Page 5 of 68 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 30 55 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 1354

Thread: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

  1. #81

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Koshi III View Post
    I'd like to see all land bridges removed. They are unrealistic and IMO don't contribute much to the game. For me as a main Seleucid player, the land bridge between Thrace and Bityhna is irrigating. Remember the Sieges of Konstantinopel in the early middle ages. It was imperative for them that no one could cross bosporus and hellespont without a proper fleet. So I want to see all land bridges removed!
    They simulate places where small boats could easily be secured to cross, even in the absence of a navy. If we removed them, the AI would have an even harder time of doing much of anything.

    If you find that crossing annoying, put a fleet on it. That quite accurately represents closing the straits, with all the costs that entails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail93 View Post
    I do not know whether this was suggested before but reducing the number of provinces in British Islands and adding at least one to greece is a must.
    This is under discussion right now.
    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


  2. #82

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Well, sounds fair. Maybe it is possible to link the use of such things to diplomatic status that the blockading fleet have? So, if you're at war with the faction that blocks the street, you could not cross and vice versa. If this is possible, it would be quite nice.

  3. #83
    Darkan's Avatar Senator
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Searching...
    Posts
    1,264

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    That is how it works, as far as I can tell.
    [DLV 6.2 AAR] - The Danish House of Hen - updated 16/06/18
    [King of Dragon Pass AAR] - The Drakkar Saga - updated 14/04/18 - on hold since May 2018
    Participate in the TotW!!! PARTICIPATE!!!
    Best 5.55 minutes spent online
    DuckDuckGo

  4. #84

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Please fix the text fonts. I can barely read the unit descriptions on the campaign map, and that is without the graphic enhancement mod. Building description font is slightly better, but still much worse than vanilla. Considering all the work that goes behind all the texts in this mod, this is a must for the next version.
    "If they can prevent me from going as an Emperor, they cannot
    prevent me from abdicating and going as a Fatherland Volunteer"
    - Dom Pedro II during the Paraguayan invasion of Brazil.

    War In Our Doorstep (LOTR_TW Rohan AAR )
    A Cobra Vai Fumar! (Brazilian HoI 3 TFH AAR)
    Age of the Bren (EB Casse AAR)

  5. #85

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Wulfburk View Post
    Please fix the text fonts. I can barely read the unit descriptions on the campaign map, and that is without the graphic enhancement mod. Building description font is slightly better, but still much worse than vanilla. Considering all the work that goes behind all the texts in this mod, this is a must for the next version.
    That's really weird. I've never had any issues whatsoever with reading stuff. Ofc the graphic makes it hard but you can just close it every time you are not in a battle. What's the issue on your part with the text?

  6. #86
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Naples, Italy
    Posts
    532

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Iaius Statius Laurentius View Post
    Families are relevant for the Romans though -- adoption, status in the patriciate or as a nobile, and the gens all matter and need to be inherited (so characters have to get married). Additionally, there will be an Augustan reform like EB1 (eventually) where there will be an Imperial family. Additionally, the Roman faction leaders in the game aren't consuls -- the faction leader trait is "dignitas," iirc, and basically represents the Princeps Senatus (though it can be a pleb too, like Dentatus the starting character).

    You could conceivably have no consuls ever if none of your characters are eligible and went to Roma for election, but there's always a faction leader according to MTW2 mechanics.

    Romans need family trees.
    Well, sir, I stand corrected. I didn't think of it, and honestly this makes sense, so...

    As a footnote, I was wondering about one thing. In cities, we often see huge empty spaces because there aren't yet the building models needed to fill them - and I understand it, historical accuracy is what makes EB so wonderful, and therefore you guys want to depict cities as better as you can. On the other hand, however, good pathfinding is hard to achieve and those empty spaces just kill the immersion and tactical involvement. Is there any chance to see these spaces filled with vanilla "placeholder" buildings? For example, in Eastern Cities/Carthaginians: I don't mean mosques and madrasas would look good in there, but common folks' dwellings and marketplaces feel right, to me. I'm pretty much sure that some Southern European cities' buildings would do well, as placeholders, for Greece and Rome. Also, in Asia the thing gets even more sense, as Greek and Eastern buildings would be mixed. So is there any chance to see this addressed in this way, in the wait for a proper solution, just so that we can have "full" cities? In my humble opinion, better this than the empty spaces.

    Edit: I could also play some vanilla/SS and provide you with screenies depicting buildings which could fit in. I've got zero modding skills, but if I could help somehow, I'd do it.

    Of course, this is all a suggestion - and it derives from a really brief gaming experience. I honestly feel I couldn't go on through a campaign if sieges are working this way...anyway, the mod is incredibly great, that's so much effort put in it, and battles are the best I've ever played. It feels like a completely new game. Nice job!

  7. #87

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    That's really weird. I've never had any issues whatsoever with reading stuff. Ofc the graphic makes it hard but you can just close it every time you are not in a battle. What's the issue on your part with the text?
    I kinda overreacted a bit. Its not imposible to read, i can read it fine (well almost fine... ), the thing is the font is too close to the background color, some places it is quite blurred and with low contrast.... And im only talking about withOUT the graphic mod.


    Basically its what this guy said:

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...user-interface

    This is a must IMO. Should have been changed already IMO too..


    I mean check the font in here... I mean from all the text fonts this grey is one of the worst to read....
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by Wulfburk; June 02, 2015 at 11:18 AM.
    "If they can prevent me from going as an Emperor, they cannot
    prevent me from abdicating and going as a Fatherland Volunteer"
    - Dom Pedro II during the Paraguayan invasion of Brazil.

    War In Our Doorstep (LOTR_TW Rohan AAR )
    A Cobra Vai Fumar! (Brazilian HoI 3 TFH AAR)
    Age of the Bren (EB Casse AAR)

  8. #88
    alin's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    1,720

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Wulfburk View Post
    I kinda overreacted a bit. Its not imposible to read, i can read it fine (well almost fine... ), the thing is the font is too close to the background color, some places it is quite blurred and with low contrast.... And im only talking about withOUT the graphic mod.


    Basically its what this guy said:

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...user-interface

    This is a must IMO. Should have been changed already IMO too..


    I mean check the font in here... I mean from all the text fonts this grey is one of the worst to read....
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Why don't you investigate how to fix this? Surely it must be an easy way to fix this.

  9. #89

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I did not mean to sound harsh.... I just took it that you guys changed it from vanilla so you'd be able to change it again..
    "If they can prevent me from going as an Emperor, they cannot
    prevent me from abdicating and going as a Fatherland Volunteer"
    - Dom Pedro II during the Paraguayan invasion of Brazil.

    War In Our Doorstep (LOTR_TW Rohan AAR )
    A Cobra Vai Fumar! (Brazilian HoI 3 TFH AAR)
    Age of the Bren (EB Casse AAR)

  10. #90
    alin's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    1,720

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Wulfburk View Post
    I did not mean to sound harsh.... I just took it that you guys changed it from vanilla so you'd be able to change it again..
    Don't worry, the points are valid but our workforce is limited as always.
    So we don't have anyone active which has font/text knowledge, from what I know.

  11. #91

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I guess those Citizen soldiers who prepare own equipment should have a very low recruitment cost and increase their upkeep cost (if Citizen soldiers continued long-serving social cost is relatively high)
    For example Triarii (Marian reforms before), Greek Classical Hoplites , some tribal forces.
    I think this change can make EBII more interesting, for example, winter camping more necessary. Restore the true citizen soldiers (including some tribal forces and feudal forces) is not suitable for long-term service, Marian reforms core values will be reflected (Marian reforms of core real value, of course not the soldiers become sturdy),Macedonian factions have become more distinctive (Philip II reform already made the Macedonian army suitable for expedition)

    Thank you
    Last edited by Yale Beason; June 02, 2015 at 04:16 PM.

  12. #92

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Yale Beason View Post
    I guess those Citizen soldiers who prepare own equipment should have a very low recruitment cost, still need pay the normal upkeep cost
    For example Triarii (Marian reforms before).
    I think this change can make EBII more interesting, for example, winter camping more necessary. Restore the true citizen soldiers (including some tribal forces and feudal forces) is not suitable for long-term service, Marian reforms core values will be reflected (Marian reforms of core real value, of course not the soldiers become sturdy)

    Thankyou
    The last faction that needs financial assistance with upkeep are the Romans. They are swimming in money right from the start, that's one of the reasons they don't get any free upkeep slots from their buildings.

    I've literally just gone through all the costs for every unit, and based them on an identical formula looking at status, equipment and training, so that they are all priced in the same way. I'm not sure there's a good argument for going back to special cases, least of all that aid the Romans.
    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. #93

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    The last faction that needs financial assistance with upkeep are the Romans. They are swimming in money right from the start, that's one of the reasons they don't get any free upkeep slots from their buildings.

    I've literally just gone through all the costs for every unit, and based them on an identical formula looking at status, equipment and training, so that they are all priced in the same way. I'm not sure there's a good argument for going back to special cases, least of all that aid the Romans.
    Not just the Romans. Most factions should be, who bring their own armed, should be less recruitment costs

    Ah, this is my mistake, I think we should edit the original post, in order to better express the meaning

    Just a suggestion, and there is no any mandatory meaning.Thank you for your attention.
    Just because we are so expect this mod. Thank you.
    Last edited by Yale Beason; June 02, 2015 at 04:50 PM.

  14. #94

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    sorry I've had too many suggestions but as I play I think about them, any chance yall could script something where if an AI army has at least a half stack it spawns a family member to lead it? This would lead to more historical accuracy as well as more balanced battles as the captain lead armies are quite terrible haha.

    A few other things I was thinking about that may not be possible to do but would be fun if possible:
    1. I have noticed in other mods if your supplies get too low the soldiers will start to slowly abandon the army. Maybe add that into the mechanic for when an army is running out of supplies so that troops might start deserting if supplies get low enough?

    2. This is a bigger change so not as much emphasis from me as number 1 had. Have some kind of timer for how long most countries' armies could be out and about before they had to return to a "home government" region to simulate how most armies were definitely not standing armies in that time? It could be similar to the foraging mechanic but would just be a set timer depending on charisma and command stars of the general to keep them going or else they start to desert.

  15. #95

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    There are many captain led armies in your campaign?

    1. Discussed and I will try to implement, it will be byg's mechanic.
    2. Discussed and will also try to implement, likely as a morale factor depending on the season and faction.
    Contributor in The AI Workshop
    AI/Game Mechanics Developer for Europa Barbaroum II
    Developer of The Northern Crusades
    Retired Lead Developer for Classical Age Total War
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance/MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  16. #96

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Don't forget anything to do with supplies or any other trait-based factor depends on an army being led by a named character. You can't attach traits to Captains.
    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


  17. #97

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    After playing EB II for quite some time now (2.0, 2.01, 2.02c) I would like to suggest a few things. I'm not sure if they are possible but hey - this is the suggestion thread after all.
    [The usual warning for posts made by me: wall of text incoming. ]

    (1) It would be wonderful if the "select potential successor" (all factions) and "appointment for the royal court" (Seleukids) could trigger at the second turn of a campaign instead of the first turn. This would give the player the chance to get an overview about his family members first. As it is now, I start a campaign, the scripts trigger, I select someone and have the chance to look at the generals only after the decision is made. This usually results in re-starting the campaign, because I often afterwards realize that the chosen character is far from being the ideal candidate.
    At first turn there could perhaps be an "event card" telling the player that he will be able to make a decision about these things when his next turn starts.

    (2) Regarding ship recruitment: At the moment every faction has complete access to all ship types, as long as they conquer the "right" provinces. And while I can see how this sensible in the case of, for example, SPQR conquering a germanic coastal settlement and therefore having access to the germanic warboats (just because it can be rp'ed as a lack in skilled engineers who could build Quinqeremes and the like), the other way around does feel a bit weird to me. I always liked how it was in EB I: certain factions have access to high-quality navies, others (even if they conquered Antiocheia, Rhodos or Capua) wouldn't. Certain ships types (Quadriremes, Quinqueremes, Penteres, possibly Liburnes, too - but also the higher-quality celtic ships, for example) should be buildable by certain factions only.
    Do you have any plans of adjusting this?

    (3) I'd very much like to see the minor settlements being re-distributed and their number expanded. I'm well aware that this would be quite a time-consuming task, mind you, as it involves a lot of research - after all the current minor settlements are as far as I remember located at the spots of historical settlements who were not chosen as actual province capitals. But as it stands, certain already (potentially) rich factions have access to way more of those minor settlements (where expensive units can be stationed) than others who would need such "money-safers", too.

    I can see three possible ways:
    (3.1) Add minor settlements at historical locations. This would be a possibility to somewhat make up for "empty" regions on the campaign map (especially if the much-debated region distribution will be brought in, see further below).
    (3.2) Add minor settlements at choking points (fords, passes and the like) and change their ingame meaning from "historical settlements" to "fortified camps built by factions to guard certain spots".
    (3.3) Raise the free upkeep limit to 2 or even 3 and other than that leave the settlements as they are at the moment, except for making sure that each province has at least one minor settlements within one turn distance to the province capital. That way larger/richer factions would still have an advantage due to the larger number of possible free upkeep units, but the smaller ones (who usually make little profit so that the difference between 1 unit (= ~300 mnai on average) and 3 units (=~900 mnai on average) would be a big one for them) would have a bit of an easier time to at least keep a modest force to protect their capital.

    Regarding that whole suggestion the biggest problem I see is that the AI apparently doesn't understand how to use them, so that (3.1) or (3.2) would perhaps be the better solution than (3.3).

    I personally would prefer (3.1) but that's by far the most time-consuming, unfortunately.

    (4)[Far Future proposal] I have written it several times by now and I repeat it - I am very much into nationbuilding (in the way of for example Civilization I, still one of the best games I ever played). Therefore one of the key fun factors for me in any TW game are the building options and (preferably) clearly different options in city development.

    In EB II the approach is good, but for my liking it could/should be vastly expanded eventually.
    At the moment you have basically the option to install a factional government or to incorporate the province as Allied state. The former may or may not involve a lot of colony building management and upgrades (and that whole "Colony" thing is one of the best things I've ever seen in any TW game!) and eventually leads to a settlement which has good building (and recruiting) options. The latter means you have a settlement that will much less likely revolt but that will not be developed at all. That's not completely true, I know - it's a deliberate exaggeration . But it feels that way. You can build a few core buildings and in some cases you get fantastic allied troops, but once you have built the few available buildings on a certain settlement size, the whole settlement becomes somewhat "boring" in my opinion until the next size level is reached.

    A way to counter that would be to add certain buildings that are either buildable in all provinces of your faction (regardless of the government) or that are buildable in provinces with access to certain ressources or exclusively in provinces that are allied.

    For example there could be slave markets, fishing industries, dye makers etc. All these building complexes could /should come in three different stages. They don't even need to add much income (after all I really like the economy as it is now), perhaps an additional income of 50/100/200 (or even 50/75/150) would be feasible.

    Another idea for more buildings that really make a difference could be the follwing:

    Certain levels of the factional governments could be the prerequisite of certain government-related buildings which in turn prevent the settlement from being upgraded further in terms of factional government.
    Example: as Carthage you build the first colony level and after that the Allied Colony government in a settlement far away. The settlement has high corruption level but the public order is - for whatever reason - still good. The Allied Colony government could give the player two options now:
    (a) An "Overseers" type of building, representing that Carthage takes a "closer look" at the settlement. This would lower corruption but at the same time lower public order, too. I'd suggest +5% law but -15% happiness.
    OR (the options excluding each other)
    (b) a "laissez faire" type of building, representing Carhage being more generous towards the settlement, therefore giving the inhabitants of the province an illusion of more freedom, but of course encouraging people to look for ways to improve their personal situation at the expense of their formal masters. I'd suggest -10% law but +15% (or even +20%) happiness.

    All those numbers would have to be playtested, of course, they are just "placeholders" to give you an idea what I mean.

    The real tricky part about establishing these builings would be the following though: If one of those two options are present, there can't be higher levels of the colony and government buildings. You would first have to destroy the (a) or (b) building in order to advance the settlement in general, representing that (to follow the example) Carthage would either loosen the tight grip a bit (destroy (a) ) or taking a bit of a closer look now (destroy (b) ).

    That way you would force another decision with significant consequences on the player (the AI would probably not know how to handle this so I'd say these options should be available to player controlled factions only to prevent AI-controlled settlements never advancing past a certain point).

    Similar options could be offered for the Allied State government chain.

    I have spoken of ships already, and I have another idea regarding these. Why not make the availability of certain ship types depending on the presence of specialized crafters/engineers?
    As in: you have to construct a school and subsequently a "shipwright tradition" building to have access to the higher tiers of ships? This could come in 3 stages. First level of "school/shipwright" could enable the mid-tier navy units, and only the third tier (which comes with a -500 penalty for the largest school building, another nice side-effect/money-sink) would give access to Penteres, Quinqueremes etc.

    This would serve another purpose as it would force the player to build schools in his planned marine recruitment centers. I don't know about other players, but at the moment I build a school only in my capital, regardless of the faction I'm playing.

    Another idea about buildings that force decision about province development: a "horse-breeder tradition" type of building. This could (should) be exclusive to settled factions. The idea is simple: breeding horses needs space that can not be used for planting crops. So this building would add to the availability of cavalry units but lower the growth rate. Something along the lines of "+1 to max unit number of cavalry units, but -1% growth rate". It should be combined with a generally lower availability of cavalry in the provinces to prevent a situation where after the "construction" of this building suddenly 3, 4 or even more units of every cavalry type are available.
    As said, this should be for settled factions only since nomads usually don't have a strong tradition of agriculture.

    (5) I very much support the redistribution of provinces, in general. Once again, I'm well aware how enormous the resulting task is, as changing the regions in EB II influences almost everything, including lots of scripts (like unit availability in the EDB, to name just one).

    If I had the chance to choose on my own, I'd remove the following provinces:

    Isamnion (adding the territory to Eremos)
    Wrikonon (distributing the territory between Moridunon and Alauna)
    Lixus and Sala (adding the territory to Eremos)
    Saffara (distributing the territory between Shabwat and Mleiha, adding it to Eremos would be another idea but it would probably hamper the Sab'yn AI)
    Mtskheta (distributing the territory between Kutatisi, Armavir and Kabalaka)
    Hibis (distributing the territory between Diospolis-Megale and Eremos)

    There are lots of places that could use another province (Mesopotamia, the Iranian plateau, the Indus Valley ....). I do not agree about adding more provinces to Greece, though. The peninsula looks and feels way less crowded and tight as in EB I and I very much like it that way. If anything I could see another province in Asia Mikra, but in general I don't think that the absolute core /center provinces of the map need more attention, province-wise.

    I'd like to add that my favourite factions in EB II so far are Sab'yn, Qart Hadashtim and Hayasdan, just to prevent the impression that I simply want to remove provinces from places/factions I don't play anyway.

    The regions I suggested above are in my opinion either insignificant (Lixus - sadly, as historically it was definitely significant, but due to the inaccessible water beyond the Pillars of Hercules it does not have much impact, being a non-convertable camp doesn't improve the situation, same goes for Sala and Saffara), too much for a single faction (the two british provinces) or just an option because the faction usually holding it has become way more powerful lately (Mtskheta - since Hayasdan now owns Karkathiokerta from the start, Mtskheta isn't as crucial for the economical survivability as before).

    General comment about the whole distribution thing: I'd love it if there were some changes, but I don't consider it highly necessary. The province layout as it is now gives enough options to every playable faction. This may perhaps change if the last two faction slots are filled (for example with Meroe *cough* and/or Bithynia). Since I expect that last two faction being Belgae and either another celtic or germanic tribe/confederation the province distribution would still be okay after their implementation. So this whole distribution debate is as interesting as it is a "luxury problem" in my eyes.

    Okay, I'll stop here, there are some more ideas flowing through my head but they are too vague at the moment, I need to think them over.


    EDIT:
    (7) I suggest having a look at Paeninsula Italica II and especially their script about the different movement points for captains and generals. From my experience the AI doesn't use captain-led stacks if they can move way further with FM-led stacks.
    Last edited by Shadowwalker; June 03, 2015 at 06:01 AM.

  18. #98

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Just on ships, they're not quite "anyone can build anything"; here's the recruitment from port city in the EDB:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Code:
    recruit_pool "generic ship germanic"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource baltic ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
                    recruit_pool "generic ship germanic"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource germania ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pontomora"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource celtic and not hidden_resource liburnes ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pontomora"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource celtic and hidden_resource liburnes and not region_religion rel_g 30 and not region_religion rel_h 30;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pontomora"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource briton ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pontomora"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource lusitan ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pontomora"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { cul_5, } and hidden_resource iberia  ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pontomora"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { cul_1, cul_2, cul_3, cul_4, cul_6, cul_7, } and hidden_resource iberia and not region_religion rel_h 30 and not region_religion rel_g 30 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pontomora"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { cul_5, } and hidden_resource dacia ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pontomora"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { cul_1, cul_2, cul_3, cul_4, cul_6, cul_7, } and hidden_resource dacia and not region_religion rel_h 30 and not region_religion rel_g 30 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pontomora"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource illyria and not region_religion rel_h 30 and not region_religion rel_g 30 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pontomora"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { cul_5, cul_6, } and hidden_resource sarmatian and not region_religion rel_h 30 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pontomora"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { cul_1, cul_2, cul_3, cul_4, cul_7, } and hidden_resource sarmatian and not region_religion rel_h 30 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
                    recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource greek1 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
                    recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource hellen1 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
                    recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource italy and not hidden_resource liburnes ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship liburnes"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource italy and hidden_resource liburnes ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship liburnes"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource liburnes and not hidden_resource italy and region_religion rel_g 30 or region_religion rel_h 30;;; and ecW mark ;;;
                    recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource libya ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
                    recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource punic ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
                    recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource numidia ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { cul_1, cul_2, cul_3, cul_4, cul_6, cul_7, } and hidden_resource iberia and not hidden_resource hr_h and region_religion rel_h 30 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { cul_1, cul_2, cul_3, cul_4, cul_6, cul_7, } and hidden_resource iberia and not hidden_resource hr_h and region_religion rel_g 30 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { cul_1, cul_2, cul_3, cul_4, cul_6, cul_7, } and hidden_resource dacia and region_religion rel_h 30 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { cul_1, cul_2, cul_3, cul_4, cul_6, cul_7, } and hidden_resource dacia and region_religion rel_g 30 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { cul_1, cul_2, cul_3, cul_4, cul_7, } and hidden_resource sarmatian and region_religion rel_h 30 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
                    recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource greek2 and not hidden_resource hellen1 and not hidden_resource italy and not hidden_resource iberia and not hidden_resource dacia and not hidden_resource illyria ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
                    recruit_pool "generic ship triere"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource hellen2 and not hidden_resource eastern and not hidden_resource egypt ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship arabian"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource arabian ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship arabian"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource ethiopia ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship arabian"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource egypt and not hidden_resource hellen1 ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship arabian"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource hr_b and hidden_resource hr_f and hidden_resource hr_h and hidden_resource hr_i ;;; and ecW mark ;;;		;;; Sousa
    				recruit_pool "generic ship arabian"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource hr_b and hidden_resource hr_f and hidden_resource hr_h and hidden_resource hr_j ;;; and ecW mark ;;;		;;; Antiocheia Sousiana 
    				recruit_pool "generic ship arabian"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource hr_b and hidden_resource hr_f and hidden_resource hr_i and hidden_resource hr_j ;;; and ecW mark ;;;		;;; Persepolis
                    recruit_pool "generic ship yuddhanauka"  1  0.1  1  0  requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource indo ;;; and ecW mark ;;;
    				recruit_pool "generic ship pirate"  0  0.1  1  0  requires factions { slave, }


    While it's not faction-restricted, it is restricted by location and faction culture. That controls what you can build and where, rather than limiting particular factions to particular types of ship.


    On minor settlements, I think there's a hardcoded limit on the absolute number of them, and the AI loves to turtle around them. So adding more would be a bad idea, unless we can find a way to break it of the habit of piling into them and never coming out.


    Interesting point about movement rates for captain-led stacks - I'll mention it to z3n.
    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


  19. #99

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Ships: Hm. Maybe I have to check that again. As far as I understand the quoted EDB entry it should indeed give way different results than those I remember.

    Minor Settlements: Dominion of the Sword has literally hundreds of them (I only read the previews, though, didn't check if they are really all in), so I'm not sure if there is a hardcoded limit. Good point about the consequences for the AI, though.
    That's what I meant with "Regarding that whole suggestion the biggest problem I see is that the AI apparently doesn't understand how to use them".

  20. #100

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowwalker View Post
    The regions I suggested above are in my opinion either insignificant (Lixus - sadly, as historically it was definitely significant, but due to the inaccessible water beyond the Pillars of Hercules it does not have much impact, being a non-convertable camp doesn't improve the situation, same goes for Sala and Saffara)
    I agree that Sala doesn't contribute much to the gameplay unfortunately but in my last campaign (as Numidia) I was definitely able to upgrade both Lixus and Sala into permanent settlements (actually I thought Lixus was a settlement from the beginnning on anyway..?).

    What is actually the reason that you are unable to sail around the Iberian paeninsula?

Page 5 of 68 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 30 55 ... 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
  •