Page 9 of 78 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 34 59 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 1560

Thread: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

  1. #161
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Modding Staff

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,879

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    No.
    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)

  2. #162

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Was Ireland a place like the arabic desert where it is impossible to obtain and kind of cultural achievement or stability? Southern region of ireland is not conquerable and causes unrest, is it for gameplay reasons only? All the chaotic nomadic lands connected to single nomad camps at eastern steppes are conquerable but ireland is not? I mean how hard should it be to bend down a bunch of scattered wilderness tribesman living in not so extreme conditions?
    I suggest the land to get connected to northern irish settlement with a higher forest tribalism culture and a two medium strenght stacks composed of goedilic units (when they are done of course) as rebels laying siege to that irish settlement. It should give the Pritanoi player a bit pain in the a s s but it shouldn't be straight impossible imho.

  3. #163

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Barnabas View Post
    Was Ireland a place like the arabic desert where it is impossible to obtain and kind of cultural achievement or stability? Southern region of ireland is not conquerable and causes unrest, is it for gameplay reasons only? All the chaotic nomadic lands connected to single nomad camps at eastern steppes are conquerable but ireland is not? I mean how hard should it be to bend down a bunch of scattered wilderness tribesman living in not so extreme conditions?
    I suggest the land to get connected to northern irish settlement with a higher forest tribalism culture and a two medium strenght stacks composed of goedilic units (when they are done of course) as rebels laying siege to that irish settlement. It should give the Pritanoi player a bit pain in the a s s but it shouldn't be straight impossible imho.
    There's not actually a province there - it's Eremos - which is all one wrap-around province around the peripheral edges of the map. The capital for Eremos is in the Sahara, through some impassable terrain - because I believe it's used for important stuff (and prevents the Rebels being eliminated).
    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. #164

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Would it be a good idea to write local unit names instead of generic ones at the unit description text? I believe that for better RP purposes it should write "slaughter hounds" instead of "British Retainers Swordsman" at the english unit name of Agrokunoi. Alright they are elite warriors connected to nobles but when you look at retainers swordsman, it feels gamey. Same with British Slingers, they should be called "youths". They are the young warriors of the tribe.

    Generic unit names makes it easy for the player to understand but it's EBII man he's already agreed to read much text and the Pritanoi units represent a social class more than a legion or something so their names should be thus.

    I also suggest that the morale of both Ambaktoi and Agrokunoi gets and increase. They are good selected warriors but they don't have high morale nor they inspire troops (which is fine, agroi are doing that). I don't remember their stats but when I read the unit description of Agrokunoi I felt like they are light unarmored killing machines but on the battlefield they are slightly! stronger than basic levy tribesman. When they are fighting any unit other than skirmishers they struggle so hard to make them rout, in most of the case they can't and you rout the enemy units by flanking. If it's not going to cause balance issues with mainland Sweboz/Celtic units which I also have 0 idea about stats, make them a bit more effective at charging and attack. Pritanoi already lack the armor and the morale of mainland troops and Ambaktoi/Agrokunoi are their only troops to ever counter any faction they'll meet (sweboz,aeduii, arverni, boii).

  5. #165

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I just tested two custom battles. A unit of Bataroi can kill and rout a unit of Agrokunoi without them losing half of their unit number. If it is by choice that the best unit the Pritanoi can recruit (other than nobles which come in number of 60 men per unit and cannot kill or rout a unit of solduroi, drutemnoi(?) or aeduii/boii bodyguard) cannot beat a nonelite common swordsoldier of central ghaul which makes at least 1/3 of all celtic armies in game, that's totaly fine but if it's not, I would like to comment that it's imbalanced and the Pritanoi units overall are not just less armoured or "light" but also definetly weaker than all other faction units they'll encounter.

    Edit: Agrokunoi have a charge stat of 5 where Batoroi has 1 but in my battle although I've executed a perfectly working charge the unit menaged to kill 0 Batoroi units at charge. Are the charges for routing rather than causing any death? (non sarcastic general infantry charge question here)
    Last edited by Barnabas; July 21, 2015 at 01:40 PM.

  6. #166

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Barnabas View Post
    Would it be a good idea to write local unit names instead of generic ones at the unit description text? I believe that for better RP purposes it should write "slaughter hounds" instead of "British Retainers Swordsman" at the english unit name of Agrokunoi. Alright they are elite warriors connected to nobles but when you look at retainers swordsman, it feels gamey. Same with British Slingers, they should be called "youths". They are the young warriors of the tribe.

    Generic unit names makes it easy for the player to understand but it's EBII man he's already agreed to read much text and the Pritanoi units represent a social class more than a legion or something so their names should be thus.

    I also suggest that the morale of both Ambaktoi and Agrokunoi gets and increase. They are good selected warriors but they don't have high morale nor they inspire troops (which is fine, agroi are doing that). I don't remember their stats but when I read the unit description of Agrokunoi I felt like they are light unarmored killing machines but on the battlefield they are slightly! stronger than basic levy tribesman. When they are fighting any unit other than skirmishers they struggle so hard to make them rout, in most of the case they can't and you rout the enemy units by flanking. If it's not going to cause balance issues with mainland Sweboz/Celtic units which I also have 0 idea about stats, make them a bit more effective at charging and attack. Pritanoi already lack the armor and the morale of mainland troops and Ambaktoi/Agrokunoi are their only troops to ever counter any faction they'll meet (sweboz,aeduii, arverni, boii).
    Quote Originally Posted by Barnabas View Post
    I just tested two custom battles. A unit of Bataroi can kill and rout a unit of Agrokunoi without them losing half of their unit number. If it is by choice that the best unit the Pritanoi can recruit (other than nobles which come in number of 60 men per unit and cannot kill or rout a unit of solduroi, drutemnoi(?) or aeduii/boii bodyguard) cannot beat a nonelite common swordsoldier of central ghaul which makes at least 1/3 of all celtic armies in game, that's totaly fine but if it's not, I would like to comment that it's imbalanced and the Pritanoi units overall are not just less armoured or "light" but also definetly weaker than all other faction units they'll encounter.

    Edit: Agrokunoi have a charge stat of 5 where Batoroi has 1 but in my battle although I've executed a perfectly working charge the unit menaged to kill 0 Batoroi units at charge. Are the charges for routing rather than causing any death? (non sarcastic general infantry charge question here)
    On the display text, they already have their native names in the title and tooltip for the unit.

    Agrokunoi are not elites, nor for that matter are Ambaktoi. The Pritanoi elites are the Arioi and Markakoi. The issue here is that the historian who originally concepted them had some rather...interesting ideas about Pritanoi society being comprised of nobles and peasants, with little in between. That's how we had the bizarre situation previously, where half the Pritanoi roster had the command trait and overly high morale, and the other half were levies. That has since been amended to bring them in line with the wider Celtic roster.

    Continental Gauls have higher charge values than their British cousins, due to the charge-focus of their preferred style of fighting. Batoroi have a much higher charge than 1, that's a wrong report of their javelin charge value (which is 0). The unit card is not a reliable source for unit stats, you need to go to the EDU to read them.

    Note the cost of the Pritanoi units - they're generally a lot cheaper than their Celtic counterparts, largely because of their lack of armour.
    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. #167

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    No suggestion by me but by (former?) EB team member oudysseos, made years ago.
    Here's the link to his post: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?110390-The-Uses-of-Guilds&p=2080222&viewfull=1#post2080222

    Has the team considered using any of these ideas yet? I was fascinated by the proposal when I read it back in 2008 and I still think there are potentially awesome game mechanics possible by using guilds.

  8. #168
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Modding Staff

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,879

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Agreed they are very interesting.
    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)

  9. #169

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowwalker View Post
    No suggestion by me but by (former?) EB team member oudysseos, made years ago.
    Here's the link to his post: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?110390-The-Uses-of-Guilds&p=2080222&viewfull=1#post2080222

    Has the team considered using any of these ideas yet? I was fascinated by the proposal when I read it back in 2008 and I still think there are potentially awesome game mechanics possible by using guilds.
    Very good ideas indeed. Btw, is there any way of increasing the number of guilds?

  10. #170

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quick question. I'm sure this has already been discussed, but why are some of the Hellenistic factions named after a dynasty (Seleukeia, Ptolemaioi) and some after a location (Macedon, Pergamon, Epirus)? I was thinking about this earlier today when I saw AI Epirus conquer Macedon earlier today. At that point, wouldn't Pyrrhus become the king of Macedon? After all, as I understand it the realms of the Diodochi were all pretty flexible - they were all fighting over a common imperial heritage, not for separate well-defined polities.

    Perhaps it would make more sense to re-name Macedon, Pergamon, and Epirus as the Antigonids, Attalids, and Aeacidae, to match with the Seleucids and Ptolemies?

  11. #171

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by adun12345 View Post
    Quick question. I'm sure this has already been discussed, but why are some of the Hellenistic factions named after a dynasty (Seleukeia, Ptolemaioi) and some after a location (Macedon, Pergamon, Epirus)? I was thinking about this earlier today when I saw AI Epirus conquer Macedon earlier today. At that point, wouldn't Pyrrhus become the king of Macedon? After all, as I understand it the realms of the Diodochi were all pretty flexible - they were all fighting over a common imperial heritage, not for separate well-defined polities.

    Perhaps it would make more sense to re-name Macedon, Pergamon, and Epirus as the Antigonids, Attalids, and Aeacidae, to match with the Seleucids and Ptolemies?
    The issue here is that you can't change a faction's name (or indeed it's leader's labels) once the game is in progress. So unless you're pre-supposing how they're going to evolve, it's impossible to know what they should be called after the start of the game.
    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


  12. #172

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    The issue here is that you can't change a faction's name (or indeed it's leader's labels) once the game is in progress. So unless you're pre-supposing how they're going to evolve, it's impossible to know what they should be called after the start of the game.
    But isn't this rather an argument for changing their names into Antigonids, Attalids and Aeacidai..? Because if the faction "Pergamon" ends up in for example Byzantion and without the city of Pergamon it doesn't really make too much sense... I quite like the proposal!

  13. #173

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    The issue here is that you can't change a faction's name (or indeed it's leader's labels) once the game is in progress. So unless you're pre-supposing how they're going to evolve, it's impossible to know what they should be called after the start of the game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rym View Post
    But isn't this rather an argument for changing their names into Antigonids, Attalids and Aeacidai..? Because if the faction "Pergamon" ends up in for example Byzantion and without the city of Pergamon it doesn't really make too much sense... I quite like the proposal!
    I think Quintus's point is well-made, too. After all, it is theoretically possible that the patrilineal dynasty can die out during the game, and be replaced by a new line derived from in-laws or adoptees, at which point perhaps Pergamon would no longer be ruled by the Attalids. For example, the budding "Diodotic Dynasty" of Baktria was cut off when Diodotus II was murdered by his brother-in-law Euthydemus, at which point the Graeco-Bactrians were ruled by the Euthydemid Dynasty; if something like this were to happen in the game, then it would make little sense to call Baktria the Diodotids. Per this argument, perhaps the Ptolemies should be re-named "Egypt," just in case the house of Ptolemy dies out; I have no idea what geographic substitute one would use for the Seleucids.

    That said, I think that the physical location of a faction is more likely to change over time than its ruling dynasty, both in the game and in real life. IRL, this was especially the case for the Antigonid Dynasty, which in the two generations preceding the start of EB2 ruled over most of Asia and Syria before losing this, gaining the throne of Macedon, losing the throne of Macedon, and then re-gaining it, with stints as the rulers of Cilicia, Athens, and Kyrene in-between. Historically, they did settle down in Macedon for the next several centuries, but they are a good example of exactly how geographically-mobile such dynasties could be in the post-Alexandrian struggle for power.

    Other dynasties were less mobile, but still changed in territorial size substantially over time. The Seleucids remained the Seleucids, even after they had lost Seleucia and the vast eastern portion of their empire to the Parthians (who, for that matter, might be better named the Arascids). The Ptolemies remained the Ptolemies, even when they controlled and then lost large areas of Canaan, Asia, and Greece. In general, Hellenistic kingship was not tied to a specific homeland as much as it was to the ability of a specific family to produce results on the battlefield.

    Calling factions by their dynastic names would help capture some of this potential mobility in the alternate history that is EB2. Who is to say that in EB2 the Antigonids couldn't re-conquer Asia and Syria only to lose Macedon once again? Or that the Seleucids might not conquer Egypt but lose the east to invaders? Or that Pyrrhos might not turn around and re-conquer the whole of Alexander's empire? If each faction can only have one name, then it seems to me that the strengths of dynastic names outweigh the strengths of place names.

    Anyway, just a few random thoughts on the current (admittedly minor) inconsistency between "Macedon" and "the Ptolemies." I love what you guys are doing with the mod. Keep up the good work!

  14. #174

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Consider me convinced that the dynastic name is a more flexible choice than the geographic name, for Hellenistic factions.

    EDIT: I asked one of our historians about the apparent discrepancy - turns out it isn't at all, and they did think about faction names:

    These aren't inconsistencies, certain names carried a lot of weight and propaganda...

    The Ptolemaioi could never consider themselves solely as "Aigyptos", that would mean almost not consider/abandon/lose claims on Thraike, Koile Syria, Kyrene and Mikra Asia. While constantly reminding that they descend from an important officer of Alexandros Megas is very important...

    Similarly the Seleukidai based everything from the actions of their founder, but still made clear that they were the Basileis of Syria (which today isn't understood/felt as it was back then, but it was a reference to the Assyrian/Akkadian empires and meant claiming universal power across the known world. Several Seleukid rulers honoured Sardanapalos (Ashurbanipal) almost as their forefather.)...

    The Antigonidai had just recently taken the derelict that Makedonia was, but holding it meant prestige and also reminding people that yours was the dynasty of Monophthalmos and Poliorketes wasn't as good...
    Rarely afaik they flaunted it, while they always presented themselves as "Name/Title of Makedonia"...

    Attalidai ever worse, all their power/legitimacy came from being the Lysimachid treasurers at Pergamon. And also being half-greek and half-paphlagonian (allegedly a prostitute) wasn't something to flaut too, basically half of Pergamene history is about them rewriting the past to forget about that...

    Apeiros is another matter, tribal affiliations were very strong and important, disregarding that and centralising everything on the Molossian dynasty, would just encourage unrest and rebellions...
    Plus very likely Pyrrhos would've pushed for recognition of his relation with Alexandros and of course being in control of Makedonia. Had he not of course been Pyrrhos

    Baktria was just a satrapal seat, cannot go claim importance/prestige to your dynasty, when it was just installed...

    adun is taking for reference the Ptolemaioi and the Seleukidai, but theirs is the only case of the vast power and centralisation their dynasties achieved. Not to mention they ruled over nations where such monarchical/divine traditions mattered a lot...
    Makedones will always have to have a say in the Synedrion, otherwise you'd be dead by a conspiracy pretty soon, it is also part of why Alexandros increasigly disregarded it...

    BTW the example about Euthydemid etc, quite the opposite I'd say in history everytime usurpers went on great lenghts to make themselves appear as members of the previous legitimate dynasty. Think of Darayavaush I (Darius I) or Artashes I for example...
    Living so far away in time from their world, it is easy for us to label them properly etc...
    Last edited by QuintusSertorius; July 25, 2015 at 12:45 PM.
    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


  15. #175

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Fascinating. The logic presented - that the Ptolemies and Seleucids emphasized their dynastic legacy, whereas Antigonids and Attalids did not - makes sense from a historical perspective.

    I still wonder from a gameplay perspective whether dynastic names might be a better choice, to enable the creation of alternate history. It makes sense that those who ruled Egypt had a weak incentive to portray themselves as Egyptian, while those who ruled Macedon had a strong incentive to portray themselves as Macedonian. Therefore, at the start of the game, it makes sense that the Ptolemaic faction is called the Ptolemies, while the Antigonid faction is called Macedon.

    However, as the game develops, these faction names sometimes become less sensible. For example, in a game where Macedon loses Pella to the Epirotes, I wonder whether it makes sense that the rump state in Byzantion or Thermon be called "Macedon," while the faction that controls Macedon is called "Epirotes." Ditto for a "Pergamon" faction forced out into Thrace. Because names can't be changed dynamically during the game, each faction is stuck with the name with which it begins. While the names as they stand best describe the situation in 272BC, I still feel that dynasty names would provide more flexibility and interest in describing the alternative history that emerges during gameplay.

    Anyway, that's my two cents. Thanks for the reply!

  16. #176

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Just played 2.03k as Baktria, AS got steamrolled by Pahlava earlygame, then I steamrolled Pahlava.

    Large AI faction doesn't know how to defend its border, it usually parks its main stacks at one border (in AS's and later Pahlava's case: Ptolemaioi) and leaves its "backdoor" open.
    If another faction decides to attack such large faction from its "backdoor", it results in steamroller effect. In my game, I conquered 80%+ of AS's former territory(little to no garrison) before
    meeting Pahlava's faction leader in Babylon.

    To reduce and slow down early game steamroller, I suggest using script to slow down FM/General after a settlement is taken:

    Occupy: none penalty
    Sack: -90% movement point for 2 turns (It takes time to gather the loots!)
    Exterminate: -45% movement point for 2 turns

    Thus with limited FM/Generals available at the start, AI and player has to wait a few turns before continue steamrolling while slow-paced expansion is not affected.
    I hope this can be implemented, right now you can steamroll AS with 2 stacks using the none-stop sack/hire mercenary routine, AS won't response to you until you took
    most of its lands (and by then you are already more powerful then AS).

  17. #177
    James the Red's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,626

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Are parts of Eremos traversable? I ask because maybe spawning some rebel units in some Eremos regions could make for some interesting happenings, have some nomads come unexpectedly raiding from the desert.

    I see there is a large island apart of a mainland province on anatolia that has one of those crossing things that allow land units to pass narrow bodies of water, but nothing on the actual island. If that island doesn't become a separate province can it at least have a PSF?

    And speaking of permanent stone forts, can the PSFs on Sardinia be filled with rebel armies at some points? To represent the natives who controlled the province inland.
    Last edited by James the Red; July 25, 2015 at 11:49 PM.

  18. #178

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I think we're already at the limit for PSFs.

    However, putting Rebel garrisons in some of them, especially now the Rebels will actually move out of them, is an idea I'll look into.
    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. #179

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QWE_asd View Post
    Just played 2.03k as Baktria, AS got steamrolled by Pahlava earlygame, then I steamrolled Pahlava.

    Large AI faction doesn't know how to defend its border, it usually parks its main stacks at one border (in AS's and later Pahlava's case: Ptolemaioi) and leaves its "backdoor" open.
    If another faction decides to attack such large faction from its "backdoor", it results in steamroller effect. In my game, I conquered 80%+ of AS's former territory(little to no garrison) before
    meeting Pahlava's faction leader in Babylon.

    To reduce and slow down early game steamroller, I suggest using script to slow down FM/General after a settlement is taken:

    Occupy: none penalty
    Sack: -90% movement point for 2 turns (It takes time to gather the loots!)
    Exterminate: -45% movement point for 2 turns

    Thus with limited FM/Generals available at the start, AI and player has to wait a few turns before continue steamrolling while slow-paced expansion is not affected.
    I hope this can be implemented, right now you can steamroll AS with 2 stacks using the none-stop sack/hire mercenary routine, AS won't response to you until you took
    most of its lands (and by then you are already more powerful then AS).
    Well actually in most of my recent games after the initial Pahlava steamroll AS strikes back and ends recovering everything and even pussing Parthians north.
    But is true that as a player if you want to blitz instead to play more realistically you can really abuse AS in the east and conquer half their empire with not that much effort.


    We will either find a way, or make one.

  20. #180

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    In the final release will something be done about alot of factions starting with negative income? I understand it for most factions but for a faction like carthage during my playthrough with them majority of the time I was barley able to make money.

Page 9 of 78 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 34 59 ... 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
  •