What would you like to see Europa Barbarorum II

[Mamertine]

I'd like to see some way to choose which unit is the bodyguard of a given character. This has been done in the third-age as a submod: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=490115. I think it would be great to have an archer bodyguard unit, or a heavy infantry imagine an argyraspiades bodyguard unit for example! it could be done by a script. For example, a general who excels in the agoge training in Sparta "decides" he prefers hoplites as his bodyguards...

That would be awesome. I like the idea of specializing my generals.

Governors get heavy spearmen bodyguards in case they are sieged
Field generals get cavalry
Sieging generals get heavy falxmen or something.

Maybe an idea for v1.2 or something. I wouldn't expect anything super special for v1.0; anything past 10 factions and a map is a bonus in my eyes considering the work that goes into it, quality, and price.

Thanks EB Team

[Pethom]

Baron Samedi made a submod for Third Age TW v 3.1 called Real Looting.In the FAQ for his mod compilation about how this mod works he writes "Use your army and position them on the [provinces] of your enemies. When you notice the devastation on the tile your army is standing, that is when you will receive additional money. These mechanics also apply to the A.I. So force them to get of your lands if you don't want them to loot on your territory."

It would be great if EB2 could have something similar, or maybe even tweak Samedi's submod to use, so it could be possible to loot the provinces of the enemies like they did (and still do) when at war.

[Moros]

We had such a feature for certain factions, as it doesn't make sense for a most. The Sweboz for one had that feature IIRC.

[clone]

1a mechanics about succesion revolts.
when the ruler suck unloyal elements maybe revolt

2 when your ruler is in the capital takes some bonuses both for the city and the whole country (+1 authority example
3 recruitable generals

[smoesville]

Re-emergent factions. Hopefully such a thing would help curtail the mid to late game blobs with giant empires and nothing else.

[Pethom]

We had such a feature for certain factions, as it doesn't make sense for a most. The Sweboz for one had that feature IIRC.

What do you mean by "it doesn't make sense for most factions"? I thought that all armies loot the people in the countries were they fight. Even though the romans built up their forts I'm pretty sure they looted villages and farms where they were stationed just to put a presure on their enemies so there could be a battle if it suited them.

[Coldfire88]

What do you mean by "it doesn't make sense for most factions"? I thought that all armies loot the people in the countries were they fight. Even though the romans built up their forts I'm pretty sure they looted villages and farms where they were stationed just to put a presure on their enemies so there could be a battle if it suited them.

I think that went to the conquering army itself not the treasury in Rome.

Also why would they loot villages in places they already control? they probably had more sophisticated ways like supply lines and trade with the local peoples.

killing the villagers and taking what they have wouldnt have lasted them very long..

also what do you mean by battle if it suited them? a fort is for static defence...

[Pethom]

Villages wouldn't be looted in places they already control because they already belong to them. So in the game the factions use taxes to get money from conquered provinces. Only while at war with someone it would be possible to loot the villages.

As far as I understand the romans put up forts so they could spend the winter in territories where they were fighting (in the game we are unfortunately only allowed to build forts in provinces we already control). If after some time the local soldiers didn't meet up for a battle which the romans wanted to finish them off they maybe harassed the villages and farmes. That could have the result that the local soldiers felt that they need to meet the romans on the battlefield to get rid of them. And the romans were glad that they had succeded in getting a battle they wanted because that would suit their plans.

I'm not a historian so I might be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that if not the romans then other countries have used the method of harassing the people on the countryside to get a battle they want because it would help them to get control of a territory. A method like that would of course help only if the one who is controling a territory care for the people. A method to trigger this in the game when using the submod Real Looting would be that as long as an enemy unit is in a province a certain procent (based on the size of the army) would go from one factions treasury to the other ones. And this Real Looting would only work as long as two factions are at war. If a unit from a neutral faction walks through another factions province Real Looting shouldn't work.

[Hoplite of Ilis]

I'd like to see it done . Oh well, I want city ancient looking city models. I believe they are getting there.

[IGdood]

i saw that there will be garamantine chariots and i got really excited. will they be available as type iv govermment regional troops? hopefully as the romani i can recruit them for terror tactics!

[clone]

recruitable governors like in roma surrectum (before 2 version)
with low but stong number of infantry
. traits based on ethnicity (if you recruit him from a province there is a chance to have the city ethnicity) and on goverment(if you have based on eb 1 tyranos enchorios build in a city the governor will get this trait which will have some bonuses and some disadvantages

[Pethom]

Something that annoys me a bit with some mods, and I guess with vanilla TW games too, is that the starting army (maybe called starting rooster) contains a few more advanced units the player gets only after a while when the cities are developed enough. If no city can train a specific unit until I've played 20 or something turns how come I have that kind of unit in the beginning? It's better and maybe even more historicaly acurate that the starting rooster contains units the player can train at the moment when (s)he begins to play the mod (game).

I hope EBII gives the player starter units of the kind (s)he can train in the cities. The more advanced ones will come in due time so I don't think anyone needs them in the beginning.

[Appius Pulcher]

Something that annoys me a bit with some mods, and I guess with vanilla TW games too, is that the starting army (maybe called starting rooster) contains a few more advanced units the player gets only after a while when the cities are developed enough. If no city can train a specific unit until I've played 20 or something turns how come I have that kind of unit in the beginning? It's better and maybe even more historicaly acurate that the starting rooster contains units the player can train at the moment when (s)he begins to play the mod (game).

I hope EBII gives the player starter units of the kind (s)he can train in the cities. The more advanced ones will come in due time so I don't think anyone needs them in the beginning.

I agree. But I see the problem the other way around. I believe it stems from the fact that many cities are, at game start, underdeveloped in relation the the historical accuracy. It is worse in rtw vanilla but also present in EB1. It may be an effort to increase gameplay by sacrificing some historical accuracy, but I don't think it's working. Just makes the game more of a "world begins a gameplay start" like age of empires, as opposed to the immersion historical accuracy gives the game.

[Greatonesh]

it would be great idea if they release it

[Sobibor]

Cavalry units without shield (all of they) or with the shield on the back. Esthetically it looks much better and historically I think it was next to impossible to ride with a big shield on the left hand, a weapon on the right and no stirrups.

Fleets and no individuals ships (same as EB1). Even it's only a "concept" change it's better for inmersion. For me it's insane to put a entire army in a sigle ship.

[WarbornUK]

I'd like to see the Indo-Greeks as an emergent faction (still playable, just starts later than the rest?) when a Baktrian general rebels.

Otherwise, a game just as amazing as EBI.

[alin]

Cavalry units without shield (all of they) or with the shield on the back. Esthetically it looks much better and historically I think it was next to impossible to ride with a big shield on the left hand, a weapon on the right and no stirrups.

Well, the engine has it's limitations and we cannot do that easily, I'm unsure if it's even possible as we would required new animation events that are not there(riding, riding to charge, etc.).
However we do implement a technique on some units, for example you'll see some archer units with their shield on their back while using the bow and no bow in the garytos, but when in idle the shield will appear on the left hand and bow in garytos. Also this technique is used sometimes to holster the current weapon, if this is a sword for example, when switching to the new weapon.
And there more cases where we use this.

Fleets and no individuals ships (same as EB1). Even it's only a "concept" change it's better for inmersion. For me it's insane to put a entire army in a sigle ship.

That concept is still there and we even display it on the campaign map w/ the new fleet icons.

[Josh Mahurin]

The ability to play hotseat games. Whether it takes watering down the scripts or removing them completely or whatever it takes just let me play a multiplayer campaign for the love of all the good that still exists in the universe!

[Cayo_Julio_Cesar]

I'd like to see it before 2020

[Sobibor]

Well, the engine has it's limitations and we cannot do that easily, I'm unsure if it's even possible as we would required new animation events that are not there(riding, riding to charge, etc.).
However we do implement a technique on some units, for example you'll see some archer units with their shield on their back while using the bow and no bow in the garytos, but when in idle the shield will appear on the left hand and bow in garytos. Also this technique is used sometimes to holster the current weapon, if this is a sword for example, when switching to the new weapon.
And there more cases where we use this.

That should be great! There are a lot of infantry units with bow and shield on the back that swap with the shield and sword on close combat. Maybe it's possible to do that with a spear as primary weapon and sword shield as secundary for close combat on cavalry units.

Anyway, in my opinion shield should be used only for dismounted combat, and no problem if the raider's shield remains on back but If we should need a "compromise" between left-hand shield or no shield, I think that historically it's better no shield.