Page 67 of 68 FirstFirst ... 17 42 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 LastLast
Results 1,321 to 1,340 of 1354

Thread: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

  1. #1321

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    There's been quite a bit of debate regarding custom cities as well among the team. In order to use them, the Huge City level must be reserved solely for these custom models. So, at the cost of many many cities being able to become huge, you get one huge custom city. Personally, for that huge gameplay affecting reason, I'm against custom cities since they would look very pretty, but really not add much else IMO. I mean, it would be cool to fight in Carthage or Rome and all, but I'm not really sure if that's worth restricting every other city to large-city size so that could happen. They would also take a TON of work--but most importantly, I've played TATW and some of it's custom settlements...Some of the pathfinding in those settlements(eg. the dwarven halls) are quite buggy. I loved playing TATW, it's a great mod, don't get me wrong, but making custom settlements has a whole host of potential gameplay mechanics concerns. If the above problems didn't exist, I'd be all for custom settlements, but unfortunately I can't resign myself to supporting the idea so long as it means capping every "normal" city at large size for the sake of, at most, one custom city per faction.

    Then, there's also the fact that at 272BC Carthage and Rome weren't as large or, rather didn't look as we imagine them to be in pop. culture, during that time period. For example, the famous docks of Carthage didn't exist in 272 BC AFAIK.

    Finally, there are many many more settlements which need work over custom ones. For example, it would be nice if the Indians, Iberians and Getai received proper city models before any work on a custom settlement began, since those would have much further reaching gameplay+aesthetic effects than a single beautiful custom city. The Iberian settlements are fully concepted, and work even began on them at one point, but currently no one's working on them anymore--it would really improve the whole of Iberia to replace all the default "barbarian" settlements with proper Iberian ones.
    Last edited by Genghis Skahn; May 30, 2018 at 08:12 AM.

  2. #1322
    Lusitanio's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    34

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Firstly, I would like to thank you, Genghis Skahn, for taking time to reply to our suggestions!
    About the Huge City level being reserved solely for these custom models, I think it would make sense because historically, not many cities would be able to develop to a level such as the city of Carthage, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Babylon, etc.
    Besides that, it would add even more importance to those cities becase they would be even more important to keep and would be an enormous loose for both the player and the AI. Personally, the thing thamanaged to keep me interested in playing roma surrectum III was the unique cities and the feelin I had when I saw them on battle map and conquered them. It was amazing. And currently, it just feels weird to attack an historically important capital city that does not even have a port or is to small.

    About the pathfinding problems, yes, I know some of them are buggy, in TATW DAC I barely had buggs with that but I experienced a lot with the Roma Surrectum II customed cities, but despite the pathfinding problems, its still better to have it than not having it.

    It is true that cities like Carthage and Rome were not as large or did not have buildings like the docks of Carthage at the time period of 272 BC (some say it was built around 222BC) but that is only a minor concern, especially because its impossible to represent (and to know) the exact time of what existed in the particular time periods.

    Finally, its a decision for the EBII team, I'm just giving my opinion about it and I really appreciate all your work. EBII is a masterpiece!

  3. #1323

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    As Lusitanio said, very many thanks for the solid reply Genghis. I see your points, and I also see Lusitanio's points. I think all told, I'd prefer custom cities to the possibility of making a huge city in more places, but I didn't at all even think of the issues about buggy gameplay them. Obviously, you guys will do what you think best (it's your mod, not ours), and in this case I also think the decision really should be up to you all, as there are pros and cons for both sides, and ones which aren't easily comparable.

    At the very least, if there is someone on the team with some spare time, it would be cool to have a couple custom cities for skirmish battles. Then there could be a model for Carthage/Rome/Alexandria/etc. at their heydey, and we could at least run our troops around in a custom battle, even if they aren't on the strat map.
    From the ashes a fire shall waken.
    A light from the shadows will spring.


    Wood's World of Words | Kilo11's Library
    Written in Sand | Nabataean AAR for EBII

  4. #1324

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    So I just had another thought. Not sure if it is possibly implemented already, or if it would even be possible, but I was thinking it would be cool if somehow defenders for a siege battle could have increased ammunition for missile troops. I mean, it's not like they would have weight restrictions due to being on the march or anything, and plausibly they would have at least some advance notice of an incoming army and could stock up on arrows and javelins and have them placed around the walls and towers so that missile troops could replenish midway through battle. It wouldn't have to be infinite ammo, or even so much as a double ration. Maybe just like a 20-50% bump or something.
    From the ashes a fire shall waken.
    A light from the shadows will spring.


    Wood's World of Words | Kilo11's Library
    Written in Sand | Nabataean AAR for EBII

  5. #1325

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilo11 View Post
    So I just had another thought. Not sure if it is possibly implemented already, or if it would even be possible, but I was thinking it would be cool if somehow defenders for a siege battle could have increased ammunition for missile troops. I mean, it's not like they would have weight restrictions due to being on the march or anything, and plausibly they would have at least some advance notice of an incoming army and could stock up on arrows and javelins and have them placed around the walls and towers so that missile troops could replenish midway through battle. It wouldn't have to be infinite ammo, or even so much as a double ration. Maybe just like a 20-50% bump or something.
    No way that's possible AFAIK. It would obviously make sense, but it's not possible without a whole new unit AFAIK.

  6. #1326

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Genghis Skahn View Post
    No way that's possible AFAIK. It would obviously make sense, but it's not possible without a whole new unit AFAIK.
    That's unfortunate. I thought that maybe scripts could be used to change some unit stats, and then just change the ammo amount up at prebattlescroll and then put it back down at postbattlescroll. I totally understand if that's not doable though. My usual method for getting results is trying crazy (but cool) ideas until they work, but alas, they sometimes are simply impossible
    From the ashes a fire shall waken.
    A light from the shadows will spring.


    Wood's World of Words | Kilo11's Library
    Written in Sand | Nabataean AAR for EBII

  7. #1327
    Lusitanio's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    34

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I would like to suggest armor uppgrades on Carthage to be more "roman", as we have proofs that Hannibal army took the shields and armour from roman dead soldiers because they were better, it would make sense for Carthage units to have that armour (especially shield)after the second reform. And if Carthage had won the war, they would most certain start using that type of armour.
    You could use for inspiration this units from Midnite submod from De Bello Mundi.

  8. #1328
    Lusitanio's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    34

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Other suggestions:

    Units that have javelins often loose the ordered formation they are in when they start throwing the javelins at the enemy. I have seen that in the TATW DAC mod units don't loose the formation when they throw the javelins. I think that that hould be implemented to EBII units, at least for the trained ones, because when I have a single line of units, the ones who have javelins start throwing them and then they loose the formation order they had, which is very weird.

    How about uppgrading Carthage Sacred Band with thyreos/thureous shield? Ancient empires mod gives an example of how it could be done but it would also make sense in an historical way for them to start using that type of shield.

  9. #1329

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Throwing in perfectly co-ordinated volleys that don't lose formation is unrealistic. So is throwing javelins without a run up.
    It began on seven hills - a historical house-ruled Romani AAR
    Heirs to Lysimachos - a semi-historical Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR
    Philetairos' Gift - a second attempt at an Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR


  10. #1330
    Lusitanio's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    34

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Throwing in perfectly co-ordinated volleys that don't lose formation is unrealistic. So is throwing javelins without a run up.
    I understand Quintus, and I have to say that when I saw it firstly happening in EBII (I was used to playing only rtw mods) I was surprised but happy because it was very realistic. But there are some cons like the fact that the units loose completly the orderly formation they previously had and sometimes it even happens that I have skirmisher units behind my hoplites and suddendly they are engaging the enemy troops because they got to close.
    If it was possible to make it in a way that they didn't took so much steeps to throw the javelins or make it so that trained units didn't did that it would be nice but I understand your point if you want to keep it that way.

  11. #1331
    Beckitz's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    181

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    For the time being, one possible solution for you is to use separate teams for melee. Have one unit throw javelins while another unit closes in. That way your volley unit can't be charged by the enemy. Besides, that will do the most possible damage to the enemy morale

  12. #1332

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitanio View Post
    I understand Quintus, and I have to say that when I saw it firstly happening in EBII (I was used to playing only rtw mods) I was surprised but happy because it was very realistic. But there are some cons like the fact that the units loose completly the orderly formation they previously had and sometimes it even happens that I have skirmisher units behind my hoplites and suddendly they are engaging the enemy troops because they got to close.
    If it was possible to make it in a way that they didn't took so much steeps to throw the javelins or make it so that trained units didn't did that it would be nice but I understand your point if you want to keep it that way.
    It adds to the difficulty too, which is another reason the deliberate change was made to change all javelin-throwers to the run-up animation, not the "throws from standing" one. The animations are still there if you want to change your own game, but I'm afraid from the perspective of the released mod, it's not going to change. You'll have to account for the shift in where a unit is as they throw, re-positioning them if necessary to keep them in one spot.
    It began on seven hills - a historical house-ruled Romani AAR
    Heirs to Lysimachos - a semi-historical Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR
    Philetairos' Gift - a second attempt at an Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR


  13. #1333
    Lusitanio's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    34

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Oh right, thanks for the answers Beckitz and Quintus. I would like them not to run that much from the initial position but if that's not possible I prefer to keep it like it is.
    Thanks anyway I still would like to know your opinions about the other suggestions :p

  14. #1334

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    So, this is a very minor thing, but I was wondering if it would be possible to give the province and government buildings a higher priority when revealing buildings in non-player settlements. I notice that certain buildings seem more likely to get revealed when my spy gets near a settlement (like markets and roads), while sometimes the province or governmental buildings are concealed because my spy isn't high enough level. You'd think that how a province is governed would be the first thing you'd be able to determine about a province. (If nothing else, you can go to the plot-important NPC and ask them questions about who's in charge - I figure that's how it works.)

    Is that a thing that's possible?

  15. #1335

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Dargaron View Post
    So, this is a very minor thing, but I was wondering if it would be possible to give the province and government buildings a higher priority when revealing buildings in non-player settlements. I notice that certain buildings seem more likely to get revealed when my spy gets near a settlement (like markets and roads), while sometimes the province or governmental buildings are concealed because my spy isn't high enough level. You'd think that how a province is governed would be the first thing you'd be able to determine about a province. (If nothing else, you can go to the plot-important NPC and ask them questions about who's in charge - I figure that's how it works.)

    Is that a thing that's possible?
    I suspect what is revealed is hardcoded, or else working on a specific set of mechanics of which I'm unaware.
    It began on seven hills - a historical house-ruled Romani AAR
    Heirs to Lysimachos - a semi-historical Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR
    Philetairos' Gift - a second attempt at an Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR


  16. #1336

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Ah, darn it. I was thinking that maybe it fed into the same mechanic that determines how difficult a building is to sabotage, and these buildings were given fairly high protection to prevent the AI from destroying province buildings and stuff.

  17. #1337

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Dargaron View Post
    Ah, darn it. I was thinking that maybe it fed into the same mechanic that determines how difficult a building is to sabotage, and these buildings were given fairly high protection to prevent the AI from destroying province buildings and stuff.
    That's another where I'm afraid I have no idea how the underlying mechanics work (as in where it gets the multiplier to determine which buildings are harder or easier to sabotage).

    Some buildings, like the province buildings are "hinterland" structures in the EDB, which means they're indestructible.
    It began on seven hills - a historical house-ruled Romani AAR
    Heirs to Lysimachos - a semi-historical Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR
    Philetairos' Gift - a second attempt at an Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR


  18. #1338

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Hey EB Team !
    I was thinking about the same issue than Dargaron lately. Isn't there a hidden ressource applied to the walls and port buildings that reveal them in the settlement panel, as long as the settlement is out of the fog of war ? Something linked to the fact those buildings have 3D models on the strategic map ?
    I thought it may be the case because when you disable the FoW using the consol, you can see the walls and port buildings of all the settlements on the map, even without having a spy or a character close to them.
    If so, it could be used for the government buildings as well, as it would offer a nice RP value knowing easily how the AI factions rule their lands.

  19. #1339

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Domaje View Post
    Hey EB Team !
    I was thinking about the same issue than Dargaron lately. Isn't there a hidden ressource applied to the walls and port buildings that reveal them in the settlement panel, as long as the settlement is out of the fog of war ? Something linked to the fact those buildings have 3D models on the strategic map ?
    I thought it may be the case because when you disable the FoW using the consol, you can see the walls and port buildings of all the settlements on the map, even without having a spy or a character close to them.
    If so, it could be used for the government buildings as well, as it would offer a nice RP value knowing easily how the AI factions rule their lands.
    I think that's hardcoded, because both buildings have graphical representations on the campaign map which you can see regardless of the building browser.
    It began on seven hills - a historical house-ruled Romani AAR
    Heirs to Lysimachos - a semi-historical Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR
    Philetairos' Gift - a second attempt at an Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR


  20. #1340

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    I think that's hardcoded, because both buildings have graphical representations on the campaign map which you can see regardless of the building browser.
    Does that hold for mines as well, because they are also shown on the strat map, right? If so, then those should also be revealed in the settlement when fog of war is cleared...
    From the ashes a fire shall waken.
    A light from the shadows will spring.


    Wood's World of Words | Kilo11's Library
    Written in Sand | Nabataean AAR for EBII

Page 67 of 68 FirstFirst ... 17 42 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •