Suggestions for EB v0.8

[Khelvan]

Our next version is almost certainly going to be v0.8, based on the progress we have made. This will include at least 20 new units, and probably we'll be moving to RTW v1.5, if things continue to go well.

Please feel free to provide suggestions regarding this new version.

[Frost, colonel]

It's good to hear that your currently making such good progress.

It would be nice to have new animations/fixes for troops like the hypadasti(spelling?)as you had to revert back with v7.4 to the earlier(dancing one I presume) due to the 7.3a version causing a ctd when employing the Alt key.

[Wurzelgnom]

Parthian General needs his unique unit of bodyguards!

[spotH3D]

Make the Roman military reforms dynamic please.

[Wurzelgnom]

Please don't! I think a certain date is better, because 1) it's more historical accurate 2) there's no possibillity that you have to fight Legionaries in for example 220 B.C...

I'd like to see reforms for other factions.
For example: Why should Seleucids field Thorakitai(which show Roman influence, according to the description) without having dealt with Romans? I'd like to see things like this handled like the Cataphract-issue!

[Frost, colonel]

Please don't! I think a certain date is better, because 1) it's more historical accurate 2) there's no possibillity that you have to fight Legionaries in for example 220 B.C...

I'd like to see reforms for other factions.
For example: Why should Seleucids field Thorakitai(which show Roman influence, according to the description) without having dealt with Romans? I'd like to see things like this handled like the Cataphract-issue!

The Cataphract issue could possibly be seen as different as they came about as an answer to fighting the Parthians heavier cav. Whereas did the Seleukids Thorakitai come about because of direct conflict or through an awareness of another nations troops effectiveness and how some of their ideas could work for them?

But still the idea of more reforms for other factions is a good idea if possible with some sort of historical background.

[Rosacrux redux]

will the Spartans and the Cretan Archers be included in v. 0.8? If yes, you'll spark anew my interest in RTW for a certain period of time.

[Khelvan]

All reforms will be dynamic. As EB is not a recreation of history, but allowing you to rewrite history, the same dates will not apply. Given that RTW generally has accelerated timeframes for how things happen, the dynamic reforms will generally accelerate the period of reform.

The exact conditions for the various Roman reforms are still up for debate, though we should have a test script for you very soon.

[Ahlerich]

remove the "zulu-fighting-style" from german spearmen...pleaseee.. or tell me how to do it.
thats the only issue i have with the mod

[Khelvan]

Can you be more specific?

[Ahlerich]

oh i ment this over head spear fighting. i dont know why its implemented. i bet somebody did research and found that accurate. but you can not fight with a spear like that. the center of gravity or main point or focus, i dont know the english term it to high. so you cant fight cavalary like that(you dont have enouch power in that posture, to eg pierve armor or push a man from a horse..if cavalary charges you and you engage like that you loose reach and preak your arm when you hit. if you fight infantry that style you cand attack without exposing your upperbody. each time you attack you make youself an undefendable target. you also lower your weapon reach.
im really no pre-medieval fighting expert but i do medieval fencing/showfighting and reenactment. this overhead fighting style really bugs me. and without haveing a source to back that up i find it impossible to believe that the barbarians would fight that way. there is no advantage and many disadvantages in this fighting posture. no offense i really like your overall work. but this bugs me big time

[The White Knight]

Someone already suggested this a while back, but it was not possible because of 'too much work'. Namely a trait that would be given to a gouvernor of a certain city with historic details about that city.

Say a Koinon Hellenon general of mine enters Corinth he will get the trait 'Gouvernor of Corinth and the upper Peleponnesos' (or something like that ). The trait would give some historic info on Corinth, explain what its strategical advantages/unique units, etc... are.

Implementing a feature like this would require a lot of work, sure, but it does not need to be made for every single city, only the most interesting ones. Of course, every city is interesting in EB. :wink:

[Radier]

Someone already suggested this a while back, but it was not possible because of 'too much work'. Namely a trait that would be given to a gouvernor of a certain city with historic details about that city.

Say a Koinon Hellenon general of mine enters Corinth he will get the trait 'Gouvernor of Corinth and the upper Peleponnesos' (or something like that ). The trait would give some historic info on Corinth, explain what its strategical advantages/unique units, etc... are.

Implementing a feature like this would require a lot of work, sure, but it does not need to be made for every single city, only the most interesting ones. Of course, every city is interesting in EB. :wink:

I fully agree with this! Awesome idea.

[Malrubius]

Someone already suggested this a while back, but it was not possible because of 'too much work'. Namely a trait that would be given to a gouvernor of a certain city with historic details about that city.

Say a Koinon Hellenon general of mine enters Corinth he will get the trait 'Gouvernor of Corinth and the upper Peleponnesos' (or something like that ). The trait would give some historic info on Corinth, explain what its strategical advantages/unique units, etc... are.

Implementing a feature like this would require a lot of work, sure, but it does not need to be made for every single city, only the most interesting ones. Of course, every city is interesting in EB. :wink:

Hmm, I don't know who said this was a lot of work, but it wasn't me.
Somebody suggested this on the Org not long ago. What I would need (since I know almost nothing about history), would be someone to provide me with some sort of historical description or a few notes about the province or settlement's history, terrain, climate, etc, that I could put into a description. Some notes about what effect this might have on a general would be great, too.

If someone is interested, they can start a thread for gathering this information.

[The White Knight]

Hmm, I don't know who said this was a lot of work, but it wasn't me.
Somebody suggested this on the Org not long ago. What I would need (since I know almost nothing about history), would be someone to provide me with some sort of historical description or a few notes about the province or settlement's history, terrain, climate, etc, that I could put into a description. Some notes about what effect this might have on a general would be great, too.

If someone is interested, they can start a thread for gathering this information.

I was kind of hoping EB historians would do that. :laughing: :sweatingb

I'm soooo lazy.

[Silver Guard]

Your logistics is brilliant, but i thought maybe if the army, if left for longer then just starvation, could begin to suffer desertations (same losses as sieges) or the murder and complet mutiny of the army?

[Anarzius]

...

[Mangalore]

oh i ment this over head spear fighting. i dont know why its implemented. i bet somebody did research and found that accurate. but you can not fight with a spear like that. the center of gravity or main point or focus, i dont know the english term it to high. so you cant fight cavalary like that(you dont have enouch power in that posture, to eg pierve armor or push a man from a horse..if cavalary charges you and you engage like that you loose reach and preak your arm when you hit. if you fight infantry that style you cand attack without exposing your upperbody. each time you attack you make youself an undefendable target. you also lower your weapon reach.
im really no pre-medieval fighting expert but i do medieval fencing/showfighting and reenactment. this overhead fighting style really bugs me. and without haveing a source to back that up i find it impossible to believe that the barbarians would fight that way. there is no advantage and many disadvantages in this fighting posture. no offense i really like your overall work. but this bugs me big time

Greek hoplites specifically fought in an overhand fashion because they _did not_ have to expose their body that way and presented a close shield wall to the opponent while an underhand thrust would force them to open their defensive line. Germanic tribes were known to fight in a very similar fashion, closed formation though I think sometimes in a wedge rather than a block, alas with less equipment. I'd agree that receiving a cavalry charge would be bad that way but overall I cannot see it actually bearing any of the disadvantages you describe. You do not have to expose yourself to hit someone, you definetely can bring as much force into the thrust (maybe even more as you thrust downward) as with a singlehanded underhand thrust and an upperhand thrust goes over an enemy shield while an underhand thrust pretty much aims for the enemy shield and seems easier to block.

For the Greek warfare you can read that up in Peter Connolly's Rome and Greece at war.

Don't see why the barbarians would fight differently though most having similar equipment.



As for the update. Not sure if that's possible but can one make a phalanx more static and less quick to turn? Charging an engaged phalanx in the rear currently bears a tremendous risk to lose a lot of horses because a good morale phalanx will turn, massacre the horses in a couple of seconds and turn back to its enemy in the front without much harm done as esspecially high level phalanxes can take a lot of hits before going down.

[Ahlerich]

Greek hoplites specifically fought in an overhand fashion because they _did not_ have to expose their body that way and presented a close shield wall to the opponent while an underhand thrust would force them to open their defensive line. Germanic tribes were known to fight in a very similar fashion, closed formation though I think sometimes in a wedge rather than a block, alas with less equipment. I'd agree that receiving a cavalry charge would be bad that way but overall I cannot see it actually bearing any of the disadvantages you describe. You do not have to expose yourself to hit someone, you definetely can bring as much force into the thrust (maybe even more as you thrust downward) as with a singlehanded underhand thrust and an upperhand thrust goes over an enemy shield while an underhand thrust pretty much aims for the enemy shield and seems easier to block.

For the Greek warfare you can read that up in Peter Connolly's Rome and Greece at war.

Don't see why the barbarians would fight differently though most having similar equipment.



As for the update. Not sure if that's possible but can one make a phalanx more static and less quick to turn? Charging an engaged phalanx in the rear currently bears a tremendous risk to lose a lot of horses because a good morale phalanx will turn, massacre the horses in a couple of seconds and turn back to its enemy in the front without much harm done as esspecially high level phalanxes can take a lot of hits before going down.

the thrust goes where you direct it (preferably leg, coz it forces enemy to lower shield, or head, hard to hit but fatal if.
if you fight overhead you only have two options..that is head or upper body,foot/leg impossible. so enemy will know where you attack..one less option/better chance to block
if you attack you have to lean forward, that is why you open your defense. also your arm gets sore after fighting upperhand for 5 minutes..if somebody attacks me upperhand and i am able to block (good likelyness only head in danger)mi counterstrike will be a sure hit because the whole right part of the enemy will be closer to me and not covered by his shield. at a high focus point like that the thrust will allways drag you forward if you put some force into it. i am not concerned about the greek phalanx and i know nothing about them..im cocerned of the sweboz only

[Khelvan]

That the ancient peoples used spears overhand is not in doubt. Read any of the primary sources and they will detail this style of warfare.

I can't argue how or why it would be effective, as I've never done it, but we're not going to toss out primary evidence because someone in modern times says it wouldn't work.