Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[MagusCaligula]

"In that sense, command stars are a nice visual, but in no way an indication of true tactical genius." - Well in auto-battles are

[BHL 20]

However, a general who has demonstrated his abilities by winning many battles will gain the advantage of better morale among his troops. As a soldier your mindset during a battle will undoubtedly be vastly different when fighting under a proven commander rather than a rookie general.

[DevilTongue141]

It's probably not a very high priority if any, but will the campaignmap be patched to highten certain mountainous areas? Or accentuate these areas more?

The current map has some of the best mountainous areas I have seen in TW (Think about the Alps or the Pyrenees) but also a lot of "Flat mountains" (Most of them to the east of Greece, think Asia minor and beyond). More often than not I need to select my troops to get any clue as to where I can go due to the map portraying everything as flat.


PS is there any reason for blocking off the shore from Georgia (Forgot the ingame region name) when coming from the plains (or viceversa)? There is a single patch of Dense forest in the way, making it seem like an odd but intentional decision to close it off. This however means you have to go all the way to the east and around the mountains.

[QuintusSertorius]

Relief is a tricky area; there's a very fine line between showing some varying height, and simply creating impassable areas with battlemaps that are unplayable. We did have a mapper who was going to look into what could be done within those confines, but he's gone awol.

Cutting Georgia off from the plains is to stop AI-Hayastan ignoring the Seleukids entirely and trying to conquer the steppe. In any case, the passes there weren't really suitable for armies, only the routes around were.

[DevilTongue141]

Interesting. It makes sense to push Armenia south by cutting them off from the north.

And while I am by no means a mapper I did not find any requests for it in the recruitment thread!
Who knows, maybe editting the post or starting a sticky appeal for the funtion might lead to a new mapper.

[Ivir Baggins]

Relief is a tricky area; there's a very fine line between showing some varying height, and simply creating impassable areas with battlemaps that are unplayable. We did have a mapper who was going to look into what could be done within those confines, but he's gone awol.

Cutting Georgia off from the plains is to stop AI-Hayastan ignoring the Seleukids entirely and trying to conquer the steppe. In any case, the passes there weren't really suitable for armies, only the routes around were.

That patch of dense forest does mean that in order to access the bits of Egrisi north of the Caucasus you've got to go all the way around. Would it be workable to trim Egrisi's northern border down to the main line of high mountains?

[Kull]

That patch of dense forest does mean that in order to access the bits of Egrisi north of the Caucasus you've got to go all the way around. Would it be workable to trim Egrisi's northern border down to the main line of high mountains?

A host of horrible things happen if you change a border by even a single pixel. Not a local problem either, but a renumbering of ALL region IDs that causes havoc with a variety of game mechanics.

[Pooploop]

Quintus and Kull, I kinda get the line of reasoning you guys are sticking to: in which victorious battles are but a product of brilliance already present in a particular general. However, I would like to state that it is not the whole picture; that victory could also be a sign of having completed the most arduous learning experience of all - actual battle - and must have some sort of "blossoming" and acknowledging of previously undeveloped or hidden talent (e.g. better traits, better followers/ancillaries/vassals, more command stars). For example, let's say that EB2 has some sort of trait that can be summed up as "Cavalry General" - with accompanying bonus to cavalry damage, morale, and whatnot. Are you saying this trait is more likely to be acquired by some dude who has never led a cavalry army (stack composed of a large percentage of horsemen) in armed conflict but randomly chosen to be born with good stats or to come of age in a settlement with a sort of Army Academy, rather than the opposite? Opposite meaning a general born with average or bad stats and came of age in an undeveloped polis but has led a cavalry force to victory time and time again? I stress my aforementioned example requirement of 30 heroic victories, as I'm not saying that generals whatever their natural talent should be given trait bonuses after a few paltry wins. I'm saying that after such immense achievements there HAS to be some sort of improvement in an aspect of war by that character. Victory in battle is the result of talent possessed before the battle and skills learned during the battle. The high or low stats, and education received by a general should simply increase or decrease the probability of the leader bringing out better traits within himself (and better command stars/crosses).

In terms of ability, no man is born exactly equal or raised exactly equal and your, the EB2 team, decision of hinging the handing out of traits increasing command stars/crosses on this is something I've come to support. However, please don't tell me that victory, therefore mastery of the lessons learned on the hardest test of all - battle - will not generate or "raise" the greatness, in at least a small amount, of a general. That's what I'm ultimately on to: the Total War experience of "raising" and training and shaping a character to become the Hector of their chosen faction, their champion, their pride and delight. If not, then EB2 will be populated by a majority of static, sad, two-star generals (in the mid to later game once historic characters like Pyrrhus have died out) which the player (well me) won't give that much attention to because of the utterly impossibility of them attaining any improvement of traits. Finally, those very few high stat generals will have the players (well me) feel a cheapened experience of using them, as their abilities were an accident of birth (literally) and the improvement of them through battle a pointless endeavor.

[Genghis Skahn]

Quintus and Kull, I kinda get the line of reasoning you guys are sticking to: in which victorious battles are but a product of brilliance already present in a particular general. However, I would like to state that it is not the whole picture; that victory could also be a sign of having completed the most arduous learning experience of all - actual battle - and must have some sort of "blossoming" and acknowledging of previously undeveloped or hidden talent (e.g. better traits, better followers/ancillaries/vassals, more command stars). For example, let's say that EB2 has some sort of trait that can be summed up as "Cavalry General" - with accompanying bonus to cavalry damage, morale, and whatnot. Are you saying this trait is more likely to be acquired by some dude who has never led a cavalry army (stack composed of a large percentage of horsemen) in armed conflict but randomly chosen to be born with good stats or to come of age in a settlement with a sort of Army Academy, rather than the opposite? Opposite meaning a general born with average or bad stats and came of age in an undeveloped polis but has led a cavalry force to victory time and time again? I stress my aforementioned example requirement of 30 heroic victories, as I'm not saying that generals whatever their natural talent should be given trait bonuses after a few paltry wins. I'm saying that after such immense achievements there HAS to be some sort of improvement in an aspect of war by that character. Victory in battle is the result of talent possessed before the battle and skills learned during the battle. The high or low stats, and education received by a general should simply increase or decrease the probability of the leader bringing out better traits within himself (and better command stars/crosses).

In terms of ability, no man is born exactly equal or raised exactly equal and your, the EB2 team, decision of hinging the handing out of traits increasing command stars/crosses on this is something I've come to support. However, please don't tell me that victory, therefore mastery of the lessons learned on the hardest test of all - battle - will not generate or "raise" the greatness, in at least a small amount, of a general. That's what I'm ultimately on to: the Total War experience of "raising" and training and shaping a character to become the Hector of their chosen faction, their champion, their pride and delight. If not, then EB2 will be populated by a majority of static, sad, two-star generals (in the mid to later game once historic characters like Pyrrhus have died out) which the player (well me) won't give that much attention to because of the utterly impossibility of them attaining any improvement of traits. Finally, those very few high stat generals will have the players (well me) feel a cheapened experience of using them, as their abilities were an accident of birth (literally) and the improvement of them through battle a pointless endeavor.

Forgive me, but I literally have no idea what you're talking about--that's the way the current system works for the most part. All that I've done is make sure characters certain characteristics(ie. higher in intelligence/charisma/energy) are more predisposed to certain lifestyles, which is totally rational IMO. There's still a huge load of player choice involved, but if you're asking for every character to be a blank slate whose improvement is subject only to a player's whims, well, that's a bit much. We have the Temperament, Selflessness, Charisma, Energy and Intelligence stats to differentiate character abilities and potential. For example, how would it ever make sense that a character with 1 intelligence is likely or even to become a famous orator or philosopher? I've done my best while working on traits to get a balance of both nature and nurture with regards to character development. Our whole ethnic system is based upon the fact that different ethnicities have different traits or trait capabilities, for example, that's something the player can't control(nature), but there are still TONS of things a player can do to grow said character, regardless of ethnicity(nurture).

Other than that, it sounds like the GoodCavalryGeneral trait might need investigating--but then again there's lots of traitwork to be done, period. You should also remember that ethnicity determines traits as well--some ethnic groups are predisposed to GoodCavalryGeneral(or Commander, whatever its called). As well, traits are based on percentage chances, so bad luck is ever a concern in failing to get a trait.

[Kull]

However, please don't tell me that victory, therefore mastery of the lessons learned on the hardest test of all - battle - will not generate or "raise" the greatness, in at least a small amount, of a general. That's what I'm ultimately on to: the Total War experience of "raising" and training and shaping a character to become the Hector of their chosen faction, their champion, their pride and delight.

As Skahn points out, that is EXACTLY how the current system works. Have one general (preferably with good intelligence & other positive personal characteristics), fight umpteen zillion battles and between that experience and the ancillaries he's likely to accrue, you should have no trouble developing your 6-star "Hector".

My earlier post was a simple statement that the true genius generals didn't get that way by winning umpteen zillion battles. They had a natural, innate affinity for battle tactics. At the right moment, they did the right thing. THAT is what we cannot create in EB2. But if you want a grizzled general who's seen the elephant and is surrounded by gallopers, runners, veteran warriors, masters of horse, trusty steeds, and mercenary captains, sure, that we can and do provide.

[Pooploop]

Whew, well that's a relief. So basically, improvement through battle and player choices (like moving him to certain settlements or jobs) will matter. However, best do that with a character with good stats to get a better result from "investing" time and attention in. Also, I do not want blank slate characters, as the random full bevy of diverse traits given to characters depending on where they've come of age is one of the crowning points of MTW2. Vs other later TW games, there's a bit more life in them, because generals of the later installments all become super soldiers depending on where one spends points in, which kinda makes playing them shallow.

[Mr. Blob]

I would like to suggest to the developers the introduction of the secondary faction color. This ability exists in M2TW, why not use it? It would more easily increase the distinction between the factions, as there are several with similar colors.

[MrBlack103]

The problem with secondary colours is that the minimap shows the borders of each territory within a faction which IMO is ugly.

[Pooploop]

A suggestion - traits that represent's a general's combat ability? Physical prowess, hitpoints, luck - I'm not sure of the specifics but are there ways to represent a more "hands-on" general vs a "strategic" general?

[Kull]

A suggestion - traits that represent's a general's combat ability? Physical prowess, hitpoints, luck - I'm not sure of the specifics but are there ways to represent a more "hands-on" general vs a "strategic" general?

You'll be happy to learn that v2.3 includes a new "Genius General" ancillary which is awarded at birth based on certain personality traits, and provides a number of great battle-related bonuses. This is not a person, but a representation of innate abilities (and thus, obviously, it can't be transferred). FMs from every faction are eligible, but there can ONLY be one in existence at a time. This represents the fact that truly exceptional generals of the Alexander class are incredibly rare, but they do appear from time to time (and yes, there are unusual moments in history where you have both a Scipio and a Hannibal alive at the same time, but that's exceedingly rare). The point is that it's now possible to have a truly amazing general, right from birth (or in M2TW terms, "coming of age").

[Sar1n]

You'll be happy to learn that v2.3 includes a new "Genius General" ancillary which is awarded at birth based on certain personality traits, and provides a number of great battle-related bonuses. This is not a person, but a representation of innate abilities (and thus, obviously, it can't be transferred). FMs from every faction are eligible, but there can ONLY be one in existence at a time. This represents the fact that truly exceptional generals of the Alexander class are incredibly rare, but they do appear from time to time (and yes, there are unusual moments in history where you have both a Scipio and a Hannibal alive at the same time, but that's exceedingly rare). The point is that it's now possible to have a truly amazing general, right from birth (or in M2TW terms, "coming of age").

One on whole map, or one per faction?

[Kull]

One on whole map, or one per faction?

The entire map. It is VERY rare, as was historically true.

[Pooploop]

That's, wow, something else to look forward to in EB2 2.3, Kull. However, as to my original question, is there a line of traits that was or will be coded to represent a general's physical prowess or technique in hand-to-hand combat?

[QuintusSertorius]

There's already the HaleAndHearty/Hypochondriac pair which gives more/less hit points to the FM's model in battlemap battles.

[Paltmull]

I know Augustan reforms are low priority, and you probably have a sketch of how they would occur. But here are some suggestions anyway

Changes to Marian era:
More instability caused by generals having more individual power. Simulated by decreased loyalty for Family Members.

Reform prerequisites:
1) The Marian reforms have occured and a certain number of years has passed.
2) Have a Faction Leader that has certain traits (e.g. selfish, sharp/charismatic/vigorous, certain amount of influence)
3) Position the FL in Latium, with a large enough army, without him having legal reasons for bringing his army to Rome.

Event:
A dialogue box appears asking if the FL should attempt to overthrow the senate. If accepted, a rebel army spawns, representing an army raised by the senate to oppose the FL. When the army is defeated, the reforms occur.

Effects:
New offices, FL gets "Imperator" trait, FM loyalty back to normal, Praetorian Guard unit.