EB or EB II?

[Septentrionalis]

One more thing that's not been mentioned here yet: forts are disabled in the EBII.
I used to make "strategic fortifications" in places where I'd expect AI to move its armies. It added to the difficulty for the AI to such an extent that it was barely able to counterattack. Thanks God (or QS) that it's been removed.

I have only played the original RTW and now EBII. Are you referring to the practice of putting forts with possibly minimal staffing into narrow passes so that the AI has to engage that fort before moving on, effectively giving the player an early warning and much more time to build up defenses? Or perhaps tricking them into attacking forts even when moving past them would be feasible? In either case it does seem like an exploit against the AI.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Imma be the third guy in a row to lament about forts. I liked to put a fort in the middle of several provinces and guard them, since army from one of those provinces cannnot reach another in one turn. I also like to put fort between provinces so when I move armies between provinces, they do not rebel in the middle of their journey.

I did the same but the removal of the forts increased the value of the loyal family members in the above situations. More generally, my arguments against the forts are as follows:

1. CAI is absolutely broken on the choice what to defend. Usually, it leaves the main settlement empty, concentrating troops in a fort present in the province. Or it moves it between them. A player can easily exploit this behavior.
2. However, the AI doesn’t know how to use forts strategically in the way the player does. It doesn't use the forts to block the player's advances to buy time for the reserves to come. It also leaves forts from time to time (it doesn't stay in a fort, it moves out and in - if it's a temporary fort then it disappears).
3. While on the offensive, the AI sieges a fort instead of the settlement, furthermore it breaks these sieges very often. The result is: a player can dupe the AI easily into endless sieges.
4. The number of siege battles is high with the permanent forts. The chrome of the forts is nice, but it's a nightmare to play with: you're bogged down in dozens of irrelevant sieges.
5. Western Europe is already full of settlements close to one another, so any forts would limit the tactical movements even more, with the player blocking passes through the mountains or woods. The result would be a restricted tactical movement, detrimental to the AI as it's not really capable of assessing the situation and sending troops around, or not sending them.
x) If the buildable forts are additionally related with the free_upkeep then an exploit is possible: you farm the forts to keep your whole army without paying upkeep (it was the case of the HURB, but also in the DLV).

[Kull]

Another issue with buildable forts is they aren't really appropriate for most factions. It's a game play thing that CA put in because of the Roman penchant for building them on campaign, but that practice was not common elsewhere. Also, we are still using a few of the permanent forts to enable visible wonders, and you can't have both types.

[Turek]

I've produced this year a few reviews on the other mods - see here.

Thanks for the link, great reads. I might try the SSHIP with my next SS campaign, planning on playing with a bit more challenging campaign, maybe with HRE or Byzant.

I'm kind of bummed to hear that there are no forts in EB II, I loved to build them (in EB I) for my legions stationed on the far-away barbarian lands. But yeah they could be easily abused and if I remember correctly the AI never used them.

[tentaku]

I did the same but the removal of the forts increased the value of the loyal family members in the above situations.

Yes nowadays since I am using a lot of allied governors, lots of my family members are unemployed and bored. So I use them like forts and stick them in spots where I like my forts to be. I wish I could reward these "fort generals" with traits and retinues for their hard work...

[Jurand of Cracow]

I might try the SSHIP with my next SS campaign, planning on playing with a bit more challenging campaign, maybe with HRE or Byzant.

Actually HRE and Byzantium are very strong in the SSHIP, you may try Cumans, Norway, Pisa or Serbia, if you want a really difficult start. But get the minimods to SSHIP and ask on the relevant forum beforehand.

Yes nowadays since I am using a lot of allied governors, lots of my family members are unemployed and bored. So I use them like forts and stick them in spots where I like my forts to be. I wish I could reward these "fort generals" with traits and retinues for their hard work...

This gets to my previous comments on the generals and the family tree and on ancillaries. It's actually on the topic: I've got a feeling that the characters' roles were somehow better dealt with in EBI. Despite all the fancy, historical, immersive, faction-specific stuff in the EBII, the dynamics of getting traits/ancillaries and the usefulness for the gameplay in the EBI were better, imo, despite their crudeness. Or I'm mixing memories from the different mods...

[Turek]

Actually HRE and Byzantium are very strong in the SSHIP, you may try Cumans, Norway, Pisa or Serbia, if you want a really difficult start. But get the minimods to SSHIP and ask on the relevant forum beforehand.

Ah ok, good to know. I based my assumption on when I played SS (can't remember which version it was back then) years ago with HRE and Byzant, I was then typically swamped by the surrounding AI factions (the accursed Turks with their endless cavalry stacks and the filthy backstabbing French) pretty early on into the game. I'm actually currently playing as Norway (in vanilla SS) and I always found it relatively easy to play. Strong warrior and militia units right from the start. All you had to do was to rush the Scandinavian peninsula immediately as the game started (usually skipping Oslo and taking it later on), then you could fight and beat Denmark before it was too strong, around the Lund or Roskilde area, in the eventual war that always came. After that you braced for the upcoming English naval assault on Eikundarsund or Bergen, and then just sat in your easily defendable "island" for about 100 years building, making alliances (especially with HRE) and setting up trade deals, conquering Visby and maybe Finland on your way. At the start of the 13th century you were usually filthy rich with huge potential military power. It will be most refreshing if the playing experiences for Norway, HRE and Byzant are different in SSHIP.

Can I ask what did you mean with the minimods? Did you recommend just getting them in general, or are some better suited for the aforementioned factions? There seems to be a load of them, which is nice.

[tentaku]

This gets to my previous comments on the generals and the family tree and on ancillaries. It's actually on the topic: I've got a feeling that the characters' roles were somehow better dealt with in EBI. Despite all the fancy, historical, immersive, faction-specific stuff in the EBII, the dynamics of getting traits/ancillaries and the usefulness for the gameplay in the EBI were better, imo, despite their crudeness. Or I'm mixing memories from the different mods...

I never played EB1 (even though I used to play tons of Rome 1) I guess it just depends if a family character can be made useful despite not being a governor. I think it's possible because sometimes my non-governor family members also affect settlement happiness or income (not sure).

[Jurand of Cracow]

I never played EB1 (even though I used to play tons of Rome 1) I guess it just depends if a family character can be made useful despite not being a governor. I think it's possible because sometimes my non-governor family members also affect settlement happiness or income (not sure).

I don't think the non-governing general has any impact on the settlement. He can get some traits (but not all of them - some are linked to being a governor) and ancillaries, but there's no impact on the settlement other than his bodyguards serving as a garrison and producing some public order.

Can I ask what did you mean with the minimods? Did you recommend just getting them in general, or are some better suited for the aforementioned factions? There seems to be a load of them, which is nice.

Well, I find this submod to be perfect for any faction ;-) I think I'd be better to start a discussion on the SSHIP webpage so that we keep this thread for the EB/EBII comparisons.

[kingofportugal]

Ok im going to be very blunt here.

EB1 better battle mechanics and more clean. EB1 units better and more polished.
EB1 better in unit promotions, so you get more attached to your gold chevron units.

EB2 better because of REEMERGENT FACTIONS, making the game more replayable. EB2 better diplomacy. Smarter campaign AI.

So basically the things that give EB1 advantage over EB2 are only due to the RTW1 engine, and its not fault of the modders.

Check this post:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=#post15597887

And this image:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/attac...3&d=1527579944

[QuintusSertorius]

I agree the RTW battle engine was better than the one we have in M2TW, for a host of reasons.

As just one example, you could determine lethality on an individual unit basis in RTW; in M2TW it's a universal property for all units on the basis of being melee, missile or elephant. That's a huge loss of granularity in the options available when balancing units. Not only that, CA decided to arbitrarily tag unit cohesion to that lethality value as well, which adds another confounding factor meaning you can't just consider how fast you want kills to happen.

In a related point, unit cohesion was much better in RTW and charges worked more cleanly. In M2TW units have a tendency to "blob" and spread out while engaged in melee. Which might be more realistic from one perspective, but instead of swelling away from the engaged side, they spread out in every direction, in a Brownian-like motion. Which isn't all that realistic.

Another one is that while infantry having melee weapons for both primary and secondary weapons was still pretty bugged in RTW, it at least worked properly for pikemen. In M2TW it doesn't work at all for any units.

Experience was definitely overpowered in RTW, though.

[Jurand of Cracow]

QS, what do you think about the BAI? I mean: I think that while the RTW battle engine is better, but the battles are not as the BAI botches up the things.

[QuintusSertorius]

QS, what do you think about the BAI? I mean: I think that while the RTW battle engine is better, but the battles are not as the BAI botches up the things.

I was talking only of the battle mechanics; to be honest the BAI and CAI in RTW were terrible. I found EB1 unplayable after 100 turns for this reason - the CAI meant you basically fought the same battles turn after turn, and the BAI made each one of them rather tedious.

[Turek]

Well, I find this submod to be perfect for any faction ;-) I think I'd be better to start a discussion on the SSHIP webpage so that we keep this thread for the EB/EBII comparisons.

Indeed, your mod looks very good - it always was a bit unclear (to me) how the traits worked in SS. Oh yes of course, got carried away with the SS/MTW2 stuff and didn't realize we were still on the EBII thread!

Ok im going to be very blunt here.

EB1 better battle mechanics and more clean. EB1 units better and more polished.
EB1 better in unit promotions, so you get more attached to your gold chevron units.

EB2 better because of REEMERGENT FACTIONS, making the game more replayable. EB2 better diplomacy. Smarter campaign AI.

So basically the things that give EB1 advantage over EB2 are only due to the RTW1 engine, and its not fault of the modders.

Check this post:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=#post15597887

And this image:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/attac...3&d=1527579944

Nice summary EB I / EB II. It's fantastic that you brought up the reemergent factions thing, I think it pretty much cements my decision to go with EB II. I simply LOVE the reemergent faction mechanic in any game, it makes the campaigns feel so much more dynamic and realistic (and as you wrote, replayable). I am ready to sacrifice a lot of other features for it.

Thanks for the link, lots of good info there too. Before starting this thread I tried looking for threads with similar subject but didn't spot that for some reason.

[kingofportugal]

Indeed, your mod looks very good - it always was a bit unclear (to me) how the traits worked in SS. Oh yes of course, got carried away with the SS/MTW2 stuff and didn't realize we were still on the EBII thread!


Nice summary EB I / EB II. It's fantastic that you brought up the reemergent factions thing, I think it pretty much cements my decision to go with EB II. I simply LOVE the reemergent faction mechanic in any game, it makes the campaigns feel so much more dynamic and realistic (and as you wrote, replayable). I am ready to sacrifice a lot of other features for it.

Thanks for the link, lots of good info there too. Before starting this thread I tried looking for threads with similar subject but didn't spot that for some reason.

Exactly Re-emergent factions make the game endless. Lets say you are at war with a big empire. And one faction in the middle was destroyed, you can always make it appear back again. You can vassalize. You can make smarter decisions. Its not just the typical steamroll everything in your path. However im of the opinion, that the mechanic could be improved and should be given more power to the re-emerging factions, like giving them more stacks so to be considered a new power in the region to be reckoned with. After all strategy games are appealing because of UNCERTAINTY. If you just steam roll everything and factions die one after the other it becomes dull, repetitive and boring. I enjoy much more role playing, keep to my provinces, go to war and get tributes or vassals, and use diplomacy, improve my generals, my provinces, and make experienced gold chevron elites. You should see what you can do with gold chevron elephants they are like tanks. On Stainless steel i also play to get my lineage as cool as possible. Marrying my sons to foreign princesses with blood from the royal houses, and sending all unwanted members to death in battle. Suddenly you have an heir with crusader blood, scottish blood, french blood etc...etc... But Eb2 doesnt have princesses, because thats more realistic.