Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Rail93]

My suggestion: it would be graet if description of units and places could include historical sources: for example from where do we know that hyperaspistai existed or how we came to the conclusion they did. It was a problem for me in EB 1 and now that I have learnt that it contained few semi-fantastical units (that was a huge blow for me and my love for EB) I believe including sources in descriptions would be even nicer. Putting sources is a work who can do basically any member of the twc or org, same as province descriptions, so why not doing this?

[Anubis88]

My suggestion: it would be graet if description of units and places could include historical sources: for example from where do we know that hyperaspistai existed or how we came to the conclusion they did. It was a problem for me in EB 1 and now that I have learnt that it contained few semi-fantastical units (that was a huge blow for me and my love for EB) I believe including sources in descriptions would be even nicer. Putting sources is a work who can do basically any member of the twc or org, same as province descriptions, so why not doing this?

Well i assume it's mainly because of the extra work. And it's very hard to actually make sure what units existed 2000 years ago. A lot of source interpretation along with archeological data is needed to reconstruct the warriors of the time. Sometimes the result was wrong by the current consensus. It's not like there were made up units; it's just that either new data surfaced, or the guy concepting them was not aware of counter arguments.

[Laser101]

There have been many rebellions in the history of the AS, or rebellions from empires in history period. A large portion of these have been completely unsuccessful. Recognition as an independent state is different than just a rebellion; an empire stops calling it a rebellion once the rebellion has been so successful that they have no choice other than to recognize them. Technically, at the start of the war, you are considered a rebel by the AS, not an independent power. This is important to note, because historically speaking, the Baktrians(for example) actually became recognized by the AS later on(I believe). Diodotos and his successors didn't just rebel against the AS, they also maintained themselves against the AS, allowing them to become formally independent(and officially recognized by the AS) as an empire. After defeating the Baktrians in the Battle of Arius, Baktra herself was famously besieged by Antiochos III. This however, was ended by an honorable peace, and no mention of Baktria becoming a satrapy again is mentioned, which suggests that it was just a ceasefire. Offering/accepting a ceasefire is in effect accepting independence of another nation.

The problem is that the mechanics of the game don't represent this kind of war very well. If this were, for example, Crusader Kings 2, then it would simply be a question of winning an independence war. However, in the Total War series this kind of system doesn't exist. The reason why I suggested making it so that the new governments can be built immediately on declaring independence was a) it means that your ability to undertake the reforms isn't contingent upon factors that can be affected by AI behavior and b) switching the 'government' is a purely internal process; whether or not you can do so should not be contingent on whether or not you have forced your former overlords to recognize your independence.

[Tactics Mayers]

Will there be a late period campaign where you can switch before you play? Like using timeframe of Novus Ordo Mundi and be able to play new factions and use those late period units.

[QuintusSertorius]

Will there be a late period campaign where you can switch before you play? Like using timeframe of Novus Ordo Mundi and be able to play new factions and use those late period units.

Not likely before the main mod is finished. That's basically doing it all again, you'd need to rewrite almost everything.

[Hummer]

1. On the summary screen that pops up after every turn, it lists merchant trade as 0. Is that linked to the merchant agent or can it be changed to be the income from the new resources in 2.2 (the former minor settlements)?
2. Last year when EB2 was first released I heard about this thing called court intrigue where if you had FM's in your capital without your FL they had a chance of getting a -1 loyalty but when your FL was in the capital with them you had a chance of getting a +1 loyalty. Is this still active? If so, I'm not really in favor of it. My capital is usually my best city and for roleplaying I like to move all young FM's to it to get educated. But if my FL is off campaigning then I have this issue of poor loyalty. Instead of this court intrigue could we instead link loyalty partly to distance from capital? If a city and governor is particularly far from the capital and your FL has low authority, could the loyalty of that FM be made lower?

[baldamundo]

Would it be possible to tie some of the reform triggers to the 'campaign length' option you choose at the game start? I'm thinking particularly for ones like the Hellenistic thureos reforms that just happen on a particular date. I get that it's historical, and that's the option I'd normally go for on proper campaigns, but frankly even 60 turns takes a fair chunk of time, let alone 200 or more, and sometimes one doesn't want to play out a full multi-century campaign as a particular faction but would still like to try out a wider selection of their units. Let alone that sometimes you just don't have the time, or even just don't have the time before the next patch comes out!

[Milan y Astray]

4 turns for 1 year is too much.
Playing with Romans the Marian reform is about 600.

[Anubis88]

@Hummer

1 - yeah those are merchants. We like it as it is now

2 - no idea about this stuff

@baldamundo

If you want to try the units you can always use costum battles. I don't see the reforms being available at the start if that's what you are suggesting.

@Milan y Astray

4 turns is perfect imho. Yep it took a long time to reach the Marian reforms. Good things happen to those who wait

[romanius24]

This is why its funny when people ask for even later Augustan reforms.
The marian reforms are so late that they dont matter or have the impact they had in real life.

I thought that having legionaires recruitable outside of Italy would be a big deal but my Polybians have no problem garrisoning regions in Mesopotamia and Armenia.
My regions were always Roman Provinces from the start which means no local units can be recruited. All i had was my Italian native troops and it was fine.

But I have almost recreated the maximum of the Roman Empire without any Marians and i have not rushed at all. There were huge breaks between conquests and even between wars with the same faction.

Campaigns that go way after 600 turns just arent natural and most players will never bother playing that long.

In my opinion, the reforms should be paced more evenly for the romans:
0-200 Camillan
200-400 Polybian
400-600+ Marian

[QuintusSertorius]

In my opinion, the reforms should be paced more evenly for the romans:
0-200 Camillan
200-400 Polybian
400-600+ Marian

Not happening, sorry. The Marian reforms are a boon for people who take their time, not an automatic right for anyone playing the Romans. If you can't restrain yourself long enough for the benefits of the Marian reform to have a meaningful impact on your game, that's not the team's problem.

Of course you're more than welcome to edit your own installation to have them reforms occur when you want them to.

[Milan y Astray]

I think 4 is too much. 2 turns for year would be better
Anyway eb2 is the best mod I've ever played

[romanius24]

The 4 turns are way to awesome to reduce. The characters and traits are really great in this mod and it would be a shame to lose that and seasons as well.

[Apani]

Not happening, sorry. The Marian reforms are a boon for people who take their time, not an automatic right for anyone playing the Romans. If you can't restrain yourself long enough for the benefits of the Marian reform to have a meaningful impact on your game, that's not the team's problem.

Of course you're more than welcome to edit your own installation to have them reforms occur when you want them to.

Personally, I like the idea that if you always triumph nobody will ever feel the need for reformation and so they won't happen.
But why do these reforms have a time requirement?

[QuintusSertorius]

Personally, I like the idea that if you always triumphy nobody will ever feel the need for reformation and so they won't happen.
But why do these reforms have a time requirement?

To space them out and prevent them being achievable just by exploiting the conditions so you can get ridiculously overpowered armies by 240BC.

Again, if people want them sooner or want to remove the time-based conditions, they're more than welcome to edit the files for themselves. It isn't terribly difficult.

[Apani]

What about making these reforms triggered by failures instead of success?

[anonimo272]

I have a suggestion for merchants, they could represent trade routes/guilds instead of persons

concept:

people as far as the gauls were fascinated by the blue of egypt, trade ocurred from very far locations, maybe there is no historical evidence for every resource on the map to be traded to every nation/state/tribe however if there was a need, and money envolved there would be a way ( i am just trying to justify the AI commanded merchants/trade routes that may be established in india)

i am also not sure if states established trade routes, but they can be justified by:
- trade routes established by states/tribes run by a family/statesman that doesn't differentiate royal domain from personal belongings, so it would be a "royal" business
-a guild or trade route to obtain certain resources in larger quantities
there can be other reasonings to justify the player to be able to control trade routes, but the biggest for me is that we are already absolute power within the faction we choose, we control every single important statesman, general and troops, we also have absolute control over the economy, theres almost nothing that the player cannot foresee (the economy is quite "linear" )and we also have absolute control over every noteworthy construction
we are already "gods", but for me and for the majority of the players we rolleplay in order to disguise it
and so i believe we can also rolleplay having a meaningfull efect on what and whit whom we trade

in-game:
trade routes/guilds don't last forever as others priorities may appear the disapearance of a trade route is represented by the death of the merchant agent
and we could finally have a meaningfull use of trade rights
D maybe they should be near unkillable by assassins as it doesn’t make much sense

trade routes can be personalized by traits:
economic traits: growing profitability, declining profitability
social traits: population happy with the merchants, population not happy... basicaly the view of the local population on the foreigners and that would affect the health of the merchant, so an unhappy local population can decrease the profits and the durability of the trade route as the merchant would have more probability to die sooner

avaiability: lots of merchants normally are too many and too much to control i would instead suggest 1 merchant per city or less if possible but it should be high requirements (or even only for the settlements with access to ports)

i hope you guys like the idea

[romanius24]

Suggestions for guilds:

Guilds could be used as a way of 'specializing' a city in trade, government, military even further than what buildings currently allow. Its important that those choices feel meaningful but that they also have trade offs and not just bonuses.


Examples:
If you want to focus a city on trading even more, you could support the Opificum Collegia which would give you trade and income bonuses but these organized guilds would likely become corrupt and have a negative effect on public order.

Perhaps instead of trade, you want to focus on the defense and military of a frontier region by building a castra stativa.
This would be a permanent garrisoned fort that would reduce unrest in the region and provide military bonuses but it would cost money to maintain.

It would also be interesting if they could affect traits and missions. Some of those guilds could be more generic and work for most factions.(like the trade guild)


My Guild list so far:
All could be done in levels too as the city grows.
Trade Guilds - Income and Trade bonuses / penalty to public order
Military Garrison - Public order bonuses, free upkeep, extra recruitment slots / large income loss.

Population Growth - it has to be something special so it would explain why not every city has this.
lvl 1 - water reservoirs and dams
lvl 2 - expanded suburbs and insulae
lvl 3 - discounted or free food

Sea Trade - Expanded or special Infrastructure
lvl 1 - Lighthouse
lvl 2 - special/rare commodities
lvl 3 - ?

Public Order - no idea. help?

Education - Those special places that could be use to train Characters further than any normal school.(perhaps even bypassing some 'bad traits"?)
No idea how this would work but maybe something like this:
lvl 1 - general education
lvl 2 - political
lvl 3 - military


I cant think of any others right now. Maybe you guys can help.

[COMIS -3- ΠΑΝΙΩΝΑΡΑ]

First of all well done for your effort!!!i found great improvements since the first time i played the mod and i really enjoy it!!!my few wishes-suggestions are simple,i want t see a variety in aor units and especially in central-north europe like the eb1 has and also if possible a distinction in unit roster between same culture factions(ps the agema phalangitai in hellenic factions)and the retainers in gallic factions!

Again thanks a lot for this mod!!!

[wojtekimbier]

Two things I thought about recently:
–A victorious general could get a recruitment-cost reduction for a turn or two. It would simulate how allies, mercenaries, volunteers or conscripts were less reluctant to join your army if you weren't the one getting smashed. They'd be more willing to join your side with less of a hassle or for less pay because it'd pay off to help the likely winners with loot, political prestige and/or not getting killed.
–Some untrained units could maybe use the "horde" formation instead of a rectangle set in the EDU. You could tweak the distance between them so that it wouldn't be a circle but a wide elipse or an oblong group, and "loose" formation would be used to increase the width. I may be wrong but I can't imagine peasants marching in neat squares etc.