Feature Requests

[Da Erobara]

I think that dismounted HAs and light cavalry make sense, but dismounted Cataphracts? Their armours are not designed to be used not on horseback. Especially in the hot Parthian regions. You have to be a really dumb general to dismount your everything-smashing cavalry and turn them into slow and easily exhausted heavy infantry. Parthians never used any kind of heavy infantry, be they dismounted cavalry or true infantry. Sogdian Infantry is something different, that's far off our timerange. Just my 2 cents though, but with a big bunch of common sense.

[Kara Kolyo]

some mid-level AOR Caucassian infantry and afghans sounds to me more ok for somewhat capable infantry for the easterners with good attack and low defence, like the regular swordsmen

[Zarax]

I think that dismounted HAs and light cavalry make sense, but dismounted Cataphracts? Their armours are not designed to be used not on horseback. Especially in the hot Parthian regions. You have to be a really dumb general to dismount your everything-smashing cavalry and turn them into slow and easily exhausted heavy infantry. Parthians never used any kind of heavy infantry, be they dismounted cavalry or true infantry. Sogdian Infantry is something different, that's far off our timerange. Just my 2 cents though, but with a big bunch of common sense.

Sieges would be the exception I guess...

[DimeBagHo]

Sieges would be the exception I guess...

Exactly. The point of these changes is to discourage the AI, and the player, from recruiting any infantry units, except for special purposes like sieges or population control. Except when climbing a wall, mounted Cataphracts will be far more effective than dismounted Cataphracts.

I'm really hoping that when the player runs into horse faction armies, there will be nothing but cavalry as far as the eye can see.

[Da Erobara]

Try to climb up a ladder in that thick, inflexible armour. It's a pain. An intelligent general would let his lighter troops dismount and attack the walls, then let them open the gates and charge in with the devastating cataphracts. That's not an easy thing, and it only works when the enemy has a large disadvantage. Historicaly, the parthians had that problem very sparsely, close to never, as they just starved their enemys out or destroyed their field army so the capital would surrender. Adding dismounted Cataphracts is, sorry to say, extremely ahistorical. I see that you want to discourage the player from building infantry as a horse-heavy faction, but historical accurateness is first, I guess. And achieving to make infantry unattractive to a general can not be better done than by having no elite infantry.

[Zarax]

Well, later parthians and the sassanid had heavy infantry (not the sogdians) that were pretty much dismounted kataphracts...

[Scutarii]

And achieving to make infantry unattractive to a general can not be better done than by having no elite infantry.

Not to the AI it doesn't. They would rather reduce their population and be slaughtered much easier by spamming Sparabara and crappy light infantry than going for the much better HA's and Cata's.

[DimeBagHo]

I'm having a hard time seeing how this would be unhistorical. The Parthians had Cataphracts, they weren't welded to their horses, and although their armour was cumbersome, it was no worse than the armour worn by lots of other heavy cavalry units that occasionally fought on foot. We even have historical accounts of Cataphracts fighting on foot in later periods.

Most of the time it won't make sense to use dismounted Cataphracts, but I think it would be unrealistic to remove the option of doing something that they obviously could have done when required.

[Locky]

I'm pretty positive, the Parthians, etc, would dismount thier cataphracts when required, the latter armour was a hell of a lot more flexible, and allowed greater movement, they would most likely only perform this during seiges, as a dismounted cataphract would be a waste of his purpose, during a field battle.

[Da Erobara]

Well, okay, just do it. After all, it's up to the player whether he wants to use it or not, and the AI will hopefully never do this.

[Zarax]

Well, after all this is not EB so hopefully you might bear a few creative licenses over historical accuracy.

It's not like we are converting parthians or scythians to an heavy inf faction (tip: I asked few times for getting something like EB's saka heavy hoplites, not far from foot kataphracts), this is mostly a move towards game balance and I'm pretty positive no one would be so insane to train something like a full stack of tiny foot katank units...

That said, we are always open to suggestions Da Erobara, just keep in mind that we need to have a way to improve the steppe factions survival chances without overpowering the player...

[Cymera]

The good ideas never stop flowing. There is one last suggestion that I may impart on you all. As the mod progresses, would it not be better to create some faction banners of our own? I know that the vanilla banners are just plain and boring now. I use RS's banners for my game, they look excellent.

[DimeBagHo]

Cymera: New banners would be great. I guess the problem is that I'm always biased towards game-play improvements, and there is so much to do that the eye-candy sometimes gets permanently delayed.

[Archbaker]

I don't have enough information to write a full unit description, but a semi-elite spear unit with Shield Wall would be a nice addition to Germany.

[Cymera]

I understand perfectly Dime, as this is a hobby, there is not as much time to be able to make all the changes that are wanted. You could always ask another mod for their banners if you would like.

I think the vanilla ones are "ok" but they do not complement the units that are in XGM.

[Centurion44]

When can we expect the new update to come out and what can we expect this update to contain?

[DimeBagHo]

The new update should come out before August 15. It will probably contain:

-Horse faction changes (for sure)
-Some map changes (four new regions, Euboea and Lesbos cut, probably)
-New civil war scripts for Rome, Carthage, and the GCS (likely)
-Minor settlements (if Balikedes is done with them)

The new Sabaean faction will probably have to wait for the next update after that.

[LucretiusTC]

I´ve been thinking about those possible map changes. If there´s a plan to have more settlements on the Black Sea coast, then Trapezus (present Trabzon) could be a good choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabzon

Then Amasia as the capital of Pontus could use Amisus (present Samsun) as a new place to its port instead of Trapezus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsun

If it is possible to have a new inland settlement in Asia Minor, then Iconium (Ikonion) in Lycaonia could be a good choice for the geopolitical reasons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycaonia

I was mainly thinking about those distances in that area between Tarsus, Ipsus, Side and Ancyra. Those map changes might affect various ways to Pontus and the Seleucids power balance in Asia Minor.

Those previsiously mentioned Amphipolis in Macedonia and Cyzicus (Kyzikos) in Mysia sound also good places for the new settlements.


Luc.

[Cymera]

What about implementing those models? The link for Riczu's campaign models is still up and I emailed you Prometheus' city models.

[Kara Kolyo]

Dime can i propose some other not so big things for the next version, mainly more AOR units - making the scythian lancers recruitable, some heavier barb cavalry and expanding alittle the thracian aor. my old suggestions about thrace cavalry are still there, that is if you have the time and desire offcourse