I don`t get it what is all this EB thing?

[booker]

i download the mod and played for a few hs, but i don´t get the main idea of the mod, what is EB about? the time? the factions, why they are so different to what RTW was?

When i played other mod i knew what faction was and what was the main porpuse of the mod, but this is not the case on EB.

Why they even change the Money name? where timeline this is?

Sorry for this "101 question" but i`m new to the mod

[Reidy]

have you been running the script?

[Malrubius]

Check the FAQ. It might answer some of your questions.

http://twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15680

[Cheexsta]

EB is a realism and gameplay mod. Contrary to what CA has been feeding us, it is possible to combine historical accuracy and good gameplay. EB starts at 272BC and uses a heck of a lot of scripts, buildings and traits to make the game more interesting; now, instead of simply being a game about conquering, it's a game about building your empire and controlling specific objectives. You no longer find your best general and send him and a few stacks to conquer the whole world, you now have to nurture your generals and take care of them for them to be capable of leading an army.

Why is it so different to RTW? Well, pick up any history book and you'll see that RTW simply doesn't conform to history. While EB doesn't try to force the player to stick to history, it does give the player historical conditions and restricts the player in the same way that history would have restricted the rulers of the nations at the time. EB removes a ton of unrealistic things that were present in RTW (such as units like wardogs, screeching women, onagers, etc, as well as things like Wonders and temples giving unrealistic bonuses) and replaces them with things that did actually exist with bonuses that are plausible.

In short: it's mostly the same time period as RTW. There's just much more depth than RTW achieved...

[O'brien the Protector]

I find that the biggest diffrence between RTW and EB is that RTW was latin/romen-centric, whilst EB made each faction individually.RTW's Germania, for instance, was the roman term for the regoin east of the rhine, while EB's sweboz is a actual tribe that existed in that area.Sweboz is part of germania in other words. the Arverni and the Audia are both guals. Armenia didnt exist back then. The suelucid empuire was much bigger than portrayed in RTW, and with the selucid empire comes the agema and the pahlav ( which later became parthians, something that is actualy described in EB through a "this year in history" trait). Koinon helloin is a accurate discription of greece, a alliance of greek city states. All of the factions make sense to me.

The timeline is a little diffrent from RTW. In RTW the game began right after Rome had united italy, EB begins right before. The gual factions goal is to unite gual under a single ruler and expand. Sweboz's goal is to unite germania under one rule. Qarthadastim's ( carthage) goal is to control the western mediterrianian. Really just go into any factions "faction scroll" (press the hotkey O) and there click on the "?" ( you have to have teh EB script enabled though) and all of the cities you need to take will be highlighted. All of the factions have Goals that make sense to what was happening back then.

the traits in EB describe the basic personality of each faction member along with what he has learned and how he changes over time from his more basic younger state. Also there are triats for achieving certian things. If you are Qarthadastim and you conuqer Sycruse, the general who conquered it gets a "conquerer pf sycruse" trait ( sycruse was a very powerful city state, which the carthiginians never were able to conquer).

[Dantheman102100]

Why is it so different to RTW? Well, pick up any history book and you'll see that RTW simply doesn't conform to history. While EB doesn't try to force the player to stick to history, it does give the player historical conditions and restricts the player in the same way that history would have restricted the rulers of the nations at the time. EB removes a ton of unrealistic things that were present in RTW (such as units like wardogs, screeching women, onagers, etc, as well as things like Wonders and temples giving unrealistic bonuses) and replaces them with things that did actually exist with bonuses that are plausible.

Why does everyone say onagers are unrealistic? Click here.

[Urnamma]

Why does everyone say onagers are unrealistic? Click here.

It's about the timeperiod. Onagers were first used at the end of the Roman Empire, not the middle of the Republic.

[Dantheman102100]

It's about the timeperiod. Onagers were first used at the end of the Roman Empire, not the middle of the Republic.

Actually, they was used at the end of the Republic, the begining of the Empire.

But, if it's about time period, why do the Carthaginians have the Sacred Band? The time they was in existence was around 1st Punic war, which took place in 264 B.C. If you want to be technical, Carthage shouldn't have the Sacred Band either, considering the game starts off in 272 B.C., nearly a decade before they should be in existence.

Also, the onager in the game more closely resembles a catapult, which was first used in the late Greek period (around 400 B.C.). I don't understand why someone couldn't simply rename the dang thing and call it historically accurate (which it would be).

And one last thing, isn't that why the game has the Marian Reforms? Heck, they didn't have the traditional legion untill around 100 B.C. and yet, they are in the game.