Page 80 of 127 FirstFirst ... 3055707172737475767778798081828384858687888990105 ... LastLast
Results 1,581 to 1,600 of 2522

Thread: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

  1. #1581
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,243

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Why, why, why do you guys still use the completely bugged out "throw javelins before charge" option? This one in the export_descr_unit file:

    Code:
    stat_pri_attr           prec
    It's better just to say "no" instead of "prec" here, because otherwise units with javelins only occasionally throw them, almost never throw them on command, and turn into absolute idiots when you attempt to have them throw javelins at other units from walls, even with the fire at will option. Sometimes units don't throw them at all and just rush towards the enemy for melee. And maybe, maybe if you're lucky, they'll throw them at the very end of the battle at a stupid moment when your general's bodyguard unit is in the way or something obnoxious like that.

    I refuse to play any campaign with the "prec" thing enabled. You guys should consider getting rid of it entirely. It's useless. It doesn't matter if the intention was to faithfully emulate Roman battle tactics of throwing pila once and then charging. If its bugged out then it serves no purpose at all and is only a negative thing dragging the game down.

  2. #1582

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Why, why, why do you guys still use the completely bugged out "throw javelins before charge" option? This one in the export_descr_unit file:

    Code:
    stat_pri_attr           prec
    It's better just to say "no" instead of "prec" here, because otherwise units with javelins only occasionally throw them, almost never throw them on command, and turn into absolute idiots when you attempt to have them throw javelins at other units from walls, even with the fire at will option. Sometimes units don't throw them at all and just rush towards the enemy for melee. And maybe, maybe if you're lucky, they'll throw them at the very end of the battle at a stupid moment when your general's bodyguard unit is in the way or something obnoxious like that.

    I refuse to play any campaign with the "prec" thing enabled. You guys should consider getting rid of it entirely. It's useless. It doesn't matter if the intention was to faithfully emulate Roman battle tactics of throwing pila once and then charging. If its bugged out then it serves no purpose at all and is only a negative thing dragging the game down.
    We removed prec in 2.3; it broke phalanxes (through infiltration) and ruined the charge of javelin-armed infantry.

    The problems it causes are less troublesome than the issues without it, thus its been restored in 2.35.

  3. #1583

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Why, why, why do you guys still use the completely bugged out "throw javelins before charge" option? This one in the export_descr_unit file:

    Code:
    stat_pri_attr           prec
    It's better just to say "no" instead of "prec" here, because otherwise units with javelins only occasionally throw them, almost never throw them on command, and turn into absolute idiots when you attempt to have them throw javelins at other units from walls, even with the fire at will option. Sometimes units don't throw them at all and just rush towards the enemy for melee. And maybe, maybe if you're lucky, they'll throw them at the very end of the battle at a stupid moment when your general's bodyguard unit is in the way or something obnoxious like that.

    I refuse to play any campaign with the "prec" thing enabled. You guys should consider getting rid of it entirely. It's useless. It doesn't matter if the intention was to faithfully emulate Roman battle tactics of throwing pila once and then charging. If its bugged out then it serves no purpose at all and is only a negative thing dragging the game down.
    It works reasonably for me. They throw one volley, start charging, throw second volley at point blank and finish charge. FAW works too. The charge gets messed up a bit when target moves, but it's not really a big problem.

  4. #1584
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,243

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    We removed prec in 2.3; it broke phalanxes (through infiltration)
    Isn't that what javelins are supposed to do?! Breaking the wall of pikes/sarissae apart so that they're less of a threat? Unless of course I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here.

    and ruined the charge of javelin-armed infantry.
    It only ruins the charge if you don't know how to left or right click with your mouse to choose either an immediate melee charge (represented by a sword mouse cursor) or a missile shooting (represented by a little bow for your mouse cursor). I could see how this might be a problem for some inexperienced users who don't know much about managing unit tactics in M2TW (because things are moving so fast in the heat of battle), but for me it's certainly not a problem. I've been playing these games for a decade now.

    The problems it causes are less troublesome than the issues without it, thus its been restored in 2.35.
    Fair enough, but I certainly won't be using it in my own personalized version. I find it to be unbearable.

    On another note, you guys should consider using this ancient Roman mosaic for something, because it has a rare image of someone using a sling weapon! From the Villa Dar Buc Ammera in Libya, the photo taken by Jona Lendering for Livius.org:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwIKhI0WoAAGnjN.jpg

  5. #1585

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Isn't that what javelins are supposed to do?! Breaking the wall of pikes/sarissae apart so that they're less of a threat? Unless of course I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here.
    No, it isn't the javelins that infiltrate, without prec javelin-armed infantry are able to push into the pike formation - even frontally. With prec, they can't do that anywhere near as readily.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    It only ruins the charge if you don't know how to left or right click with your mouse to choose either an immediate melee charge (represented by a sword mouse cursor) or a missile shooting (represented by a little bow for your mouse cursor). I could see how this might be a problem for some inexperienced users who don't know much about managing unit tactics in M2TW (because things are moving so fast in the heat of battle), but for me it's certainly not a problem. I've been playing these games for a decade now.

    Fair enough, but I certainly won't be using it in my own personalized version. I find it to be unbearable.
    Again, no. If you Alt+Click they run, then stop at javelin range, change weapons, then having lost all momentum, try to charge again. Losing their charge bonus because they're too close, have lost cohesion, and too few are travelling fast enough to actually charge. It ruined Celtic infantry units, who have a doubled charge bonus representing their preference for the charge.

    We observed all of this for a long time in 2.3 and playtested the difference extensively. With prec is better than without. Furthermore, changing the ammo from 1 to 2 seems to have solved most of the freezing, which occurred pre-2.3 and caused us to remove prec in the first place.

  6. #1586

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    So, one thing that I don't understand, and that kind of irritates me, is that I can't recruit new client rulers from my allied democracies/oligarchies, because the client ruler is only available at the lower tier of the allied government building. Sometimes I'll have a ruler who is recruited at the age of 45, and then he dies 15 years later, and I've also had it happen that a city is taken (the ruler is then killed during the subsequent occupation) and then when I retake the city I have no one to govern it without first completely destroying the government building and starting again from scratch. Would you guys be amenable to leaving the client ruler as a recruitable unit, but just having recruitment be set at a 100 year refresh (a new client ruler every 25 years doesn't seem out of the question to me). Thoughts?
    | Community Creative Writing
    | My Library
    | My Mapping Resources
    | My Nabataean AAR for EBII
    | My Ongoing Creative Writing

  7. #1587

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilo11 View Post
    So, one thing that I don't understand, and that kind of irritates me, is that I can't recruit new client rulers from my allied democracies/oligarchies, because the client ruler is only available at the lower tier of the allied government building. Sometimes I'll have a ruler who is recruited at the age of 45, and then he dies 15 years later, and I've also had it happen that a city is taken (the ruler is then killed during the subsequent occupation) and then when I retake the city I have no one to govern it without first completely destroying the government building and starting again from scratch. Would you guys be amenable to leaving the client ruler as a recruitable unit, but just having recruitment be set at a 100 year refresh (a new client ruler every 25 years doesn't seem out of the question to me). Thoughts?
    I'm afraid not. It's by design that you have to destroy and start all over again if you lose your Client Ruler, it represents the turmoil of establishing a new regime to replace the last.

    It's only because the destroy_building command doesn't work properly that Allied Governments aren't auto-destroyed like any other sort, they shouldn't be remnant after conquering a place.

  8. #1588

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Ah, I see. Well then, in order to be true to your vision, I will destroy my government building and start over
    | Community Creative Writing
    | My Library
    | My Mapping Resources
    | My Nabataean AAR for EBII
    | My Ongoing Creative Writing

  9. #1589

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    The Nezagdar i Kappodakiya (Anatolian Spearmen) have the same unit spacing for close and loose formation (0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 rather than the 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.8 of comparable units). I assume this is an oversight?

  10. #1590

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Neyak View Post
    The Nezagdar i Kappodakiya (Anatolian Spearmen) have the same unit spacing for close and loose formation (0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 rather than the 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.8 of comparable units). I assume this is an oversight?
    No, we got rid of the intermediate spacing (1.3), so some units don't have a loose/close option. However, the Archers and Skirmishers from the same set are doing different things, so I'll ask the question.
    Last edited by QuintusSertorius; January 07, 2019 at 04:18 AM.

  11. #1591

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I just wanted to suggest that the FM and generals face-cards (mostly from RTW) be reworked. The RTW ones were aiming at looking realistic with faces taken at different angles. But in the end they look awkward. It feels like there was no actual artistic thought behind the making of it all.

    So, this would be nice to have more "artistic" faces, with a common line for all, but in the same time, with differences form faction to faction.

    One example would be to make faces according to numismatics, which are already plentifully used in loading screens.

    And yes, I have no clue how one could do that. That's life.





    Ah yes, after reading some other posts, I have to say I would love to see an actual 3D Alexandria. I get it it's hard to do that. But at least put the stellemnt near the sea ? Put a big light house near it ?
    Last edited by JC_von_Preussen; January 07, 2019 at 11:44 AM.

  12. #1592

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by JC_von_Preussen View Post
    Ah yes, after reading some other posts, I have to say I would love to see an actual 3D Alexandria. I get it it's hard to do that. But at least put the stellemnt near the sea ? Put a big light house near it ?
    Who wouldn't love that? I was just reinforcing the idea with the post about Carthage because the guys responsible for the buildings are currently very very busy. But the best you could do is trying to learn more about moddeling and textures

  13. #1593

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    I refuse to play any campaign with the "prec" thing enabled. You guys should consider getting rid of it entirely. It's useless. It doesn't matter if the intention was to faithfully emulate Roman battle tactics of throwing pila once and then charging. If its bugged out then it serves no purpose at all and is only a negative thing dragging the game down.
    I ran a ton of tests on this, and the "prec" results are superior across the board. It's not even close. By any chance, are you setting "Enable fire at will mode" to "On" (red)? If so, that will DEFINITELY bork your results. The default is off, and it needs to stay that way.

    Edit: One other thing. Do NOT try to micromanage the charge of your javelin infantry. Just point them at the target and doubleclick to charge (yes, with the javelin icon). They will do everything necessary, to include hurling javelins from a distance and then (with no help from you) racing as a group into the enemy line for the melee.
    Last edited by Kull; January 07, 2019 at 03:29 PM.
    EBII Council

  14. #1594
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,243

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Kull View Post
    I ran a ton of tests on this, and the "prec" results are superior across the board. It's not even close. By any chance, are you setting "Enable fire at will mode" to "On" (red)? If so, that will DEFINITELY bork your results. The default is off, and it needs to stay that way.

    Edit: One other thing. Do NOT try to micromanage the charge of your javelin infantry. Just point them at the target and doubleclick to charge (yes, with the javelin icon). They will do everything necessary, to include hurling javelins from a distance and then (with no help from you) racing as a group into the enemy line for the melee.
    To be honest I fight a lot more sieges than field battles, and I barely notice these things during field battles. What I do notice is that with "prec", during a siege, when my javelin-throwing infantry are standing on walls, when I try to have them throw javelins down on troops rushing towards them, instead of doing that they act like idiots. They start walking down from the walls and towards said enemy troops for a close encounter and proper melee. They don't throw their javelins at all. I don't like that at all. So I'm doing things my way, with no "prec", which I have grown used to anyways.

  15. #1595

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    To be honest I fight a lot more sieges than field battles, and I barely notice these things during field battles. What I do notice is that with "prec", during a siege, when my javelin-throwing infantry are standing on walls, when I try to have them throw javelins down on troops rushing towards them, instead of doing that they act like idiots. They start walking down from the walls and towards said enemy troops for a close encounter and proper melee. They don't throw their javelins at all. I don't like that at all. So I'm doing things my way, with no "prec", which I have grown used to anyways.
    That explains it then, as prec is designed to properly emulate field battle behaviour. If the only issue is with "guys on top of walls", then go ahead and activate "Enable fire at will mode". They'll hurl both javelins at whoever comes in range and will operate normally thereafter. And you'll still have the benefit of proper activity in the few field battles you do fight.

    But hey, to each their own.
    EBII Council

  16. #1596

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    To be honest I fight a lot more sieges than field battles, and I barely notice these things during field battles. What I do notice is that with "prec", during a siege, when my javelin-throwing infantry are standing on walls, when I try to have them throw javelins down on troops rushing towards them, instead of doing that they act like idiots. They start walking down from the walls and towards said enemy troops for a close encounter and proper melee. They don't throw their javelins at all. I don't like that at all. So I'm doing things my way, with no "prec", which I have grown used to anyways.
    Pathfinding in settlements is broken. Therefore all sorts of battlemap behaviour actually results from broken pathfinding, which we cannot fix. Field battles come a long way ahead of sieges in our list of priorities, if something fixes behaviour in field battles, but breaks it in sieges, so be it.

  17. #1597
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,451

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Pathfinding in settlements is broken. Therefore all sorts of battlemap behaviour actually results from broken pathfinding, which we cannot fix. Field battles come a long way ahead of sieges in our list of priorities, if something fixes behaviour in field battles, but breaks it in sieges, so be it.
    It's also broken in the Thrones of Britannia. Which CA apparently can't fix . Maybe field battles are their priorities but they're way more crude than in the M2TW.

    So, the M2TW-EBII player, rejoice and have fun playing!
    Mod leader of the SSHIP: traits, ancillaries, scripts, buildings, geography, economy.
    ..............................................................................................................................................................................
    If you want to play a historical mod in the medieval setting the best are:
    Stainless Steel Historical Improvement Project and Broken Crescent.
    Recently, Tsardoms and TGC look also very good. Read my opinions on the other mods here.
    ..............................................................................................................................................................................
    Reviews of the mods (all made in 2018): SSHIP, Wrath of the Norsemen, Broken Crescent.
    Follow home rules for playing a game without exploiting the M2TW engine deficiencies.
    Hints for Medieval 2 moders: forts, merchants, AT-NGB bug, trade fleets.
    Thrones of Britannia: review, opinion on the battles, ideas for modding. Shieldwall is promising!
    Dominant strategy in Rome2, Attila, ToB and Troy: “Sniping groups of armies”. Still there, alas!

  18. #1598
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,243

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    It's also broken in the Thrones of Britannia. Which CA apparently can't fix . Maybe field battles are their priorities but they're way more crude than in the M2TW.

    So, the M2TW-EBII player, rejoice and have fun playing!
    Amen to that! I'll never buy a new TW release due to these and many other reasons. I happily stick with M2TW, especially because EBII is such a phenomenal and reliable mod.

  19. #1599

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I am giving a try to the KH campaign after having played 240+ turns with the Ptolemaic one.

    I'm at turn 14 and most of my FM have like 3-4 ancillaries each.

    When I was playing with the Ptolemaic, I gained some nice ancillaries in the beginning (10 first turns). But I never reached so many ancillaries per capita. Having Alexandreia and the Museion there, Iwas expecting to get very good ancillaries all the time.
    Now, by comparaison, KH FMs all are very shinny while my ptolemaic generals all were very dull.

    What's more, even after winning some battles, none of my Ptolemaic ever gained command or confidence traits.

    Am I hallucinanting ???

  20. #1600
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,243

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    That might just be the game messing with you intentionally due to the Ptolemies starting off as being so much more powerful than Koinon Hellenon.

    Speaking of ancillaries, as the Romani faction I recently took Syracusae in Sicily and gained the Archimedes ancillary for my faction leader Manivs Valerivs Maximvs. However, I noticed you guys deliberately removed my favorite line from the description of this most worthy and famous Greek mathematician & inventor: "it's a shame he's so argumentative." PUT IT BACK! PUT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS BACK...and while you're at it, this phrase you removed from his ancillary description.

    Also, I want to say one positive thing followed by much-deserved criticism: I LOVE the new Celtic voice mod. The Celtic units sound so menacing and sinister, it's great. The Greeks on the other hand...good Lord...what have you guys done? The voice actor is just not as good as previous ones, hands down, on top of the sound quality diminishing to a contemptible degree. It's barely audible, sounds about as muffled as an old record from the 1930s, and has that "tin can" quality to it. For the love of all that is holy, please record these again and please find a better voice actor, preferably one who still has some testosterone.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •