chance one or more provinces rebel, with generals with low loyalty joining the rebelled settlement. The lower the authority of the new FL, the higher chance and numbers of settlements rebelling. It can be useful to break the boredom once the player gains enough settlements.

[Kravixon01]

Are Romani generals supposed to be eligible for repeating consulships? My FM Manius somethingius is eligible for his fifth (5th) consulship. I know Gaius Marius pulled off five, but it's a little strange for the austere pre-Polybian Romans.

[HarkonRules]

Dude, just don't send him for a fifth consulship if it sounds silly to you and roleplay as if he's had enough. Yes, it was very uncommon, but what do you want, for the team to limit number of consulships based on reform level? That's silly. Plus, Imperium-based terms are very important for gameplay for you to have a reliable number of generals to lead your armies without penalties.

[Kravixon01]

Dude, just don't send him for a fifth consulship if it sounds silly to you and roleplay as if he's had enough. Yes, it was very uncommon, but what do you want, for the team to limit number of consulships based on reform level? That's silly. Plus, Imperium-based terms are very important for gameplay for you to have a reliable number of generals to lead your armies without penalties.

Dude, it's just a question. They already have it set up where the generals can only be quaestor and aedile once, so why should consul be any different?

[Rad]

Dude, it's just a question. They already have it set up where the generals can only be quaestor and aedile once, so why should consul be any different?

Because one could be consul more than once... legally or illegally.

[HarkonRules]

I also am interested in knowing an answer to Rad's question about swords vs. spears, it sounds like it can be enlightening. Please answer the question, Quintus :

"Actually, this raises a question or two...

What's the current mod's stance on spear vs sword? To whom is the advantage given?

If all other things are equal, a formation of spearmen will beat a formation of swordsmen, due to range advantage and the ability to present more weapons against the enemy at one time. They're (un)surprisingly great in single combat as well. The one place they don't work amazingly are confined spaces.

Swords worked well for the Romans because those guys had very large shields, more armor etc - they had a way to mitigate the spear's advantages."

[Marvzilla]

Is it possible to create a sucession revolt script? Basically, everytime a faction leader dies, there is a chance one or more provinces rebel, with generals with low loyalty joining the rebelled settlement. The lower the authority of the new FL, the higher chance and numbers of settlements rebelling. It can be useful to break the boredom once the player gains enough settlements.

This would be very cool, but if it could be implemented stuff like province disorder and the FMs or Client Rulers loyality in the capital of the province should be taken into consideration.

[QuintusSertorius]

Actually, this raises a question or two...

What's the current mod's stance on spear vs sword? To whom is the advantage given?

If all other things are equal, a formation of spearmen will beat a formation of swordsmen, due to range advantage and the ability to present more weapons against the enemy at one time. They're (un)surprisingly great in single combat as well. The one place they don't work amazingly are confined spaces.

Swords worked well for the Romans because those guys had very large shields, more armor etc - they had a way to mitigate the spear's advantages.

Because of the WYSIWYG decision of CA, and the fact that the overhand spear animation is significantly more efficient than any of the sword animations, overhand spears are the "best". Though they are less so than they were pre-2.3, since we've slowed them down a little and added more non-attack animations into their mix. Along with speeding up swords and reducing the number of non-attack animations in their sequence.

Spears are obviously much better against cavalry.

Ultimately, the sword was usually a backup weapon, not a primary one. Look at the thureophoros, which was an archetypical soldier of this period for Hellenistic powers and those who imitated them. Their standard armament was a javelin or two, spear and sword. We can't represent all three weapons within the confines of the engine, so we chose just the first two.

Is it possible to create a sucession revolt script? Basically, everytime a faction leader dies, there is a chance one or more provinces rebel, with generals with low loyalty joining the rebelled settlement. The lower the authority of the new FL, the higher chance and numbers of settlements rebelling. It can be useful to break the boredom once the player gains enough settlements.

Not without having a script that checks every province for who owns it, which is the very epitome of "boiling the ocean" in scripting terms. You also can't script "settlement rebellion", all you can do is add turmoil, which might or might not tip it over the edge (and the AI appears to have some sort of hardcoded bonuses against disorder).

Are Romani generals supposed to be eligible for repeating consulships? My FM Manius somethingius is eligible for his fifth (5th) consulship. I know Gaius Marius pulled off five, but it's a little strange for the austere pre-Polybian Romans.

Yes, they are. Even in the pre-Polybian era, second consulships weren't unknown. Adding stipulations like "only two consulships before the Polybian/Marian era" heap significant complexity into the trait mechanics, which is unlikely to be worth the effort.

[athanaric]

Not without having a script that checks every province for who owns it, which is the very epitome of "boiling the ocean" in scripting terms. You also can't script "settlement rebellion", all you can do is add turmoil, which might or might not tip it over the edge (and the AI appears to have some sort of hardcoded bonuses against disorder).

It's already in the game anyway, as new FLs typically have less authority than established ones, affecting loyalty etc.

[nvm]

Stainless Steel has something like that, with a trait for a weak/highly dreaded faction leader that can trigger a civil war, with first level of trait being a "warning" level and giving also a trait to all your generals/FM's showing what side they will take and a second level emphasizing actual civil war as Faction Leader's Authority tanks to 0 to promote rebellions with loyalist generals becoming more loyal while rebellious ones destroy public order of any city while becoming pretty much immobile. It sounds like a pretty neat and interesting solution to me.

SSHIP also has movement speed reductions for generals during periods of "turmoil", for whether your FL has low Authority or is a Regent, the previous FL only recently died, or a general has low Loyalty, although I don't think that in particular would be fitting for EB.

[Tactics Mayers]

Not without having a script that checks every province for who owns it, which is the very epitome of "boiling the ocean" in scripting terms. You also can't script "settlement rebellion", all you can do is add turmoil, which might or might not tip it over the edge (and the AI appears to have some sort of hardcoded bonuses against disorder).

Why not make that mechanic exclusive to the player-only? This mechanic at least should kill mid-late game boredom from having a way too safe empire. Only the outer settlements have a chance for rebellion. Or maybe a random script (active only at turn 100) that summons a large rebel stack/s out of nowhere?

[QuintusSertorius]

Why not make that mechanic exclusive to the player-only? This mechanic at least should kill mid-late game boredom from having a way too safe empire. Only the outer settlements have a chance for rebellion. Or maybe a random script (active only at turn 100) that summons a large rebel stack/s out of nowhere?

That doesn't get around the fact that you have to check every single settlement, to see whether or not the player owns it, to implement the unrest.

[Kull]

Hi guys, I have a question regarding pastoral settlements. Currently I'm playing a campaign as Carthage and I'm on turn 255, and I don't know how to build the "Extensive pastoral settlement" building in Kirtan since in the building description I'm asked to build "Great estates". This is odd because AFAIK pastoral settlements have their own agricultural development chain different from agrarian settlements. Kirtan's population is above 18K so I don't know what to do to trigger further development of the city for it to become a large city.

You can't upgrade a "Large Pastoral Region" to an "Extensive Pastoral Region". As the the building description says, the maximum possible settlement size is "City", which is a determination made by the team based on a variety of factors which limit urban development in that particular province. The "Great Estates" pre-req is, as you realized, a structure which is impossible to build in Pastoral Regions, and the pre-req exists purely because of an M2TW coding requirement - buildings in a chain that can't be upgraded show up with the wrong culture (meaning that all icons would look the same), so this was the "fix". As an aside, there is currently a bug (fixed in the dev build) which prevents you from building Large Walls in cities with the "Extensive Pastoral Region" building, so all of them are currently maxed out at City.

Another question: Do I have to destroy the "large pastoral herds" building to improve farms to "wide-scale pastoral farms" once I reach large city?

No, the farms and herd structures available in pastoral regions are not mutually exclusive - that's only an issue with Convertible Camps.

[HarkonRules]

Out of curiosity, when were the "settlements", aka permanent forts scattered throughout the map in many regions removed from the game? What patch? I for one am glad they're gone and the AI is a lot smarter without them. I wish it was easier to find the threads with previous patch notes, would be cool if there was a stickied threat with some sort of archive for this.

[Kravixon01]

For the SPQR polybian reform requirements, do battles where besieged defenders sally forth still count?