What would you like to see Europa Barbarorum II

[Yayattasa]

Meroitic Kingdom south of Ptolemaic Egypt

[ioannis76]

I would like to see a limit to the number of units one can have. I think it is unrealistic to have a faction with one or two provinces with a huge army. In a sense, I think there should be a "population limit" as far as the armies are concerned. It could be done if, for example one unit would cost more "population wise" to the city recruiting it.
As things stand, (AFAIK) if you have a city with 1000 people and you make a unit of 100 men, the population is reduced by 100. You can, therefore, make 10 such units. However, this is not realistic, as there are not only fighting men in a city, but also women, children and elderly people. To compensate, a unit of 100 men should "cost" 300 or 400 population, I think.

[Stath's]

^ I have not a problem with that. When you have a big empire, even small factions should be able to provide a threat to you, to keep the gameplay interesting.

I remember in EB1 with Seleukids, i destroyed 2 and a half stacks of Ptolemaioi when they only had Ptolemais-Theron. I have to say it was interesting, not irritating

[Appius Pulcher]

I would like to see a limit to the number of units one can have. I think it is unrealistic to have a faction with one or two provinces with a huge army. In a sense, I think there should be a "population limit" as far as the armies are concerned. It could be done if, for example one unit would cost more "population wise" to the city recruiting it.
As things stand, (AFAIK) if you have a city with 1000 people and you make a unit of 100 men, the population is reduced by 100. You can, therefore, make 10 such units. However, this is not realistic, as there are not only fighting men in a city, but also women, children and elderly people. To compensate, a unit of 100 men should "cost" 300 or 400 population, I think.

But the city "population" does not represent the actual population of that province, but the part of the population fit for military service.

Furthermore I believe economy should create the upper limit of troops you can have. By having high maintenance costs there would be a natural boundary to how much you can recruit with only a few provinces. I also believe it would be more historically accurate this way. Only seldom in history do I believe that a faction/nation has lost a war due to loosing its entire population of fighting age. More often their army is defeated and the faction/nation does not have the means to raise another one.

To sum up: Higher maintenance costs would do what you describe without having to make inflexible limitations to the game.

[ioannis76]

But the city "population" does not represent the actual population of that province, but the part of the population fit for military service.

Furthermore I believe economy should create the upper limit of troops you can have. By having high maintenance costs there would be a natural boundary to how much you can recruit with only a few provinces. I also believe it would be more historically accurate this way. Only seldom in history do I believe that a faction/nation has lost a war due to loosing its entire population of fighting age. More often their army is defeated and the faction/nation does not have the means to raise another one.

To sum up: Higher maintenance costs would do what you describe without having to make inflexible limitations to the game.

To sum up: Higher maintenance costs would do what you describe without having to make inflexible limitations to the game.[/B]

This seems like a suitable alternative.

But the city "population" does not represent the actual population of that province, but the part of the population fit for military service.

I wasn't aware of that. Still, the population could be lowered. I am not sure if the Area of Recruitment concept is also implemented here. It was an excellent concept, IMHO, in the Rome Total Realism mod.

the concept of access to Special resources in order to recruit certain units (seen largely in Shogun) would also be interesting. Also the city-specific units is a very good concept IMHO.

^ I have not a problem with that. When you have a big empire, even small factions should be able to provide a threat to you, to keep the gameplay interesting.

I remember in EB1 with Seleukids, i destroyed 2 and a half stacks of Ptolemaioi when they only had Ptolemais-Theron. I have to say it was interesting, not irritating

Doing brilliantly on the battlefield is something different, I think. but consider this: such a victory on the battlefield should have dire consequences for the loser, because if a large army was annihilated (not taken prisoner and ransomed/released) it should cause a huge strategic problem, not one that could be solved in 3-4 turns. It should take time to raise a large, elite army, and i am not referring only to the time it would take to recruit (although recruiting elite units in, say 10 years, as in the case of stainless steel would probably do it, even for me)

[Appius Pulcher]

Doing brilliantly on the battlefield is something different, I think. but consider this: such a victory on the battlefield should have dire consequences for the loser, because if a large army was annihilated (not taken prisoner and ransomed/released) it should cause a huge strategic problem, not one that could be solved in 3-4 turns. It should take time to raise a large, elite army, and i am not referring only to the time it would take to recruit (although recruiting elite units in, say 10 years, as in the case of stainless steel would probably do it, even for me)

I also find it irritating when some small all-but defeated faction keeps sending you full stacks, and furthermore refuses to make peace with you. It forces you to conquer every region of every faction you ever declare war on. It also seems very unrealistic.

[ioannis76]

Exactly.
The only realistic possibility for full stacks from small factions would be if they used mercenaries, I think. But even so, the faction would have to be very rich to afford them.

[smoesville]

If possible i would prefer if the EB team could alter the campaign Ai so it would actually accept a demand of vassalage when very nearly destroyed.

[ioannis76]

If possible i would prefer if the EB team could alter the campaign Ai so it would actually accept a demand of vassalage when very nearly destroyed.

True. For once, I would like to see what happens when someone becomes your vassal.

[Colos1987]

I use Force Diplomacy for that. Only when all my personal requirements are met (they are down to one or two settlement; their military is pretty much wiped out; they are waging wars against multiple factions).
Even then, I have to maintain good relations with my 'Protectorate', since if I'm going to war against one of their allies, the vassal may brake from me.

C

[Stath's]

^ I have not a problem with that. When you have a big empire, even small factions should be able to provide a threat to you, to keep the gameplay interesting.

I remember in EB1 with Seleukids, i destroyed 2 and a half stacks of Ptolemaioi when they only had Ptolemais-Theron. I have to say it was interesting, not irritating

Doing brilliantly on the battlefield is something different, I think. but consider this: such a victory on the battlefield should have dire consequences for the loser, because if a large army was annihilated (not taken prisoner and ransomed/released) it should cause a huge strategic problem, not one that could be solved in 3-4 turns. It should take time to raise a large, elite army, and i am not referring only to the time it would take to recruit (although recruiting elite units in, say 10 years, as in the case of stainless steel would probably do it, even for me)

Αδερφέ, εννοούσα ότι με μια πόλη κατάφεραν και είχαν 2μιση stacks στρατό, όχι ότι είμαι παικταράς και τους κατέστρεψα. Απλά, το βρίσκω πιο ανταγωνιστικό έτσι.

Hope that clear some things up.

[ioannis76]

Αδερφέ, εννοούσα ότι με μια πόλη κατάφεραν και είχαν 2μιση stacks στρατό, όχι ότι είμαι παικταράς και τους κατέστρεψα. Απλά, το βρίσκω πιο ανταγωνιστικό έτσι.

Hope that clear some things up.

Oh, OK, it's clearer now, thanks.
I prefer to see it as a sort of chess game. At a certain point, victory hangs in the balance, once this point is crossed, the one who manages to get the upper hand gains an ever increasing advantage, until it is almost impossible for the opponent to reverse things (ie, it would take a series of huge mistakes on the side of the one who has gained the upper hand to allow the underdog to regain his strength). Being down to 1-2 provinces and still coming back with full armies, rather upsets that concept, IMHO, but I agree that it is quite challenging/competitive.
Speaking of challenges, I don't think I remember the last time the AI tried to flank my forces, it seems to be head-on attacks all the way, even with mods such as S.S. 6.4

[Hoplite of Ilis]

Apart from see it done, most have been said already. Maybe there could be reforms for more cultures this time? Well, if that's ok with history - the EB guys stick to that . I've seen already more city or fort variations - I like this a lot. I really hope it is released before Rome 2 - for its own sake. If not, my faith stands strong!
Oh, and I'd really REALLY don't want to see the phalanx break up .

[airborne guy]

Apart from see it done, most have been said already. Maybe there could be reforms for more cultures this time? Well, if that's ok with history - the EB guys stick to that . I've seen already more city or fort variations - I like this a lot. I really hope it is released before Rome 2 - for its own sake. If not, my faith stands strong!
Oh, and I'd really REALLY don't want to see the phalanx break up .

Its not gonna be released before Rome2. Rome2 comes in OCT 2013

[alin]

Its not gonna be released before Rome2. Rome2 comes in OCT 2013

So you're in the team, I didn't knew that.

[airborne guy]

So you're in the team, I didn't knew that.

Just going off of what you guys have said here

[alin]

Just going off of what you guys have said here

We haven't said that nor did we gave a date because we can't. Volunteer work means the progress is not constant.

[airborne guy]

We haven't said that nor did we gave a date because we can't. Volunteer work means the progress is not constant.

Now your putting words into my mouth. I never said that you guys put a date out, but you did say that it will not be released before Rome 2. I can find the qoute if you give me a sec

[Wulfburk]

I'd like to see the economy and revolt effect of having a hostile army ravaging your country side, for example if you invade rome and persist on camping around the capital for a few turns the revolt risk of rome's cities without lvl 1 government (or the equivalent of it in EB2), meaning their allied cities, should be dropped, and speciallly on other important cities like capua, while also greatly damaging the economy of the province where the army is camped at. That is one example, every faction with an alliance system like that should have the possibility of being a target of having its cities revolt in favour of an invader.

I dont know if it is possible due to the engine but i'd like to see something like that, what do you guys think?

[ioannis76]

I'd like to see the economy and revolt effect of having a hostile army ravaging your country side, for example if you invade rome and persist on camping around the capital for a few turns the revolt risk of rome's cities without lvl 1 government (or the equivalent of it in EB2), meaning their allied cities, should be dropped, and speciallly on other important cities like capua, while also greatly damaging the economy of the province where the army is camped at. That is one example, every faction with an alliance system like that should have the possibility of being a target of having its cities revolt in favour of an invader.

I dont know if it is possible due to the engine but i'd like to see something like that, what do you guys think?

I would like to second that.