Rad's proposals fot the team to consider.

[Rad]

Hello

Nothing too big and game changing, just putting some ideas on the table.

1. More officers. Units with more officers feel much more organised and that adds to the immersion and fun battles offer. I am suggesting the maximum number of officers (3) for infantry units - horn blower, standard bearer and commander/champion; 2 officers for cavalry units - standard bearer and commander; and 1-2 for foot archers and skirmishers.
The downside of this idea is... well, it's more work. More models would have to be made, some could do with minor changes to make them more officer like, a few units could use some higher tier unit models as officers... So, if you like it, implement it when you are able to.

2. More free upkeep slots and more types of units that have free upkeep. Probably being worked on, I just had to mention it. I like the idea of "mobilizing" troops from their homes and fields into a field army. Free upkeep simulates that much better than recruitment. Especially useful when you want to save cash, but don't want to disband most of your troops and compromise your defense. Unit upkeep could be raised to balance it out when the troops are in the field.

3. Higher unit morale in general. It's just too easy to rout the AI at the moment...

4. All chariots and javelin cavalry definitely need to have the Skirmish option. Otherwise, it's a lot of micromanagement.

5. Indian lancers don't have a secondary weapon. Give them swords, maybe?

6. Roman Family members shouldn't have to have to be in Rome to get elected. Due to the fact that a turn last 3 months, and that the distance that can be traveled per turn is quite short, getting characters to Rome for elections gets impractical after a while - i.e. when the Republic expands. I feel it is the best solution. The solution in EB1 worked just fine, as far as I remember. The idea that the characters should be in Rome for elections was great, but it's proving to be difficult to effectively roleplay.

6.1 Got an idea, might work!
How about making a trait that eligible Roman FMs receive during winter? It would be named "Went to Rome for the elections" or something similar. It would simulate the FMs' departure to Rome to get elected. The FMs in question would receive a 100% movement penalty. Also, they should receive some trade/tax/law/happiness penalty, which should simulate the effects of their departure... they went away, and left a skeleton crew to manage things while they are getting elected...

What would we get out of this? We would still have historically correct, immersive roleplay AND no major disruptions to our strategic plans and management.

I was inspired by the "Babylonian New Year" trait. Seleucid players and the team should know what I am talking about.
Hope you like it.


7. The whole idea of let's give regular units to serve as bodyguards for family members should be abandoned.
It's seriously messing up the economy of several factions, most notably the Ptolemaic dynasty. A lot of their FMs have high upkeep Hippeis units which aren't being cost effective since the characters stay in cities and manage, thus creating a large monetary deficit.
Also, some other FMs have low tier infantry units to act as guards... not the safest choice.

8. I am highly supportive of the idea to make recruiting more expensive, and lower upkeep costs for units.

9. Minor graphic improvements and fixes:

a. Dacian light phalanx should get nicer looking spears... the current ones look half done :/
Same goes for Dacian light cavalry and the placeholder bodyguard unit.


Additional suggestions may be added in time.
Fellow players and EB team members, feel free to comment and add your own suggestions. I would be most happy if I somehow contributed to EB2's final, glorious version.



Respect,


Rad

[WhiffOfGrapeshot]

1 is very easily doable, just not a huge priority. The models could be roughly the same as the base unit in most cases, just with added accessories, and doesn't take too too much work, but it's still more of a final polish thing than anything to fix while so much is left to be done, unless a submodder wishes to do it early. It'll 100% certainly be done by later builds, though.

2 and 3 are all about balance, which is ever being tweaked and fixed. It's all about balancing realism, playability for the player, and things the AI can actually take advantage of properly.

[Rad]

Thank you for your reply =)
1 definitely not a priority, it would just be an awesome addition.
2 and 3 are my personal preferences, based on my experience with the mod so far.

[Rad]

4. All chariots and javelin cavalry definitely need to have the Skirmish option. Otherwise, it's a lot of micromanagement.

5. Indian lancers don't have a secondary weapon. Give them swords, maybe?

[Thuycidides]

Skirmishing units need to actually skirmish. Otherwise there is no point in giving more units the ability. As things are now they mostly stand and there and wait for infantry to pull them into melee combat.

[torongill]

Skirmishing units need to actually skirmish. Otherwise there is no point in giving more units the ability. As things are now they mostly stand and there and wait for infantry to pull them into melee combat.

I've stated that in other threads on the topic, the main problem is that the Total War series simulate pitched battles and not even the complete battle, but the final advance. Heavy infantry and heavy cavalry sprint, negating the "speed is armor" theory, archers and slingers deal much more damage comparatively while costing just as much. One major bug, which nerfs the skirmishers is the fact that cavalry can sprint through friendly units without even breaking stride, which means that the enemy general can charge through his advancing heavies and skirmishers and engage your skirmisher unit. Fix that, force cavalry to use clear paths, and it will help - a lot.

From read both here at twcenter and at the .org the team is aware of the problem and is trying to fix it. For the time being however, QuintusSertonius' submod is the best solution. It takes care of the most glaring problems of the battle side of the game. One more solution would be to tweak the capabilities of units on the battle map, for example not allowing cavalry to be able to operate on steep terrain.

However, skirmishers, both foot and mounted, should have influence and impact beyond the battlefield, as they did historically. Light units gathered supplies, guarded the supply lines, they were also the advanced guard and the scouts of the army, which without them was practically blind and harassed left and right. Right now most of these capabilities are awarded randomly to generals just for being alive, and frankly ridiculous ancillaries. When/if we manage to transfer those to the skirmishers in the army, we'd be on the right path.

One last thing, as always. Currently the bane of skirmishers are missile units and cavalry. It's simple really - when you have say one types of javelineers, but two types of slingers and two types of archers, all of which cost roughly the same and refill the recruitment pool at the same rate as the javelineer unit, you'll be four times more likely to recruit a missile unit due to sheer availability. Add survivability (archers and slingers normally operate from behind the battle line, javelineers in front of it) and it becomes even more lopsided.

[Garensterz]

Well there's only one thing on my mind at this moment is make all pike units switch automatically in guard mode even before the battle starts, so that even the AI will put their pikes down while they walk instead of a slant raise that they're doing currently.

[QuintusSertorius]

However, skirmishers, both foot and mounted, should have influence and impact beyond the battlefield, as they did historically. Light units gathered supplies, guarded the supply lines, they were also the advanced guard and the scouts of the army, which without them was practically blind and harassed left and right. Right now most of these capabilities are awarded randomly to generals just for being alive, and frankly ridiculous ancillaries. When/if we manage to transfer those to the skirmishers in the army, we'd be on the right path.

As before, I'm very keen to see what can be done in this area; I agree attaching them somewhat randomly to the general's traits and ancillaries is not very realistic at all.

There's the potential to introduce a very nice (and realistic) dichotomy here. You need light troops (infantry and cavalry) on the campaign map, they ensure you are well-supplied, move quickly and aware of what's going on around you. However, you need heavy troops (infantry and cavalry) on the battle map, since they will bear the brunt of the fighting. It's not an option to just take one and not the other, but instead a question of how you strike the balance between the two.

Talking of logistics, one of the things you could dodge in EB1 was logistics, by moving your army under a Captain, rather than FM, since that was all attached to their traits. This is less viable a tactic in EBII due to loyalty issues, but is still possible. Can the logistical traits also be moved to units, rather than the FM leading them?

In fact, do you want to take this to a dedicated topic of it's own?

One last thing, as always. Currently the bane of skirmishers are missile units and cavalry. It's simple really - when you have say one types of javelineers, but two types of slingers and two types of archers, all of which cost roughly the same and refill the recruitment pool at the same rate as the javelineer unit, you'll be four times more likely to recruit a missile unit due to sheer availability. Add survivability (archers and slingers normally operate from behind the battle line, javelineers in front of it) and it becomes even more lopsided.

Hellenistic factions at least have somewhat more balance in this regard, for example you have both Akontistai and Euzonoi for "basic" javelineers (plus regional ones like Illyrian Peltastai), then Kretan Peltastai and Peltastai Logades for elite versions. Though what's available may change with the implementation of the Thureophoroi reform event. But your point still stands, there are many more types of archers and slingers, who are death to unarmoured javelineers, thus more cost effective. There's currently no reason beyond an attempt at realism to recruit javelineers over archers/slingers.

[Rad]

Played a custom game with the Indians... you forget about the chariots for 5 seconds and they die.

[Rad]

Fellas, although I agree with you that light troops very very important and generals could and should get traits for having/not having them, I just don't see the connection between that and giving javelin cavalry/chariots the option to skirmish. One is historical realism and campaign gameplay, the other is battlefield gameplay.

Now. For my next suggestion. As a Roman, I hate to advocate any sort roleplay compromise, but I have to.

6. Roman Family members shouldn't have to have to be in Rome to get elected. Due to the fact that a turn lasts 3 months, and that the distance that can be traveled per turn is quite short, getting characters to Rome for elections gets impractical after a while - i.e. when the Republic expands. I feel it is the best solution. The solution in EB1 worked just fine, as far as I remember. The idea that the characters should be in Rome for elections was great, but it's proving to be difficult to effectively roleplay.

Let's look at the other options.

a. Turns are made to last 1 month. The game triples in length and that complicates things campaign and script vise. A LOT.
b. Travel distance is drastically increased to accurately represent how much could be traveled in 3 months. That would make the campaign hell for the AI. I don't think that human players (us) would be particularly affected. We'd just have to be on guard.
c. The terms get prolonged to a more practical length of time. Unhistorical maybe?

[pepelomb]

6. Roman Family members shouldn't have to have to be in Rome to get elected. Due to the fact that a turn lasts 3 months, and that the distance that can be traveled per turn is quite short, getting characters to Rome for elections gets impractical after a while - i.e. when the Republic expands. I feel it is the best solution. The solution in EB1 worked just fine, as far as I remember. The idea that the characters should be in Rome for elections was great, but it's proving to be difficult to effectively roleplay.

I have and idea of a possible solution, maybe giving a temporal trait to characters for moving a lot faster in this times, so FM can reach rome sooner, but this trait only applies if characters is alone, so no one can use it to move armies faster

[spanish_emperor]

I have and idea of a possible solution, maybe giving a temporal trait to characters for moving a lot faster in this times, so FM can reach rome sooner, but this trait only applies if characters is alone, so no one can use it to move armies faster

I don't think it is possible to increase the movement of the general without affecting the army he is commanding. A better alternative, but historically inaccurate, would be to have the traits last longer so that generals don't have to return every year or so to get elected.

[Rad]

@pepe
I don't think it can be done the way proposed. Good thinking, though.


@Spanish

Trouble is, it has been done already. The offices can get extended for another 4-5 years. However, it's still not long enough for a general to get elected, go the to a far away province and fight a war/govern effectively with the current settings *turn time, travel distance etc*. Any further extensions would be historically inaccurate...

[Rad]

7. The whole idea of let's give regular units to serve as bodyguards for family members should be abandoned.
It's seriously messing up the economy of several factions, most notably the Ptolemaic dynasty. A lot of their FMs have high upkeep Hippeis units which aren't being cost effective since the characters stay in cities and manage, thus creating a large monetary deficit.
Also, some other FMs have low tier infantry units to act as guards... not the safest choice.

8. I am highly supportive of the idea to make recruiting more expensive, and lower upkeep costs for units.

[QuintusSertorius]

7. The whole idea of let's give regular units to serve as bodyguards for family members should be abandoned.
It's seriously messing up the economy of several factions, most notably the Ptolemaic dynasty. A lot of their FMs have high upkeep Hippeis units which aren't being cost effective since the characters stay in cities and manage, thus creating a large monetary deficit.
Also, some other FMs have low tier infantry units to act as guards... not the safest choice.

I think both instances are actually placeholders, rather than final choices.

But I have to say, I like the idea of more variability in FM bodyguard, just not if it means they have huge upkeep. Especially in the case of Generals/Client Rulers, having a variety of bodyguard units makes things richer.

[Rad]

Trouble is, that variability doesn't last. All further FMs get generic bodyguards, I believe.
The current state only messes up starting finances, which are enormously important.

[Rad]

6.1 Got an idea, might work!
How about making a trait that eligible Roman FMs receive during winter? It would be named "Went to Rome for the elections" or something similar. It would simulate the FMs' departure to Rome to get elected. The FMs in question would receive a 100% movement penalty. Also, they should receive some trade/tax/law/happiness penalty, which should simulate the effects of their departure... they went away, and left a skeleton crew to manage things while they are getting elected...

What would we get out of this? We would still have historically correct, immersive roleplay AND no major disruptions to our strategic plans and management.

I was inspired by the "Babylonian New Year" trait. Seleucid players and the team should know what I am talking about.
Hope you like it.

[Rad]

9. Minor graphic improvements and fixes:

a. Dacian light phalanx should get nicer looking spears... the current ones look half done :/
Same goes for Dacian light cavalry and the placeholder bodyguard unit.

[clay_bobby]

As for the bodyguard units, I know that TATW has a bodyguard switcher script that, in my experience with it, has worked quite well. I don't know how familiar you all are with that submod but it works along the lines of putting your general or FM into a certain leveled settlement ( second tier castle and third or fourth tier city ) and hit the hotkey for it ( shift + c ) and it has popup screens to choose the bodyguard unit of your choice, similar to choosing your next successor in EBII. And since they use a hidden trait for the ability to switch bodyguards any coming of age/adopted/recruited general will eventually end up with the trait sooner or later, or if it doesn't seem to be coming up for your generals you can always just give it to him yourself. I think this would be an awesome addition to EBII as for me , I like having my head general leading his men on horseback and some "lieutenants" leading some elite infantry unit to help hold the line. And it will definitely bring diversity to general bodyguards.