EB building browser

[Killzone_040]

Good weekend to y'all,
Thought I'd ask a question that has been on my mind for quite a while now: the building browser in EB.

It seems that a lot of the buildings seem to be missing in it, that way I don't know which lead to what building, and AFAIK it doesn't even show the MIC's. Is this normal or are my files corrupted orso?

Thanks in advance.

[A_Dane]

pretty sure that's perfectly normal, I have atleast never been able to see all the buildings, Especially not the MIC's, as that'd have been rather useful For unit recruitment stuff i usually keep recruitment viewer running in the back ground, other than that, I've mostly caught on to what building leads to what

[delra]

That's why full building trees are published in .pdf format on the EB page. Foxit Reader or a similar program will display those for free for you.

http://www.europabarbarorum.com/downloads_guides.html

Those are also packed inside docs/ for your installation, but it's always easier to google for something than search for it on a harddrive.

[XSamatan]

EB'S building trees are way to complicated for the RTW engine.
You'll find them in \EB\documentation

XSamatan

[Spike]

yeah, just play it intuitively anyway, all you need to remember is MICs and government levels

[delra]

Not really. There's plenty of smaller buildings which are crucial to city's development and which can't be built unless some awkward pre-requisite is present. Schools for example for someone require Markets - how is a newbie supposed to know that?

[Holdfast]

I think delra is right. Of course you can play intuitively but it will be distinctly sub optimal. I would advise anyone to have a look at their faction's building tree at the outset of a campaign. What can be built varies between factions and the prerequisites for those builds are different too - and thats just how we want it I am sure. But a good building strategy for one faction may need some subtle, and some not so subtle, changes if its to work for another faction.

[Killzone_040]

Okay, thanks for all the responses and now I atleast know which building turns into what.
As a last, if you build an allied state and upgrade regional MIC's to 5, then go and build either I, II, III, are you still able to recruit regional lvl 5 units?

[Entropy Judge]

Yes.

[delra]

It's considered a nasty exploit to not raze regional barracks when you switch to better government. EB team would want to wreck both government and barracks in such cases - but RTW code does not allow them to. So they count on player's conscience to not use this to his advantage. If you do otherwise, it might be convenient, but it's pretty much cheating.

Bottom line is you're not supposed to be able to recruit lvl 4 and 5 regionals from lvl 1/2 government cities.

[Killzone_040]

Yes I already thought that was some kind of exploit of the game. Oh well, let's see how my campaign goes from now on, I'll probably destroy them, though.

[Entropy Judge]

I personally don't feel it's particularly exploitative, but that's pretty much only because the only place I've ever done it consistently is Mediolanum; since I also have a Client Ruler installed there, it's another 50+ years before I even tear down the Type IV government, then another 10 turns just to get the Type I government built. Since it's only there (for the Neitos and Brihentin), and it stays Type IV for so long, I don't feel that it does much, even moreso because P Principes are almost as good as Neitos anyway. I can sort of understand the reasoning, though, particularly if one goes around building Regional 5's everywhere, then goes and uses a better Government immediately.

I've actually got a worse problem with the reverse - building a higher-level government, maxing out the available buildings, then going back to Type III/IV government and staying there (typically as the Sweboz, in order to abuse 4XP units from that region).

[delra]

It's extremely exploitative. To the point it's a clear cheat to get around the intended recruitment system.

How you excuse your cheating I don't really care.

[Entropy Judge]

How so? Regional Barracks signifies that you're recruting locals who fight in the local style, yes? Why should that change simply because you have a non-local government system? Unless you're using some really weird logic, from what you're saying Type I governments shouldn't allow *any* Regional recruitment. Explain why you think it should be considered cheating (and note that cheating is not the same as exploitation).

[delra]

High level units are recruited from social groups that wouldn't exist if the local upper classes were replaced with your nationals.

You still can do it if you want to - but it's the same category as auto_win.

[Rhomphaiaphoros]

High level units are recruited from social groups that wouldn't exist if the local upper classes were replaced with your nationals.

To an extent, you're right. However, as is often brought up, everything that happens after the EB start date is more or less fiction, and that's why I don't really see an actual conflict in having so-called "conflicting" types and levels of MICs in the same settlement. I for one want to have access to Pantodapoi Phalangitai in my capital as Hayasdan, even after I've reformed the government building from III to I.

You still can do it if you want to - but it's the same category as auto_win.

Now that's an odd comparison if I ever saw one.

- Rhomphaiaphoros

[Entropy Judge]

High level units are recruited from social groups that wouldn't exist if the local upper classes were replaced with your nationals.

Possibly; my argument is very similar to Rhomphaiaphoros's - particularly in that after a long time of maintaining those groups even under your rule, why should changing the government method eliminate those groups, moreso when it's entirely possible that they hold a favoured position because they supply a combat style that's different from the factional one?

You still can do it if you want to - but it's the same category as auto_win.

Uh, no. See, the former is potentially exploitative, auto_win is cheating. One works within the bounds of the game system, the other breaks/avoids it. Auto_win and Force Diplomacy are both cheating because they bypass the normal game system to force a change. Maintaining both high-level MICs is perfectly allowable within the game system. It's certainly less exploitative than using a conquered Settlement's Government to let you build more advanced buildings than you normally would.

[delra]

They either assimilate and you can't train them. Or don't assimilate, maintain autonomy and you can train them.

If you go around the system, it's cheating. Do it if you can't win without it, but don't excuse it.

[Rhomphaiaphoros]

They either assimilate and you can't train them. Or don't assimilate, maintain autonomy and you can train them.

That's how it went historically, but even then you are oversimplifying the process. In any case it doesn't necessarily need to go like that in-game.

If you go around the system, it's cheating.

Exploiting is the term, at worst that is. And even if you still want to call it cheating, you do realise that comparing it to auto_win or other console cheats is a bit far-fetched, no?

Do it if you can't win without it, but don't excuse it.

For me, EB is not about winning, it's about having a fun game experience. Keeping Pantodapoi Phalangitai in my recruitment list is a personal preference, and has nothing to do with "winning" anything.

- Rhomphaiaphoros

[Entropy Judge]

They either assimilate and you can't train them. Or don't assimilate, maintain autonomy and you can train them.

Why? Explain why the process is strictly either-or.

If you go around the system, it's cheating. Do it if you can't win without it, but don't excuse it.

It's not cheating, it's potentially exploitative. And there's no need to "excuse" anything.