Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Doulkus Pontikus]

So you're saying you aren't adding one?

[Eomund12]

I think units seriously need formation abilities. The Germans, for example, need a shieldwall ability, as they were described in Tacitus as fighting in a dense, phalanx like formation, with shields interlocked. They were also described as forming into a dense wedge shape, but this would be difficult to do. Giving units abilities like this would make battles much more dynamic. Right now, they feel just like slogging matches that last for ages.

[QuintusSertorius]

I think units seriously need formation abilities. The Germans, for example, need a shieldwall ability, as they were described in Tacitus as fighting in a dense, phalanx like formation, with shields interlocked. They were also described as forming into a dense wedge shape, but this would be difficult to do. Giving units abilities like this would make battles much more dynamic. Right now, they feel just like slogging matches that last for ages.

What battle difficulty are you playing on?

And how are you using your cavalry?

[wermez]

You should use in-game screenshots instead of unit images for unit information scrolls. It would look better and It would be easier/faster to make.

[alex33]

You should use in-game screenshots instead of unit images for unit information scrolls. It would look better and It would be easier/faster to make.

The unit info cards look amazing the way they are

[romanius24]

I am not sure giving units abilities would make battles more dynamic.
I mean a shieldwall isnt exactly interactive. The soldiers would still have to fight the battle the same way.

If you really want to make battles dynamic through abilities you would basically have to go the Rome 2 route with their flaming javelins, snake catapults and other weird .

[wermez]

The unit info cards look amazing the way they are

I cant agree, some pictures are OK but a lot are weird looking, with too much strait lines and EB1 pictures that dont match the EB2 model (example: Parthian cataphract). Plus, MTW engine allows multiple models for one unit, it would be shame to represent just one variation in info scrools.

[QuintusSertorius]

I cant agree, some pictures are OK but a lot are weird looking, with too much strait lines and EB1 pictures that dont match the EB2 model (example: Parthian cataphract). Plus, MTW engine allows multiple models for one unit, it would be shame to represent just one variation in info scrools.

All the unit cards have been redone for the autumn release.

[Zeion]

I am not sure giving units abilities would make battles more dynamic.
I mean a shieldwall isnt exactly interactive. The soldiers would still have to fight the battle the same way.

If you really want to make battles dynamic through abilities you would basically have to go the Rome 2 route with their flaming javelins, snake catapults and other weird .

Hah, good response. Made me laugh.

Also, I really enjoy the arty unit cards and unit descriptions. I really love the fact that they are not in-game screenshots.

[Mr. Blob]

I have to admit I haven't be playing EB II since 2.01, mostly annoyed by inability to flash out my own units, but browsing through forums it seems to me that EB II is rather a tame mod compared to the Stainless Steel and the Call of Warhummer. Namely, that you have to wait 150 turns or so for AI to get going. For hardcore M2TW players that is just too slow. I would suggest that team take the cue from Stainless Steel, where prior to starting a campaign a player can chose three different CAIs from tame to highly aggressive and backstabbing one. This could introduce something for everyone.

[Zeion]

I have to admit I haven't be playing EB II since 2.01, mostly annoyed by inability to flash out my own units, [...]

What do you mean exactly?

Otherwise, nice suggestion with multiple AIs. As I have said in the 2.06c release thread, the CAI seems quite good in my current campaign. The AI hasn't been a great threat to me yet, but then again I'm playing Cimmeria, so I'm far away from most of the action. In general, however, the CAI seemed to be quite "friendly" to me (I was able to get some alliances etc).

On the other hand, I do remember my Baktria campaign in 2.01 that I eventually quit because of the lack of challenge (I steamrolled down the Indus valley, Parthia and the Saka were never a threat, the Seleucids accepted my yearly tributes and left me alone [which is sensible, I think]). That was on Hard difficulty though.

[QuintusSertorius]

I have to admit I haven't be playing EB II since 2.01, mostly annoyed by inability to flash out my own units, but browsing through forums it seems to me that EB II is rather a tame mod compared to the Stainless Steel and the Call of Warhummer. Namely, that you have to wait 150 turns or so for AI to get going. For hardcore M2TW players that is just too slow. I would suggest that team take the cue from Stainless Steel, where prior to starting a campaign a player can chose three different CAIs from tame to highly aggressive and backstabbing one. This could introduce something for everyone.

Firstly, it's a completely different game to 2.01; almost every aspect of the underlying mechanics has been changed. This has the biggest impact on recruitment and battles, but also in lots of other areas.

Secondly, that "flash your units" button was re-implemented - though I personally think it's a game-y feature that has no place in a historical mod. But fortunately for everyone else, that wasn't my call alone to make.

Thirdly, CAI is a moving thing right now, but I'm afraid "challenging" hardcode players is not what the mod is about. You get challenge by house rules and moderating your own behaviour, not seeking every exploit you can to defeat the AI.

There's been some discussion around perhaps having some alternate CAI (likely z3n having a submod with tougher CAI in it), but the goal is to appeal to as wide a range of players as possible. That means a game that is playable for casual or new players. Difficulty levels have little impact compared to what you do with the money script and CAI, so that means setting them at a level that evokes something realistic and appropriate to the period. Not simply "hard" for the player.

[Genghis Skahn]

I have to admit I haven't be playing EB II since 2.01, mostly annoyed by inability to flash out my own units, but browsing through forums it seems to me that EB II is rather a tame mod compared to the Stainless Steel and the Call of Warhummer. Namely, that you have to wait 150 turns or so for AI to get going. For hardcore M2TW players that is just too slow. I would suggest that team take the cue from Stainless Steel, where prior to starting a campaign a player can chose three different CAIs from tame to highly aggressive and backstabbing one. This could introduce something for everyone.

A lot has changed since 2.01 and you can now flash your units as freely as you like.

While its an interesting suggestion, it would probably take a lot of work from the team, I'm thinking. Though I'm just a fan myself. More importantly though, the CAI in EB2 isn't supposed to be a hyper aggressive all-out war making machine. Nations are not grown and beaten in the blink of an eye, they take generations to form and fall. It's also extremely unhistorical to have every nation back stab or make war on the player. Some nations were historically allied and or neutral with one another, and EB2 tries to show this. The AI already behaves too aggressively against the player imo, leaving smaller garrisons at borders with neutral nations or even allies can prompt the AI to try an invasion due to the fact that it thinks that you're an easy target in said province--even if you already know you can give a proper defense against them. The team has said on multiple occasions that they aren't trying to cater to all-out blitzes or the more AI crushing tactics that "more hardcore" players probably use.

That being said, I don't think it's a bad suggestion or anything, and I'd be interested to see what the EB team would do in such a situation, it's just that EB2 isn't about being hemmed in on all sides by the AI. It's about depicting nations as how they truly behaved. Total war is exhausting, and it's quite unhistorical to be at war on every front with every nation. You might argue that Rome herself might never have become such a great empire if every single power in the world at this time decided to invade and attack her. Rome had many many allies throughout the years, and this should be depicted in EB2, rather than having her traditional allies(Pergamon for example) gang up with everyone else on her. EB2 also tries to make traditional wars happen as well, and ideally tries to make regional competitors fight each other rather than just letting any old war between 2 nations break out.

[svramj]

Victory conditions involving destroying horde factions can be revisited. They may always manage to escape and settle far away from their starting settlements.

[Zeion]

A lot has changed since 2.01 and you can now flash your units as freely as you like.

While its an interesting suggestion, it would probably take a lot of work from the team, I'm thinking. Though I'm just a fan myself. More importantly though, the CAI in EB2 isn't supposed to be a hyper aggressive all-out war making machine. Nations are not grown and beaten in the blink of an eye, they take generations to form and fall. It's also extremely unhistorical to have every nation back stab or make war on the player. Some nations were historically allied and or neutral with one another, and EB2 tries to show this. The AI already behaves too aggressively against the player imo, leaving smaller garrisons at borders with neutral nations or even allies can prompt the AI to try an invasion due to the fact that it thinks that you're an easy target in said province--even if you already know you can give a proper defense against them. The team has said on multiple occasions that they aren't trying to cater to all-out blitzes or the more AI crushing tactics that "more hardcore" players probably use.

That being said, I don't think it's a bad suggestion or anything, and I'd be interested to see what the EB team would do in such a situation, it's just that EB2 isn't about being hemmed in on all sides by the AI. It's about depicting nations as how they truly behaved. Total war is exhausting, and it's quite unhistorical to be at war on every front with every nation. You might argue that Rome herself might never have become such a great empire if every single power in the world at this time decided to invade and attack her. Rome had many many allies throughout the years, and this should be depicted in EB2, rather than having her traditional allies(Pergamon for example) gang up with everyone else on her. EB2 also tries to make traditional wars happen as well, and ideally tries to make regional competitors fight each other rather than just letting any old war between 2 nations break out.

Absolutely agree with everything you said.

The only concern, however, is that it might be suboptimal if the player's faction "always wins". Of course QS is right: This can be achieved with house rules etc. But if every campaign of EB2 ends up with the player steamrolling the map - then this might not be the result that the developers want. This is especially true for the harder factions. I dont know alot about the ME2 hardcoded-AI but maybe there is a way to prioritize certain cities/factions as opponents.

An example from my current bosporus campaign: playing on VH, I originally expected the Sauromatae to become a real threat early on. It is the only faction that is close by really, but still I thought that - with me being their traditional opponent - they would come after me quickly.

Also, just a random remark: Could the number of rebel provinces be related to that? Since many factions don't share borders with each other, there is no immediate warfare emerging from the situation? Could be wrong.

[Duke of Lancaster]

This has probably been asked a million times before but I was looking through the EBII Twitter feed and caught a glimpse of those badass Roman Marian infantry. Any idea when they'll be available on the campaign?

Thanks, keep up the good work fellas!

[Mr. Blob]

Firstly, it's a completely different game to 2.01; almost every aspect of the underlying mechanics has been changed. This has the biggest impact on recruitment and battles, but also in lots of other areas.

I am aware it is different, but there are not small number of posts talking about passive AI and ability to steamroll it. This could lead to uneventful campaign in which player could lose interest early on.

Secondly, that "flash your units" button was re-implemented - though I personally think it's a game-y feature that has no place in a historical mod. But fortunately for everyone else, that wasn't my call alone to make.

Glad to hear it's back.

Thirdly, CAI is a moving thing right now, but I'm afraid "challenging" hardcode players is not what the mod is about. You get challenge by house rules and moderating your own behaviour, not seeking every exploit you can to defeat the AI.

There's been some discussion around perhaps having some alternate CAI (likely z3n having a submod with tougher CAI in it), but the goal is to appeal to as wide a range of players as possible. That means a game that is playable for casual or new players. Difficulty levels have little impact compared to what you do with the money script and CAI, so that means setting them at a level that evokes something realistic and appropriate to the period. Not simply "hard" for the player.

I understand that mod should be new player friendly, I'm not against it. However, why not implement more aggressive one, like Gracul AI from Stainless Steel, purely as a choice?

[myarta]

This has probably been asked a million times before but I was looking through the EBII Twitter feed and caught a glimpse of those badass Roman Marian infantry. Any idea when they'll be available on the campaign?

Thanks, keep up the good work fellas!

I'm not sure about the Twitter ones, but there were some posted on Moddb and to those the staff recently said that their creator just stopped replying without notice and never uploaded the model files, so they can't use them.

The Autumn Release is coming up soon, but it will only feature fleshed-out Polybians. Despite being avidly interested in them, I haven't heard anything about when post-Marian and Imperial troops are coming other than "not in the Autumn". There hasn't been any official word that I've seen on what the next big content release is, whether Winter, Spring etc. I believe the limitation is 3D artists.

[z3n]

I understand that mod should be new player friendly, I'm not against it. However, why not implement more aggressive one, like Gracul AI from Stainless Steel, purely as a choice?

The aggressive CAI for EBII is already complete. In fact it's the only CAI out of any mod to have the slave faction attack you. In addition to that each faction has their own unique CAI, yet again exclusive to EBII, which in turn allows for many different 'historical' wars and naval invasions.

A slower and more historical build CAI is nearly complete and being tested in the 2.06x series.

[svramj]

Saw the twitter thread and noticed Indian tribal units coming up in the future. Will Takashila get their own version of armoured elephants? Considering Artasahtra mentions elephant armours. Least their FMs will ride on armoured ones acompanied by crew of better equiped bodygaurds (like the ones on Arya rata chariots probably) tHan usual crew. And a heavier swordsmen who could afford better equipments and armour much like macemen.