Page 60 of 127 FirstFirst ... 103550515253545556575859606162636465666768697085110 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,200 of 2522

Thread: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

  1. #1181

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by merzhin View Post
    Is there New parthian unit in upcoming versions (like parthian thureophoroi)?
    There are still a lot of regional steppe units to come, and there is an entry on the Unit List (though it's nothing more than that) for Partho-Hellenic Thuerophoroi.

  2. #1182

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    so the partho-hellenikoi thureophoroi is planned ?

  3. #1183

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaskad View Post
    Is there any way to implement a system like this: when you recruit units in a province of your kingdom, the population of the province decrease by the number of soldiers recruited , then when you disband units the population of a region increase by the number of soldiers being disbanded ? This would reflect the land and property you offer to your soldiers after their service...
    FYI that's a hard coded feature of RTW, so if you want recruitment to affect population you can just play EB1.

  4. #1184

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by merzhin View Post
    so the partho-hellenikoi thureophoroi is planned ?
    Personally, I'm hoping for a return of the Dehbed or something similar.


    Quote Originally Posted by BHL 20 View Post
    FYI that's a hard coded feature of RTW, so if you want recruitment to affect population you can just play EB1.
    IMHO the loss of population-affecting recruitment is a small price to pay in exchange for the vastly superior recruitment system that M2TW (and hence, EB II) has when compared to its predecessor.

  5. #1185

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    IMHO the loss of population-affecting recruitment is a small price to pay in exchange for the vastly superior recruitment system that M2TW (and hence, EB II) has when compared to its predecessor.
    True.

  6. #1186

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by BHL 20 View Post
    FYI that's a hard coded feature of RTW, so if you want recruitment to affect population you can just play EB1.
    In addition, the population numbers in EB2 aren't individual people, rather, it's supposed to represent Households.

  7. #1187

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Okay, okay, I was just sharing an idea. Your explanations all make sense

  8. #1188

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by merzhin View Post
    so the partho-hellenikoi thureophoroi is planned ?
    It's on the list; but that doesn't mean anything since no one has confirmed it's still planned, nor have they written a concept for it to be created.

  9. #1189

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    What about satrapies ancillaries are there gonna be any;

  10. #1190

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by kakabis View Post
    What about satrapies ancillaries are there gonna be any;
    Probably some combination of traits and ancillaries at some point, but nobody is working on that at the moment.
    EBII Council

  11. #1191

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I had a crazy idea about the hellenistic poleis, but I am not sure if it possible to do or if it just doesn't make sense historywise.

    My suggestion is to add a new level to the poleis building tree. This building would be a "Dismantled poleis". All non-hellenistic faction would be able to "upgrade" any poleis to a dismantled poleis and all hellenistic factions would be able to (with colonists) upgrade a dismantled poleis intlo a minor poleis.

    Dismantling a poleis should of course incur a penalty to the faction that does it, but only a temporary one. My suggestions for penalties would probably be unrest in the settlement for several years and/or a rebellion. Also it should probably only be available to human players and take several years to complete and/or be very expensive.

  12. #1192

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Auto Management: If deselecting the AI's ability to build or recruit also does not allow the player to build or recruit, there is a 3rd play style introduced to the campaign.
    Music: A large pool of music can go a very, very long way to improve the quality and immersion of the game. I recommend instrument and vocal solos.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvtT3UyhibQ

  13. #1193

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Faith View Post
    Auto Management: If deselecting the AI's ability to build or recruit also does not allow the player to build or recruit, there is a 3rd play style introduced to the campaign.
    I'd like it for Client Ruler's regions, at least about building Policy and taxations.
    Something that puzzled me in my Arverni campaign-and lets see their historical client tribes under Bituitos- I was able to instaure factional governments nearly everywhere but in Massalia(where I instaured an oligarchic allied government, which made sense historically and gameplay wise). But thats pretty much the only region where I'd to really do something else than steamrolling conquered peoples and operate 1-Migration, and finally erasing them with the Confederation level.

    Concretly, why would I instaure something else than factional governments in Gauls? I find it too easy(H/H and N/N campaigns) and in 250BC I accomplished much more than Bituitos and Vercingetorix did. It may be a question of pace, but mostly how gallic tribes lose any representation with the factional government path.

    My suggestion:
    1-factional Arverni governments should be limited to Historically Allied Tribes Regions(and that obviously excludes Aedui, Armorican, Volcae...etc lands)
    2-Make the protectorate and allied governments a mandatory step if not a definitive solution for most of Gauls(excluding HATR), and this includes that AI would be allowed to develop their autonomous regions as they wish(automanagement+unmovable Client Ruler).

    The same could be said about Aedui.

    And no...thats not a question of "houserules", I think I should be forced to compose with other power in Gauls, even if I defeated them in battle, the best thing I should be able to do is to organize them in a vast military hegemony(in my favor), not Arverni InterGalactic Empire Simulator. I'm not complaining about complexity, I'm suggesting more . I'm not sure if devs know how much its enjoyable to check Client Ruler's traits and discover that said guy has different gallic ethnicity.

  14. #1194

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by VINC.XXIII View Post
    My suggestion:
    1-factional Arverni governments should be limited to Historically Allied Tribes Regions(and that obviously excludes Aedui, Armorican, Volcae...etc lands)
    2-Make the protectorate and allied governments a mandatory step if not a definitive solution for most of Gauls(excluding HATR), and this includes that AI would be allowed to develop their autonomous regions as they wish(automanagement+unmovable Client Ruler).
    I'm afraid both of those border on the impossible.
    1) Can't be done with the limits we have on hidden_resources (none left to add further differentiation) or the fact that we can't exclude hidden_resources in building requirements (M2TW bug).
    2) There's no way to do this, and forcing the AI to build Allied Governments is a terrible idea. They're indestructible, except to the player, and the AI never destroys anything. So you'll end up with everywhere the AI has been with Allied Governments, which has taken us a long time to find a way to prevent it doing this by default.

  15. #1195

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by VINC.XXIII View Post
    I'd like it for Client Ruler's regions, at least about building Policy and taxations.
    Something that puzzled me in my Arverni campaign-and lets see their historical client tribes under Bituitos- I was able to instaure factional governments nearly everywhere but in Massalia(where I instaured an oligarchic allied government, which made sense historically and gameplay wise). But thats pretty much the only region where I'd to really do something else than steamrolling conquered peoples and operate 1-Migration, and finally erasing them with the Confederation level.

    Concretly, why would I instaure something else than factional governments in Gauls? I find it too easy(H/H and N/N campaigns) and in 250BC I accomplished much more than Bituitos and Vercingetorix did. It may be a question of pace, but mostly how gallic tribes lose any representation with the factional government path.

    My suggestion:
    1-factional Arverni governments should be limited to Historically Allied Tribes Regions(and that obviously excludes Aedui, Armorican, Volcae...etc lands)
    2-Make the protectorate and allied governments a mandatory step if not a definitive solution for most of Gauls(excluding HATR), and this includes that AI would be allowed to develop their autonomous regions as they wish(automanagement+unmovable Client Ruler).

    The same could be said about Aedui.

    And no...thats not a question of "houserules", I think I should be forced to compose with other power in Gauls, even if I defeated them in battle, the best thing I should be able to do is to organize them in a vast military hegemony(in my favor), not Arverni InterGalactic Empire Simulator. I'm not complaining about complexity, I'm suggesting more . I'm not sure if devs know how much its enjoyable to check Client Ruler's traits and discover that said guy has different gallic ethnicity.
    The problem is, at some point, you're railroading the player too much and enforcing a deterministic view of history.

  16. #1196

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    The problem is, at some point, you're railroading the player too much and enforcing a deterministic view of history.
    oh yeah...I get that peoples don't like it. Personnally I tend to stop campaigns when I'm too powerfull(like 200-300 turns), I thought it would be much more of a struggle to unify Gauls, and example that attacking Massalia would precipite roman intervention to defend their allies(inspired by Ahenorbarbus intervention) . But nothing happened, Romans attacked me only later, after I conquered the entire paduan valley and I was in good position to launch a blitzkrieg against the core of Roman provinces(they had conquered Liguria though).

    @Quintus, alright I understand those technical limitations.

  17. #1197

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    My suggestion:
    1-factional Arverni governments should be limited to Historically Allied Tribes Regions(and that obviously excludes Aedui, Armorican, Volcae...etc lands)
    2-Make the protectorate and allied governments a mandatory step if not a definitive solution for most of Gauls(excluding HATR), and this includes that AI would be allowed to develop their autonomous regions as they wish(automanagement+unmovable Client Ruler).
    Firstly, what does instaure mean? Do you mean Install?

    Secondly, for 1. it doesn't really make any sense whatsoever for migration governments, which are NOT supposed to be limited to just Gaul. If anything, that govtype is designed as a main gov type outside of Gaul(although it is also available within Gaul)--it represents the migration of the Arverni(or any other Celtic) people to a new territory which is alien to them. It makes absolutely no sense to regionally restrict that govtype to historical Arverni/Aedui clients. It has nothing to do with the Aeduan or Arverni clientage, and everything to do with migrations. So that's a total no-go.

    Thirdly, Arverni/Aedui confederations are already regionally restricted to Gaul--in fact, we can view this gov as being the most similar to the clients of the Aedui and Arverni IMO(you welcome them into the confederation, lose an authority point on your FL and the more "clients" or "polities" you let in, the lower your FL's authority stat becomes, which has a HUGE effect on longterm FM loyalty--which is a mechanic which is rather distinct from the other more "imperial" factions).

    Fourth, regarding 2. what is HATR? And I'm actually not sure what you're suggesting here other than requiring a protectorate be built first before any other formal government...Which is dubious IMO(the military occupation should have already covered this). Certainly requiring allied-governments(assuming you don't mean the factional Allied State) is rather nonsensical as well IMO.

    Fifth, pretty much every faction in the game is encouraged to build factional governments in their heartland territories, so why should the Gauls be any different? Allied govs are not really meant for homeland territories, but are largely intended to be used outside of one's "factional government range".

    Sixth, why should the Arverni or Aedui not be able to build factional govs at places like Tolosa(for eg.)? Sure they weren't "historic clients" but if anyone should have the right to build factional governments in Gaul, it's the native Gallic factions--it wouldn't make sense for the Pritanoi, Arevaci, Lusitani or Romans to be able to construct higher factional gov levels in Gaul than the Gauls themselves(IMO).

    Concretly, why would I instaure something else than factional governments in Gauls? I find it too easy(H/H and N/N campaigns) and in 250BC I accomplished much more than Bituitos and Vercingetorix did. It may be a question of pace, but mostly how gallic tribes lose any representation with the factional government path.
    Definitely untrue regarding the tribes losing any representation by building factional govs in 2.3. Firstly, these non-Arverni Gallic provinces give different Gallic ethnic groups than the Arverni via marriage offers--which means they become represented within the greater Arverni confederation. This is identical to what you bring up about client ruler ethnic traits--if anything, using client rulers in these regions actually lowers ethnic diversity in your confederation, since your FMs won't spend time in those provinces(they'd get the interloper trait), and hence you'll actually end up avoiding adding these new ethnic groups to your family tree by not getting the marriage offers which provide new Celtic ethnicities. Thus, you're actually doing something wrong here IMO--while reading and enjoying yourself with these new client ruler ethnic traits, you have actually deprived your family tree of the ethnic diversity you desire by avoiding all the new ethnicities provided by marriage offers in other Gallic provinces. Secondly, as the Arverni/Aedui/Boii, the ethnicities associated with a province where a confederation govtype exists(assuming it provides proper recruitment there) can become Confederate Leaders which are supposed to represent the leaders of the new polities you've added to your confederation. For example, building a confederation gov in Tolosa and governing this city with a Uolkoi FM(ethnic group native to the province) who has: at least 4-5 Influence, is charismatic, over 30 and has spent a number of years in the province will grant a one-per-faction unique and non-transferable ancillary to said character called "Uolkoi Confederate Leader", representing the new Uolkoi polity within the greater confederation. So how's that for representation of other Gallic polities ? IMO this is exactly what you're asking for, in exchange for an authority point on your FL, a new Confederate Leader(under your military hegemony, if you like) can be represented as the voice of an entire ethnic group within your faction.

    The problem is, at some point, you're railroading the player too much and enforcing a deterministic view of history.
    I'm afraid both of those border on the impossible.
    1) Can't be done with the limits we have on hidden_resources (none left to add further differentiation) or the fact that we can't exclude hidden_resources in building requirements (M2TW bug).
    2) There's no way to do this, and forcing the AI to build Allied Governments is a terrible idea. They're indestructible, except to the player, and the AI never destroys anything. So you'll end up with everywhere the AI has been with Allied Governments, which has taken us a long time to find a way to prevent it doing this by default.
    This and this.
    Last edited by Genghis Skahn; December 03, 2017 at 07:13 AM.

  18. #1198

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Genghis Skahn View Post
    at least 4-5 Influence, is charismatic, over 30 and has spent a number of years in the province will grant a one-per-faction unique and non-transferable ancillary to said character called "Uolkoi Confederate Leader", representing the new Uolkoi polity within the greater confederation. So how's that for representation of other Gallic polities ? IMO this is exactly what you're asking for, in exchange for an authority point on your FL, a new Confederate Leader(under your military hegemony, if you like) can be represented as the voice of an entire ethnic group within your faction.
    Ok that sounds cool, I guess I missed it in my past Arverni campaign because I actually opted for Migration(which was available) . I gave a try to a new campaign, H/H Aedui this time. I destroyed the Arverni in two turns, and now I'm kinda free to do anything I want with the Arverni territory, I would have liked if the acclimatization period lasted for longer, all the 4 government types were immediately available after the military occupation step(I couldn't order the construction of any right after the battle for obvious financial reasons). I was wondering too if the Migration option has a system of points like greek colonies do.

    I still maintain its a bit too easy to do whatever you want with the conquered territory..., and I purposedly don't read all guides and AAR to enjoy some kind of spontaneity(aka committing mistakes ), I mean I'm not tryharding and I'm not good at strategy.
    Now for example I'm opting for Migration in Avaricum, the building description mentions it decreases public order, however I noticed 0 change. No turmoil or rebellion, its only a matter of turns before this region become a clone of my homeland. I was expecting rebels. But no rebels.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  19. #1199

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    The minimum adjustment for order is 0, so if you don't have anything giving bonuses, or have already countered them all with penalties, it won't go below a certain point. Same goes income, it cannot be negative.

    Aedui/Arverni don't have a colonisation system, but the Boii do.

  20. #1200
    James the Red's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,631

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I know when the team is looking at a feature to implement in the game, that (among meeting other qualifications too) both the human and AI has to be able to handle it. So my question is, why not have features that apply only to the faction controlled by the human and features that only apply to the AI? Things that only kicks in when the script is activated.

    For instance, can you have a building that only gives it's effects when controlled by a certain faction or gives different effects when controlled by another faction or gets destroyed when the settlement is taken? Something that may have complicated things for the player but the AI wouldn't be able to handle it, and so instead does nothing to the AI, or benefits the AI but does nothing for the player. Because the player has a brain and the AI does not.

    I don't know if that is still the case but in the past Ive heard the AI had problems with money from getting lump sums via a script because the AI calculates based on income per turn. Can the building that describes the province in each province give the AI factions but not the human faction money per turn, or maybe a trait that only AI governors can receive that increases income per turn in the cities they govern? Perhaps the human faction can deal with features that the AI won't get effected by? Just spit-balling here. I'm not a modder so I don't know whats feasible or what is impossible or requires a ridiculous amount of work.

    In any case, you got a wonderful mod here.
    Last edited by James the Red; December 03, 2017 at 02:46 PM.

Posting Permissions

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