Heroes

[euphrates95]

Will the Kingdoms "Hero" thing be used? Because it would be interesting to have the famous heroes emerge and have special abilities.

[carbonem vestigium]

Here cometh Hannibal Barca, with lightening fire from his eyes and bolts of lightening from his arse!

[gustave]

Here cometh Hannibal Barca, with lightening fire from his eyes and bolts of lightening from his arse!

[Almogaver]

I hate History Channel's Battles BC! all that "300" ambience crap! and this guy was supposed to be Hannibal Barca. Is this how Vin Diesel will look like if he makes the movie?

[carbonem vestigium]

I hate History Channel's Battles BC! all that "300" ambience crap! and this guy was supposed to be Hannibal Barca. Is this how Vin Diesel will look like if he makes the movie?

Apparently Ross Leckie is supposed to be involved in that project, and even though he makes technical mistakes from time to time, I have high hopes for the influence he might be able to exert in preventing a 300 style joke.

[Fabricus]

Why always Hannibal? I mean, think of how many illustrius charachters lived during this mod's timeframe. Yeah, Hannibal was one of the better generals, arguably the greatest...but still.

In answer to your question the EB team has made clear that there will be no historical charachters aside from a think a few at the beggining of the game. They feel, justifiably so, that having these charachters reduces the "realism" that each of our own campaigns generates. eg. if Carthage is destroyed by Numidia before Hannibals invasion took place, there would be no Hannibal attacking Italy.

Not a bad question, its just that it has been dealt with extensively, there is actually a whole thread dedicated to "Hannibal Barca Emerges"...kind of a funny title if you think about it...anway, thats the deal as far as I know, and the reason everybody started talking about Hannibal in response to your question.

[carbonem vestigium]

Why always Hannibal? I mean, think of how many illustrius charachters lived during this mod's timeframe. Yeah, Hannibal was one of the better generals, arguably the greatest...but still.

Just take out Hannibal and insert any of the following:

a)Pyrrhus
b)Massanissa
c)Philip V
d)Regulus
e)Xanthipus

Which one does the common man recognize more than Hannibal? None. Therefore when crafting an amusing joke to get across why I don't think the Heroes feature would work well in EB II given the goal of its makers, I said Hannibal.

[For England Men]

I agree when compared to other people fo the time Hannibal is not that amazing. logistically he was clever at transporting an army and fighting bothe guerilla and battle tactics but he was raised by a general had some very experienced soldiers and advisors under his command. Not forgetting that in the end he didn't achieve very much. I personally rate Julius Caesar and Pompei alot higher.

Also yes I read the thread about hannibal and am incined to agree with the EB team that the best possible scenario is to start off with a historical situation and then have the ability to change or replicate history as you see fit rather than be guided by triggers. The heroes feature was for short mini campaigns in kingdoms and to be honest I didn't really like it as it seemed a bit fantasy. I would much prefer historical names to pop up in the family tree of factions as accurately as possible and it be left to the player, AI and current situation to decide the fate of these characters and I believe this may bet the way they are doing it. ( hope so anyway )

[Legio X Equestris]

I agree when compared to other people fo the time Hannibal is not that amazing. logistically he was clever at transporting an army and fighting bothe guerilla and battle tactics but he was raised by a general had some very experienced soldiers and advisors under his command. Not forgetting that in the end he didn't achieve very much. I personally rate Julius Caesar and Pompei alot higher.)

WHAT!!!
I mean JC was as good as Hannibal and maybe 100times luckier but no one could beat Hannibal for cunning and stratergy (espacially not an average general like Pompay). The fact he lost does not take from the man so much as show that Rome was just that Sucidly Sturborn and had the manpower to withstand such onslauts

He should not be measured on Sucess but on Circumstance

[Cozur]

Off-topic. Sure there is a greatest generals thread somewhere.

[Anibal at portas]

if someone played to the shogun, you know that all historical generals of the various factions, were available in its exact historical date, birth or other events such as recruitment.
this aspect has not been implemented in any of the other games of the totalwar serie and is a must in a historical strategy game.
i think that with the medieval II engine is possible to do this with all historical generals.

[Mediolanicus]

It was implemented in MTW too.

It is a must in a game that follows history or when you wan to add them as a neat feature (like in STW and MTW).

EB only takes care of historical starting postitions, characters and so on, so it is certainly not a must for EB; quite the opposite really.

[Huene]

WHAT!!!
I mean JC was as good as Hannibal and maybe 100times luckier but no one could beat Hannibal for cunning and stratergy (espacially not an average general like Pompay). The fact he lost does not take from the man so much as show that Rome was just that Sucidly Sturborn and had the manpower to withstand such onslauts

He should not be measured on Sucess but on Circumstance

IIRC the only account of Hannibal was written by a historian in the pay of the roman (his name escapes me) who defeated Hannibal. It was also written 50 years later. one has to question the objectivity here

[For England Men]

WHAT!!!
I mean JC was as good as Hannibal and maybe 100times luckier but no one could beat Hannibal for cunning and stratergy (espacially not an average general like Pompay). The fact he lost does not take from the man so much as show that Rome was just that Sucidly Sturborn and had the manpower to withstand such onslauts

He should not be measured on Sucess but on Circumstance

pompey average - blasphemy look up his earlier battles. Hannibal was outsmarted by the romans with their not fighting him tactics he had not provisioned enough supplies for his forces and set up the correct supply lines a school boy error.

[Fabricus]

Can we NOT talk about Hannibal? There is already a thread dedicated to Hannibal. Anyway "heroe" would be somebody more like Aneaus, Herakles, etc. and no, they won't be in the mod. Who knows who appeals to the common man most anyway, maybe Hannibal, maybe not, as I said, antiquity is full of interesting leaders. We all know he was a good commander, and certainly made a bold manuevre in the alps crossing, but unless people make a punic wars submod, ( in which should include all necessary Roman and Carthaginian "hereos" of the time) then as everybody has said there won't be Hannibal.

P.S. In regards to Pyrrus, I am pretty sure he will feature in the begging of the campaign as king of Epirus.

[Suppanut]

If there will be hero in, Viriathus of Lusitania seem more closer to hero's definition. He is something between homeric and realistic history.

[Anibal at portas]

if Vin Diesel directs the movie will have secured a real crap.
is sure this proyect?

[werawulf]

Tactically, Hannibal was brilliant. Strategically, however, very little can be said of him, at least on Italian soil. He was obviously and very capable leader in his own right being able to meld very disparate groups into a single unit (but, alas all Carthaginian armies were such). He did though obviously lack the political insights to successfully encourage southern Italy into presenting a united front (this also proved the brilliance of Rome's method of dealing with her allies, that is, dealing with each city individually).
Hannibal's early success can be most attributed to his holding of the initiative. Once that was lost and he became unable to operate freely, all was lost.
Pompey was average at best. His skill was not in war but in management. He would make a good COO, but a rather lousy CEO. His fame was garnered from finished what others had left in a grand way. Don't forget, the only reason Pompey succeeded in Spain was because Sertorius was murdered.
Marcus Licinius Crassus was probably a better general than Pompey.
Julius Caesar was the dude though. But again, especially at Pharsalus, it was not so much his leadership, but the sheer hardiness of his legionaries. His legions were perhaps the most experienced (honestly, the word Hardcore comes to mind) soldiers since Alexanders army and which I doubt has ever again been duplicated. Even in his own day, it was no secret that these guys were just about the best soldiers in the world.

[carbonem vestigium]

Tactically, Hannibal was brilliant. Strategically, however, very little can be said of him, at least on Italian soil. He was obviously and very capable leader in his own right being able to meld very disparate groups into a single unit (but, alas all Carthaginian armies were such). He did though obviously lack the political insights to successfully encourage southern Italy into presenting a united front (this also proved the brilliance of Rome's method of dealing with her allies, that is, dealing with each city individually).
Hannibal's early success can be most attributed to his holding of the initiative. Once that was lost and he became unable to operate freely, all was lost.

There is another factor in it. Hannibal's plan made absolute sense within the context of hellenistic states and hellenistic culture. No Hellenistic state could have survived the losses of Trebbia and Tresimene, let alone Cannae, and in Hellenistic culture the rulers tended to abuse the people in a way that Rome had not done with her allies. Rome and her system of alliances worked differently. Any Hellenistic state after Cannae would have immediately moved for peace, and this is what Hannibal would have expected. Maharbal's statement, which comes to us from Livy I don't really accept, because it is contrary to the behavior of military powers at that time and contrary to common sense. If Rome had a tenth of the resources to defend the city as what might be supposed in 216, Hannibal still might not have been able to take it because of the lack of numbers. The idea that Hannibal needed to immediately move on Rome is a judgment out of hindsight rather than an evaluation of his position. His troops were tired and probably in a state of shock after the horror of Cannae and in little position to mount a siege, not to mention that siege victories were rare in the ancient world. It is theoretically possible that the mere coming would have broken the Roman spirit, but it is like so many what ifs.

The biggest factor which Hannibal did not count on is that once southern Italy joined him, they expected him to defend them against Roman retaliation, which was very difficult to do. He might be able to beat the Romans in pitched battles, but he could not continually meet Roman attacks in multiple locations. This tied him down and made it impossible for him to fight a campaign against Rome. The Punic and Celtic forces had little in common with the Latin, Oscan and Greek speaking towns of Italy and they had little in common with eachother except that they were previously Roman allies. This never factored into Hannibal's plan because his worldview was based on the Hellenistic culture in which he was tutored in from Carthage, where massive threats would either topple cities or cause them to negotiate. Rome, being apart of a different dynamic, responded differently.

[werawulf]

There is another factor in it. Hannibal's plan made absolute sense within the context of hellenistic states and hellenistic culture. No Hellenistic state could have survived the losses of Trebbia and Tresimene, let alone Cannae, and in Hellenistic culture the rulers tended to abuse the people in a way that Rome had not done with her allies. Rome and her system of alliances worked differently. Any Hellenistic state after Cannae would have immediately moved for peace, and this is what Hannibal would have expected. Maharbal's statement, which comes to us from Livy I don't really accept, because it is contrary to the behavior of military powers at that time and contrary to common sense. If Rome had a tenth of the resources to defend the city as what might be supposed in 216, Hannibal still might not have been able to take it because of the lack of numbers.

No argument, I agree, and so would any other historian. The thing that has bothered me though is that Carthage was not some distant eastern state, they were effectively Italy's next door neighbors. Hannibal had grown up knowing what Rome was about and how the state operated. I still find it odd that considering all of his experience with Rome and planning, Hannibal still failed to recognize the true political situation of Italy. Such observations would not be only available through hindsight but also through the 20 odd years of peace. I can only conclude (alas, I am still an undergraduate) that either his campaign was at best a brutal gamble, or something went terribly wrong at the beginning (which was never recorded), he had to of known that Rome would be relentless, otherwise we can conclude that he was strategically ignorant of the situation and thus ultimately a failure of a general. We can hypothesize this to death, but I don't think it will ever add up.

Also it would have been impossible to assault or siege Rome, most obviously because he had no siege equipment, and secondly he didnt have the man power to hold a siege, remember he was unable to concentrate his forces for long and doing so at Rome would just not be smart for a number of obvious reasons.