Page 6 of 74 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 31 56 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 1475

Thread: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

  1. #101

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Rym View Post
    What is actually the reason that you are unable to sail around the Iberian paeninsula?
    To stop Mediterranean vessels, which are not seaworthy enough to be able to cope with the Atlantic Ocean, sailing into waters they couldn't historically have survived in.

    Plus the Carthaginians ran a blockade of the Pillars of Hercules (with squadrons based out of Gader), to prevent anyone breaking their monopoly on the tin trade with Britain.
    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. #102

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Rym View Post
    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?
    About Lixus and Sala - you are right there. I kind of messed it up. Lixus is a town from the start. And Sala (as well as Siga and Kirtan) can of course be converted - if you play as Massylia. It can't if you are playing as Carthage (unless the EDB is changed in 2.02c, haven't checked yet).
    Re-thinking that proposal again it may be better to just remove Sala but leave Lixus in, just to give the Massylians another settlement to conquer (there aren't that many unoccupied, after all, and taking on the Carthaginians too early in the game will result in defeat most probably).

    The reason fo not being able to sail through the Pillars maybe (and I'm really not sure!) different ground textures, something like "inaccessible sea". I suspect it to be intentional (and it does make sense for most factions) but it's just a bit sad in the case of the Carthaginians who had sailed to both the Northern Atlantic (Himilco, possible including Ireland) and western Africa (Hanno, down to the "chariot of the gods" [which is most probably Mount Cameroon]) many years before the timeframe of EB.

    I'd propose that at least the Carthaginians are able to sail everywhere but as far as I know ground types can't have different properties for different factions.

    EDIT:
    @Quintus - you're right about the blockade but first this wouldn't stop the Carthaginians themselves from sailing through and second this blockade (that stays permanently in EB as far as I'm aware) was gone by 241. After that time Carthago never again had a fleet worth the mention, and had no means to blockade the Pillars any further.

    There must be a better solution to this as the reasoning for the blockade being there at the game start makes perfect sense, 30 years in it's pointless, though ....
    Last edited by Shadowwalker; June 03, 2015 at 08:12 AM.

  3. #103

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowwalker View Post
    @Quintus - you're right about the blockade but first this wouldn't stop the Carthaginians themselves from sailing through and second this blockade (that stays permanently in EB as far as I'm aware) was gone by 241. After that time Carthago never again had a fleet worth the mention, and had no means to blockade the Pillars any further.

    There must be a better solution to this as the reasoning for the blockade being there at the game start makes perfect sense, 30 years in it's pointless, though ....
    The blockade is secondary; Mediterranean-worthy galleys would be sunk by the first bit of blowy weather in the Atlantic. It's primarily there because nothing inside the Mediterranean can sail out into the Atlantic.

    Furthermore, the Carthaginians didn't trade with Britain directly, by sailing up to the place and trading. They did so through their partners and intermediaries, who brought the tin overland through Gallia. The purpose of the blockade was to prevent anyone circumventing the land route that they controlled.
    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


  4. #104

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    To stop Mediterranean vessels, which are not seaworthy enough to be able to cope with the Atlantic Ocean, sailing into waters they couldn't historically have survived in.

    Plus the Carthaginians ran a blockade of the Pillars of Hercules (with squadrons based out of Gader), to prevent anyone breaking their monopoly on the tin trade with Britain.
    Concerning mediteranian vessles being unable to cope with the Atlantic I'm definitely not an expert but nevertheless had to think of the Carthaginian expeditions Shadowwalker already mentioned. And to represent their blockade I'd suggest to move the port of Gader (which is occupied by Carthage in the beginning of the campaign I think?) so that it blocks Gibraltar itself (as the prt of lixus does with the tiny stretch of Ocean north of Africa now). This way the pillars of Heracles would be controlled by whoever controls Gader...?

  5. #105

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    The blockade is secondary; Mediterranean-worthy galleys would be sunk by the first bit of blowy weather in the Atlantic. It's primarily there because nothing inside the Mediterranean can sail out into the Atlantic.

    Furthermore, the Carthaginians didn't trade with Britain directly, by sailing up to the place and trading. They did so through their partners and intermediaries, who brought the tin overland through Gallia. The purpose of the blockade was to prevent anyone circumventing the land route that they controlled.
    While I agree with most of what you wrote, the bold part made me raise my brow, to be honest.

    There are several accounts of Carthaginian expeditions into the Atlantic Ocean, for example the already mentioned voyage of Himilco (Hamilco) to the "Tin Isles" (doesn't matter if he reached the British Isles or "only" Brittany, as both destinations include sailing through the Bay of Biskay, one of the most problematic environments in the Atlantic Ocean, which still gave sailors serious headaches even in the late medieval times).

    There have been findings on both the Canary Islands and the Azores (as well as written hints) that seem to indicate a presence of the Carthaginians (not the Phoenicians) there, and that that presence was no singular event, either.

    Then there is that certain story about Necho II (egyptian pharaoh) ordering Phoenicians to sail around Africa. Although there have been lots of heated debates whether this story is made up or not (and if it is made up, to what extent), the story still contains several hints that there was knowledge about the african coast that simply can't be talked away as "fertile imagination of storytellers".

    The strongest evidence of Carthaginian vessels very much being able to sail in the Atlantic Ocean, however, is and remains Pseudo-Skylax' (? - not sure about the author, have to look it up again) "Periplous Hannonis" (about Hannos voyage to Western Africa), which shows an excellent knowledge about the western african coast down to the gold coast.

    As far as I remember, the current consensus seems to be that the Carthaginians were well able to regularly sail as far as to the southern parts of modern-day Morocco (which would in game terms be about the region of Sala) and that everything south of it were most probably singular expeditions.

    So, to tell a long story short: there are strong hints that not every ship built by mediterranean shipbuilding tradition was wrecked the moment it touched the Atlantic Ocean.

    [It's a really minor thing, though - and if the blockaded parts of the african coast stay so forever, I will not go mad. ]

  6. #106

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I'm not doubting that Carthaginian sailors went into the Atlantic. The question is, though, were those Carthaginian explorers using low-sided military galleys? I'm rather doubtful, and we don't have other kinds of ships represented as units in the Mediterranean.
    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


  7. #107

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Another good point.
    I rest my case, then.

  8. #108

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by z3n View Post
    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.
    Yeah if you look around the campaign map after 30-50 turns over half the big armies I see are captain led. Usually the rebel stacks that are outside the elements are captain led, I have only been fighting rebels basically as I'm trying to see how long it will take for the other factions to expand. So it's possibly a family member will join the factional armies when they go to fight me but I hadn't tried that.

    One more thing, in 2.02a when I had a longer campaign I was consistently having success assassinating event family members where the percent shown was like 5%-15% I tried it on 7 or 8 rebels and only failed 2x, could just be luck bit figured I'd mention it

  9. #109

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Is it possible for the learning buildings to have a cumulative effect? Maybe something like each 3 low tier buildings adds a bit to the chance that the characters in high tier building cities will get a new person in their retinue?

  10. #110

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by madmatg View Post
    Yeah if you look around the campaign map after 30-50 turns over half the big armies I see are captain led. Usually the rebel stacks that are outside the elements are captain led, I have only been fighting rebels basically as I'm trying to see how long it will take for the other factions to expand. So it's possibly a family member will join the factional armies when they go to fight me but I hadn't tried that.
    I suspect that there's a number somewhere which declares the chances of a Rebel named character spawning. It may be set too low, so that when the initial ones all die off, they're not being replaced quickly enough.
    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


  11. #111

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Random thing I noticed - the (admittedly questionable) information I can find says that the city of Khiva is inappropriate for this setting, as it was likely founded in the 5th or 6th century CE.

  12. #112

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    I suspect that there's a number somewhere which declares the chances of a Rebel named character spawning. It may be set too low, so that when the initial ones all die off, they're not being replaced quickly enough.
    I didn't mean it to sound like it was just the rebels, also the other factions are having this problem. I'll give you Iberia for example: lusot has 2 cities with 2 full stacks and 2 half stacks. One of those has an FM. Carthage has 3 cities there and 2 half stacks with no FMs. Areuk has 1 City and 2 full stacks, one of which has an FM. I could continue with examples but that would take a long time. Looking around that's what I see almost everywhere. This is turn 91 of the same campaign.

  13. #113

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by madmatg View Post
    I didn't mean it to sound like it was just the rebels, also the other factions are having this problem. I'll give you Iberia for example: lusot has 2 cities with 2 full stacks and 2 half stacks. One of those has an FM. Carthage has 3 cities there and 2 half stacks with no FMs. Areuk has 1 City and 2 full stacks, one of which has an FM. I could continue with examples but that would take a long time. Looking around that's what I see almost everywhere. This is turn 91 of the same campaign.
    OK, that is worrying. Especially because once an AI faction loses all its named characters, it dies and turns Rebel.
    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


  14. #114

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I'd like to yet again hint at defining significant movement point differences between captain-led and FM-led armies. Something in the range of 3-4 tiles per turn for captain-led armies and the current base movement for FMs.
    It can be done for sure, as Paeninsula Italica II has exactly this kind of script. And while it doesn't completely remove captain-led stacks it seriously lowers the amount of such armies. Oh, and if you are going to implement such, please don't just do it for the AI but for the player as well. It adds a whole new layer of strategy to the game as you simply can't defend your kingdom anymore without a proper FM-led field army - you'll never rush to the defense of an attacked settlement in time if you try to just move out three units without an FM. (Exceptions would be some densely packed spots like Gaul, southern Greece or south-western Anatolia of course ).

    Oh, speaking of armies in the field - has anyone else noticed that since 2.03 armies/FMs apparently don't rebel at all anymore? Or it it just me having legendary luck? Not even a zero loyalty FM rebelled when I sent him (and a halfstack) out on campaign for 10+ turns.

  15. #115

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowwalker View Post
    I'd like to yet again hint at defining significant movement point differences between captain-led and FM-led armies. Something in the range of 3-4 tiles per turn for captain-led armies and the current base movement for FMs.
    It can be done for sure, as Paeninsula Italica II has exactly this kind of script. And while it doesn't completely remove captain-led stacks it seriously lowers the amount of such armies. Oh, and if you are going to implement such, please don't just do it for the AI but for the player as well. It adds a whole new layer of strategy to the game as you simply can't defend your kingdom anymore without a proper FM-led field army - you'll never rush to the defense of an attacked settlement in time if you try to just move out three units without an FM. (Exceptions would be some densely packed spots like Gaul, southern Greece or south-western Anatolia of course ).
    You can't define different named character/captain movement rates for AI and human, they're the same regardless (see the descr_character.txt). At present there's a slight difference in the base rate, to encourage the AI to use their FMs. But FMs will get bigger movement rates anyway, as long as they have traits which impact it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowwalker View Post
    Oh, speaking of armies in the field - has anyone else noticed that since 2.03 armies/FMs apparently don't rebel at all anymore? Or it it just me having legendary luck? Not even a zero loyalty FM rebelled when I sent him (and a halfstack) out on campaign for 10+ turns.
    I'll have to check with z3n whether he's altered something in the EDCT regarding loyalty.

    I've never seen an FM rebel in any game of EBII I've played, so I don't know how frequent it was before.
    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. #116

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    You can't define different named character/captain movement rates for AI and human, they're the same regardless (see the descr_character.txt).
    Ah, perfect. Looking forward to see your changes. Maybe I'll alter the movements rates myself in the current build, just to see if my memory still serves me right about that being a fun feature.


    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    I'll have to check with z3n whether he's altered something in the EDCT regarding loyalty.

    I've never seen an FM rebel in any game of EBII I've played, so I don't know how frequent it was before.
    In 2.0 and 2.01 it was somewhat common, at least to an extent that made me worry about sending FMs with less than 4 points of loyalty out of settlements. Since 2.02 it seems to have become less common although I didn't really notice it until the first prolonged 2.03a campaign where I was forced to have FMs with 3, 2 or even 1 point lead armies (just because I wasn't able to afford ships to bring better generals to Africa ).

    Since that campaign I have deliberately made tests by sending out FMs with low loyalty and have them standing around in enemy territory or let them lead campaigns, as said.
    Well, I guess there are few (if any) people who will complain about their FMs not rebelling.

  17. #117

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I guess this might be on purpose but the minor settlement for Thermon on the border of Athens causes devastation of like 1/4 of Athens province, just wanted to comment in case that was not intended.

  18. #118

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    About the AI general/named character movement
    1) Yes, I came up with that idea on my own already (and released it too in earlier versions of cai/bai testing) but nice to see confirmation by another mod about it not just being a placebo effect. However the amount of movement increase does not matter, as long as named character is even insignificantly greater than general (in my tests) the effect is the same.
    2) AI named characters do get a small bonus to movement, since they rarely use their full movement points.
    3) Upcoming version will have updated decisions in campaign ai db, which as far as I've seen noticeably increases the amount of use for family members by the AI.
    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)

  19. #119

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Any chance you could replace the teutonic family system for the normal family tree.I find it takes some of the gameplay away.

  20. #120

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ribtickler View Post
    Any chance you could replace the teutonic family system for the normal family tree.I find it takes some of the gameplay away.
    It is there for a reason, for the factions who have it (which is not all of them). If it impacts your enjoyment so much, I'd suggest playing a faction that doesn't use it.
    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


Page 6 of 74 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 31 56 ... 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
  •