Since our internal forum is down...

Khelvan · Sep 30, 2005

I figured I would post this here, since I'm half asleep and will not remember it tomorrow. Assuming this is true, our chances of moving EB to BI are slim to none. The mounts file is an integral part of our mod, as we've changed every horse and elephant model, added a diversity of horses, and new chariots and such. Without the ability to mod descr_mounts.txt, we will almost certainly never see a BI port of EB.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=33972

Solar · Sep 30, 2005

Bad news, really. All the stuff in BI (religions, loyalty, etc) could really enrich gameplay in EB. But is the problem also in RTW 1.3? if so, it'd be a pity, since that update also corrects the save/load bug...

Lesten · Sep 30, 2005

Really bad news indeed. Hopefully someone will figure out how to fix this or at least how to convert some of BIs features to the original game.

Edit: Are you saying you are giving up all BI features because you can't use different horses, elephants and chariots?

Malrubius · Sep 30, 2005

Solar said:
Bad news, really. All the stuff in BI (religions, loyalty, etc) could really enrich gameplay in EB. But is the problem also in RTW 1.3? if so, it'd be a pity, since that update also corrects the save/load bug...

I don't know if BI has enough religions to fully represent the different religious beliefs of our factions. We have our own plans in this area, however.

I did like the idea of disloyal generals rebelling, however.

Urnamma · Sep 30, 2005

It looks like they solved the mounts problem. CA just made everything even more of a pain in the ass though.

Big_John · Sep 30, 2005

Urnamma said:
It looks like they solved the mounts problem. CA just made everything even more of a pain in the ass though.

well, that's better at least!

also, i have good news. i just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to geico!

no wait, that's not right.. what i meant to ask is, does the info in this thread sound like potential good news for EB in anyway? (i speaking mostly about signiferone's post #13)

Lesten · Sep 30, 2005

Malrubius said:
I did like the idea of disloyal generals rebelling, however.

Have you played BI yet? Personally, I don't think the rebelling general feature is as exciting as it may sound. It can only happen to romans and when it does it creates a new roman rebel faction (like Western Empire rebels) (takes up one faction slot too, I think).

While adding more depth to the game it uses faction slots that perhaps could be used for some other faction (otherwise it would be awesome if new factions spawned every now and then). It would be better, at least for a mod with many factions, to let the rebelling settlements and generals join the slave/rebel faction, if possible.

However, it is cool when the portrait of the family member is grayed out and the text says he deserted in year X.

Night fights, religion and the ability to train new generals are good features though and it would be cool to see them in EB. (The rebelling general feature is actually a good one too... but like I said, it limits the number of other factions, though I could be wrong... )

lt1956 · Sep 30, 2005

Khelvan I was wrong the BI animations cant be used with RTW :-( not unless edited as normal. I really thought they would corss reference them. Also I havent noticed any major changes with AI behavior with BI, it does has some nice features but maybe not enough to warrent EB porting. also the legion naming is kind of a problem as you can only get different numerals if they are recruited from the same province. My SPQR 4.4 patch uses the resource method to assign legion names. I think its better than BIs unless BI makes the game track all 1st cohorts instead of just from the province.

Lt

Stallion M · Sep 30, 2005

Like I said in the past... If this nor RTR moves to BI then BI's not worth my money.

Simetrical · Sep 30, 2005

It's far too soon to figure out whether the change would be worth it. I'd say we have to wait at least a month to figure this stuff out.

def · Sep 30, 2005

I've had the chance to play BI for a few hours when it came out on the first day. I must say I was impressed with what CA has done with the AI, the interface, modding aspects, and the overall new engine features. The BI version 1.4 of the game is what really RTW was meant to be. It is definitely worth spending resources to port mods to BI. I know we are looking into it at the moment.

Pent uP Rage · Sep 30, 2005

So, does this mean I need to keep a fresh unpatched 1.2 to continue to play the mods? Sure glad I saved one. :tongue:

Kushan · Oct 1, 2005

Pent uP Rage said:
So, does this mean I need to keep a fresh unpatched 1.2 to continue to play the mods? Sure glad I saved one.

Probably not, we'll probably switch over to the RTW v1.3 patch when it is released.

Honestly I think it is to soon to know whether to switch to BI or not. I bought it yesterday, but have been to sick to test it out. Lets not be to quick to judge BI, it has only been out for a day.

But as Khelvan has said before, the first version of EB will be for RTW v1.2/1.3.

Kushan

Stallion M · Oct 1, 2005

BI has the problem with the mount files + some of their units look completly ugly and half arsed. I'm sure either EB, or RTR could do a better job of skinning with their eyes closed, and one hand tied behind their back, and some really annoying song playing over and over in the backround. Oh and then theres the sparkles, bubbles and super SEGA beserkers of course... *SIGH*...

PS - I also heard it has performance issues.

Solar · Oct 1, 2005

Stallion M said:
Oh and then theres the sparkles, bubbles and super SEGA beserkers of course... *SIGH*...

the sparkles and bubbles made it to the final version? ugh.

Leatherpenguin · Oct 1, 2005

Horrible news, the long awaited EB, the saviour, will not take advantage of the improved AI.. You guys have done such a wonderful job with the limited resources available, but I don't think it really can measure with the changes CA themselves can make to the hardcoded areas. Please reconsider, if anyone can do this, it would be the mega talented EB team!

Meneldil · Oct 1, 2005

Agreed.

Although I dislike many of BI features, or think they aren't worth the money, the better AI is really a positive aspect

Stallion M · Oct 1, 2005

How is the AI better? Do they finally slaughter themselves too save me the trouble of wasting 10 men?

Kushan · Oct 1, 2005

Biggest problem in my opinion is the emergent factions.

Hopefully the v1.3 patch will include alot of the improvements to the AI, and etc.

Kushan

Khelvan · Oct 1, 2005

As yet, no one has actually detailed improvements to the AI. So as far as we are concerned, there is nothing there yet to take advantage of.

Atheist Peace · Oct 1, 2005

Kushan said:
Biggest problem in my opinion is the emergent factions.

Why's that a problem? No factions actually have to be emergent.

Chuffy · Oct 2, 2005

will not take advantage of the improved AI..

Sorry to disappoint but BI has no 'improved' AI.

Oh sure, Cavalry attack your flanks now and generals don't charge out ahead of their army Richard III style but as for anything else?

No, not at all.

Leatherpenguin · Oct 2, 2005

Chuffy said:
Sorry to disappoint but BI has no 'improved' AI.

Oh sure, Cavalry attack your flanks now and generals don't charge out ahead of their army Richard III style but as for anything else?

So, those aren't improvements?.. Those are pretty major ones IMO.
Other big improvements include AI in defence. They now get to a hill and stick with it, just maintaining their facing against you.

And I seriously doubt CA would include any AI improvements in the patch, no game company would give away half the selling point of their new expansion.

Chuffy · Oct 2, 2005

So, those aren't improvements?.. Those are pretty major ones IMO.

They are improvements, not major ones and not ones which make the AI competent.

Meneldil · Oct 2, 2005

Khelvan said:
As yet, no one has actually detailed improvements to the AI. So as far as we are concerned, there is nothing there yet to take advantage of.

What about that ?
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54780

Now, I'm not an expert at TW games, but I sure think battles are less easy than in vanilla RTW. It might only be a dream, but I seriously think the AI react better to the player's strategy.

militiaman · Oct 2, 2005

I think the decision is being made to quickly. We still don't know the full limits of it just yet so I think you should wait and see how things turn out. If you do fully decide to make it for RTW I will not complain, it will still be a good mod.

Kushan · Oct 2, 2005

militiaman is right, it is far to early to judge BI. Its only been out officially for 3 days. Alot of people here complain about how BI sucks, theres no AI improvements, etc. How many of you were anti BI before it even came out? Yes I know its not even close to be historically accurate, and that the new skins look horrible. But at least give modders a chance to disect it and see what really is moddable/not moddable in it.

We must also not forget SEGA. Yes SEGA is no longer competetive in most of the gaming market, however from what I see they have done a rather decent job since they bought CA. They have released an expansion, and are paying for RTW to be patch a 3rd time Lets see what sort of support there going to offer before judging them as well.

Kushan

(This post was not meant to flame anyone)

Aymar de Bois Mauri · Oct 2, 2005

Meneldil said:
What about that ?
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54780

Now, I'm not an expert at TW games, but I sure think battles are less easy than in vanilla RTW. It might only be a dream, but I seriously think the AI react better to the player's strategy.

Disclaimer: Please note that I'm not saying BI hasn't improved the AI, but:

1)You and the Kraxis forget one important thing. In the TW series, the most ideal situation for the AI is the control of horse archers. That is when the AI is and always was (STW, MI, MTW, VI, RTW) more able to aliviate the deficient aproach to troop deployement.

2)Also, in RTW, you don't get many horse archer nations. In BI they are, IIRC, quite more prevalent, so more battles are fought against them. Accordingly, more battles tend to be fought in the way the AI better controls it's troops.

For real AI comparations, one must fight custom battles with the exact same army types (ideally infantry armies) in RTW and RTW:BI and see what differs in each of those battles regarding to AI troop deployement and tactical manouvering.

ForgottenImmortal · Oct 2, 2005

CA once again fails to deliver.

Kushan · Oct 2, 2005

Atheist Peace said:
Why's that a problem? No factions actually have to be emergent.

Really, hmmm, I dint know this. I thought that an emergent faction had to be emergent. In that case nvm my comment. Thanks for correcting me.

Kushan

Since our internal forum is down...

Since our internal forum is down...

May the Force be with you.

You're gonna need a bigger boat.

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Creator of SPQR:TW Mod

Here's looking at you, kid!

Former Chief Technician

Here's looking at you, kid!

Tech *********

May the Force be with you.

Here's looking at you, kid!

You're gonna need a bigger boat.

Here's looking at you, kid!

I'll be back!

Here's looking at you, kid!

May the Force be with you.

May the Force be with you.

Indefinitely Banned

Houston, we have a problem.

Here's looking at you, kid!

Houston, we have a problem.

I'll be back!

GEWar TWC Alliance!

May the Force be with you.

I'll be back!

I'll be back!

May the Force be with you.

Join the Total War Center!

Wiki Links

Rome on TWC Wiki

Total War Center on the Wiki

Total War Series on TWC Wiki

Modding Information on TWC Wiki

Medieval II on TWC Wiki

Thread Statistics

Site Polls

Axis & Allies

Battleship

Checkers

Chess

Clue

Go

Monopoly

Risk

Stratego

Other