Suggestions

[jeanlannes]

First of all, a big gratitute to you and Attila for making BI playable and enjoyable.

About sieges, i have a lot of questions. First of all, I think there are too many large stone walls, which doesn't seem very realistic. I suggest to reduce all of them to simply stone walls. Maybe even eliminate the possibility of upgrading stone walls. You could leave just Rome (¿and Constantinople?) with bigger walls, though still think that eliminating large and epic stone walls would be better.
Siege towers now. Can it be restricted it to romans?. I don't like the idea of vandal or hunic engineers buinding that kind of weaponry. In the same direction maybe you could reduce ballistas and onagers to romans, why do the franks can train them?.
Finally, do you know how to reduce siege towers rate of fire?, because they use to kill half of the unit defending the wall before it reaches it.

On nomad cavalry, are you planning to reduce training and upkeeping costs?, because i think these people lived on a horse and were almost born with a bow on their hands, so they shouldn't need too much training.

Another one, what about eliminating weapons and armour upgrades (and armouries)?. For example, should the weapon and the armour of a legio comitatensis be different just because it was raised in Rome instead than in Ravenna?. Also, experience should came from the battlefied, not from the training. So, all units should be raised with 0 experience.

Thank you for your time.

[Ramon Gonzales y Garcia]

First of all, a big gratitute to you and Attila for making BI playable and enjoyable.

thank you for posting your comments :original:

About sieges, i have a lot of questions. First of all, I think there are too many large stone walls, which doesn't seem very realistic. I suggest to reduce all of them to simply stone walls. Maybe even eliminate the possibility of upgrading stone walls. You could leave just Rome (¿and Constantinople?) with bigger walls, though still think that eliminating large and epic stone walls would be better.

a very good idea, will put it into consideration, I think there's a mod where walls are unbuildable for Barbarians and from what I heard theres a lot of conquests going on, maybe we wouldn't go that far but...

Siege towers now. Can it be restricted it to romans?. I don't like the idea of vandal or hunic engineers buinding that kind of weaponry. In the same direction maybe you could reduce ballistas and onagers to romans, why do the franks can train them?.

I agree with you on the siege towers, unfortunately, I doubt if there's a way to limit siege towers to Romans... as for the Franks, would the Franks NOT have been able to build battlefield artillery? am not sure about this, if you can refer me to some sort of evidence (or argument) that they did not at this time in history, I can easily remove them from the mod

Finally, do you know how to reduce siege towers rate of fire?, because they use to kill half of the unit defending the wall before it reaches it.

this is possible, and I thought I did this already, but couldn't remember the file to edit... will post it later.

On nomad cavalry, are you planning to reduce training and upkeeping costs?, because i think these people lived on a horse and were almost born with a bow on their hands, so they shouldn't need too much training.

Yes, I was planning on doing these, making the cavalry relatively cheaper and faster to train and maintain for steppe cultures (even compared to their infantry), and also for the lower tier infantry of the barbarians.

Another one, what about eliminating weapons and armour upgrades (and armouries)?. For example, should the weapon and the armour of a legio comitatensis be different just because it was raised in Rome instead than in Ravenna?

I was thinking of requiring a smith/armourer to be able to build armoured units, esp for barbarians, yet I do not find a region with better smithies/armourers to have better quality weapons/armor (thus upgrade effect) to be absurd at all. for sure some regions would have had better smiths/purer iron, better techniques than others...

Also, experience should came from the battlefied, not from the training. So, all units should be raised with 0 experience.

here, also, I think a well trained first timer would respond to the stress of battle about as well as a veteran that didn't have any training at all. else what use is the longer training time? was looking at other bonuses, though, and maybe these could represent training...

Thank you for your time

thank you for yours :original:

[Cyrus the Virus]

Please do not remove the stone walls for barbarians

The capitals could be the only one who would have epic stone walls etc. And others factions capitals only able to build large stone wall?

Keep the barabarian stone wall for crying out loud.

[Joe Bloggs Jnr]

sometimes it iz hard to getz men through gates.

[jeanlannes]

would the Franks NOT have been able to build battlefield artillery?

Well, I'm not an expert, but for me it's strange they are the unique barbarian faction able to train this kind of units. Certainly they were not the unique in contact with roman culture nor the one with the more length contact. Don't know, maybe there was some french guy at CA ...
This takes me to the topic of roman engineering. One thing I'm starting to mod myself is to limit (even more) big engineering works (including docks) to romans (and sassanids in some cases), not only by making other factions uable to build it, but even giving this factions lower bonuses due to this type of buildings when they conquer regions where this engineering works are already built. I can't assure that barbarians were unable to benefit from having an aqueduct, but I'm pretty sure they were unable of it's maintenance, so it can be supposed than with time passing, these buildings benefits would decrease in barbarian hands.

About armouries and experience, i'm sorry we disagree.

I do not find a region with better smithies/armourers to have better quality weapons/armor (thus upgrade effect) to be absurd at all. for sure some regions would have had better smiths/purer iron, better techniques than others.

I think roman weaponry and armoury should be uniform, with very few differences due to the manufacture origin. Furthermore, Rome is still an empire. If some regions made the better armours of weapons, I suppose it would be manufactured there, and then brought to the empire arsenals in order to equip the legions.

I was thinking of requiring a smith/armourer to be able to build armoured units, esp for barbarians

That would be an interesting solution, but not only for barbs.

As for the experience, I think better buildings should give you the option of training better units, but the lower ones should remain units with low training level. If you upgrade a barrack in order to train comitatensis, you can train this better unit or still the low trained Limitanei, that cost the same time and money (so the same training level) than before the building upgrade, and so it would maintain the same stats.

I think a well trained first timer would respond to the stress of battle about as well as a veteran that didn't have any training at all.

I can't see a better training than fighting. A veteran has the best training.

else what use is the longer training time?

Longer training time makes better units that have better stats ,i.e. a Legio Palatina has already great stats, why is raised with 3 experience points?. You can increase its original stats if you think is necessary, but i think a first timer is a guy with no experience.

Forgive me if I'm being too boring. Thanks to you, it's the first time I'm enjoying B.I.. but I've discovered I'm compulsively perfecionist. Amyway, love your mod. Keep the great work.

[Ramon Gonzales y Garcia]

Well, I'm not an expert, but for me it's strange they are the unique barbarian faction able to train this kind of units. Certainly they were not the unique in contact with roman culture nor the one with the more length contact. Don't know, maybe there was some french guy at CA.

but the Alemanni, Burgundii, and Lombardi can also build Onagers...

This takes me to the topic of roman engineering. One thing I'm starting to mod myself is to limit (even more) big engineering works (including docks) to romans (and sassanids in some cases), not only by making other factions uable to build it, but even giving this factions lower bonuses due to this type of buildings when they conquer regions where this engineering works are already built. I can't assure that barbarians were unable to benefit from having an aqueduct, but I'm pretty sure they were unable of it's maintenance, so it can be supposed than with time passing, these buildings benefits would decrease in barbarian hands.

be careful of negative numbers, though, they don't work in EDB :wink:

About armouries and experience, i'm sorry we disagree.I think roman weaponry and armoury should be uniform, with very few differences due to the manufacture origin. Furthermore, Rome is still an empire. If some regions made the better armours of weapons, I suppose it would be manufactured there, and then brought to the empire arsenals in order to equip the legions.

now that I think about it, am thinking of giving a bonus to weaponry and armour faction wide... required to build smith level1 for bladed weapons, but would give weapon bonus depending on faction; required level2 for armour but some factions would automatically get bonus while some would not... would represent a factions better manufacturing technology?...

That would be an interesting solution, but not only for barbs.

yup, not only for barbs

As for the experience, I think better buildings should give you the option of training better units, but the lower ones should remain units with low training level. If you upgrade a barrack in order to train comitatensis, you can train this better unit or still the low trained Limitanei, that cost the same time and money (so the same training level) than before the building upgrade, and so it would maintain the same stats...Longer training time makes better units that have better stats ,i.e. a Legio Palatina has already great stats, why is raised with 3 experience points?. You can increase its original stats if you think is necessary, but i think a first timer is a guy with no experience.

hmmm... I see your point

I can't see a better training than fighting. A veteran has the best training.

I disagree with this statement, certainly a well trained individual/unit would fare better than a veteran of a few battles who have had no prior/later training. say... a unit of militia with a couple of battles in their belt would certainly not fare as well as a freshly trained unit of Comitatenses.

Forgive me if I'm being too boring.

not to worry, you are not

Thanks to you, it's the first time I'm enjoying B.I.. but I've discovered I'm compulsively perfecionist.

Amyway, love your mod. Keep the great work

thanks

[swabian]

your skins are really good, but there is one thing which is driving me crazy.
the occipital area of the gothic general bodyguards does not exist. that looks so ugly and it's really enervating. my suggestion is to fix that. please, the goths are such a cool faction and this kills off a lot of motivation to play them, imho. also, this green band seems to be ripped.



best regards

[Ramon Gonzales y Garcia]

your skins are really good, but there is one thing which is driving me crazy.
the occipital area of the gothic general bodyguards does not exist. that looks so ugly and it's really enervating. my suggestion is to fix that. please, the goths are such a cool faction and this kills off a lot of motivation to play them, imho. also, this green band seems to be ripped.



best regards

ahhh! sorry about that! but the Visigoths will have new skins in new version so that will be definitely fixed in next version, if there is an update will update that...
this should be in bug reports, though :wink:

[Crazy_Ivan80]

maybe it's a feature but the entire map is visible, as in "I can see each and every army even if it's on the other side of the world". That takes away a great deal of the strategical considerations if you know where your opponent's men are.

and some of the latin spelling/grammar seems to be off.

that said: I'm enjoying what I've seen so far

[Ramon Gonzales y Garcia]

maybe it's a feature but the entire map is visible, as in "I can see each and every army even if it's on the other side of the world". That takes away a great deal of the strategical considerations if you know where your opponent's men are.

I forgot to turn on FOW in the preferences, then later decided not to mess with the preferences anymore in later updates. you can enable this if you want to.

and some of the latin spelling/grammar seems to be off.

if you have a chance to do so, please point out these errors so we can correct them. :original:

that said: I'm enjoying what I've seen so far

I'm glad you're enjoying it. sorry for the late reply

[Crazy_Ivan80]

if you have a chance to do so, please point out these errors so we can correct them. :original:

yeah, I figured that FOW out

my latin is now long behind me so while I may feel there's something wrong I can generally not say what it is that is wrong exactly.

What is wrong however are the names for the roman empires (all of them :p): gramatically that is.

"Imperia" should be "imperium" it is, after all, "Imperium Romanum" so iirc, Imperium Romanum Occidentalis/Orientalis.
For the rebels it's a bit harder since they didn't see themselves as anything but Roman, the labels "Gallic Empire" are afaik, modern labels, not contemporary. As such the only things they need is a grammar overhaul along the same lines as the empires proper (Imperium Gall(i)orum/Asiorum)

[Byzantos]

As noobie poster but veteran IBFD player, a few suggestions:

1) Pse keep FOW off as default as this is more realistic - not to have any intelligence on what's going on in world in terms of troop movements, change of allegiance or conquered provinces is unrealistic (ancient human intelligence was very good considering they had no technology and this can be accommodated in turn lengths. Also, surely everyone knew where eg rome/constantinople was? Even nomads knew them by reputation and were atrracted by wealth? If there's trade, there's intelligence!

2) Light troops should be able to find more mountain passes for more strategic surprises - present terrain is becoming very chess-like and predictable - too much channelling effect?

3) When no character present on battlefield, can player choose which unit will be "general unit" instead of crazy AI choices like skirmishers in a heavy infantry army etc etc

4) Would it be possible to deliberately ravage an area without having to wait for accumulative effects - "scorched earth" - also to specifically destroy a province's economic base - mining, marble etc etc. In other words a quick in and out action by a raiding force?

5) This would mean more strategic and tactical flexibility to entire game as light forces sent on a scorched earth mission would also have to be countered because of long-term economic effects (no canned food etc etc), forcing even more prioritisation in strategy and tactics (more realism?)

[Cyrus the Virus]

RGyG: How long will the gameplay (years/turns) be in next version?

[Ramon Gonzales y Garcia]

RGyG: How long will the gameplay (years/turns) be in next version?

I think the 4tpy that I made was up to 600 AD? not sure, already

As noobie poster but veteran IBFD player, a few suggestions:
1) Pse keep FOW off as default as this is more realistic - not to have any intelligence on what's going on in world in terms of troop movements, change of allegiance or conquered provinces is unrealistic (ancient human intelligence was very good considering they had no technology and this can be accommodated in turn lengths. Also, surely everyone knew where eg rome/constantinople was? Even nomads knew them by reputation and were atrracted by wealth? If there's trade, there's intelligence!

I will not include a preferences.txt by default in next version but will include it as a "suggested add-ons"

2) Light troops should be able to find more mountain passes for more strategic surprises - present terrain is becoming very chess-like and predictable - too much channelling effect?

the engine is limited in this one, nothing we can do about this...

3) When no character present on battlefield, can player choose which unit will be "general unit" instead of crazy AI choices like skirmishers in a heavy infantry army etc etc

in desc_strat the forst unit automatically becomes the General unit, not sure in a standing army, maybe the "first unit" to have been included in an army?

4) Would it be possible to deliberately ravage an area without having to wait for accumulative effects - "scorched earth" - also to specifically destroy a province's economic base - mining, marble etc etc. In other words a quick in and out action by a raiding force?
5) This would mean more strategic and tactical flexibility to entire game as light forces sent on a scorched earth mission would also have to be countered because of long-term economic effects (no canned food etc etc), forcing even more prioritisation in strategy and tactics (more realism?)

I wish things like these would be possible but again engine limitation, If u can also see the "supply" entries in the scripts you will notice CA was planning on adding a "supply" factor but didn't do so in the end, would have been inrteresting to see ur armies morale steadily decreasing the farther they are afield

[raygun]

Hello there!

First off, thank you so much in making BI so enjoyable, it really give the game a new lease of life!

Secondly, I noticed that the armored horse archers are females in description but they have men's voice in battle.

Also, is it possible to include a male horse archer version or an unarmored version? I think Osprey's Elite Sassanid Cavalry shows they still have parthian style riders as well.



Once again, thanks for all your wonderful efforts! :original:

[Ramon Gonzales y Garcia]

Hello there!
First off, thank you so much in making BI so enjoyable, it really give the game a new lease of life!

you're welcome

Secondly, I noticed that the armored horse archers are females in description but they have men's voice in battle.

hmm, I thought I changed the voice to be female, will look into that

Also, is it possible to include a male horse archer version or an unarmored version? I think Osprey's Elite Sassanid Cavalry shows they still have parthian style riders as well.

I think this can be easily done as I have included one for the Hephthalites anyway...

Once again, thanks for all your wonderful efforts! :original:

thank you for the comments.

[purple elf]

will the elephants have guys on top of them as they look a bit strange with the empty boxes and all 0_0 also please dont remove barbarian walls!

[Ramon Gonzales y Garcia]

will the elephants have guys on top of them as they look a bit strange with the empty boxes and all 0_0 also please dont remove barbarian walls!

do they still have empty boxes? I thought I fixed that, if they still do pls let me know again.

[Godfrey von Bereau]

Is it possible to fix the model of the imperial-household-bodyguard of the ERE, because they just fight with their empty fists, when they change to their second weapon close-combat?
I think this error happens to several heavy cavalry units.

[Ramon Gonzales y Garcia]

Is it possible to fix the model of the imperial-household-bodyguard of the ERE, because they just fight with their empty fists, when they change to their second weapon close-combat?
I think this error happens to several heavy cavalry units.

thanks for this info... will go through the models again...