Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Kilo11]

As Lusitanio said, very many thanks for the solid reply Genghis. I see your points, and I also see Lusitanio's points. I think all told, I'd prefer custom cities to the possibility of making a huge city in more places, but I didn't at all even think of the issues about buggy gameplay them. Obviously, you guys will do what you think best (it's your mod, not ours), and in this case I also think the decision really should be up to you all, as there are pros and cons for both sides, and ones which aren't easily comparable.

At the very least, if there is someone on the team with some spare time, it would be cool to have a couple custom cities for skirmish battles. Then there could be a model for Carthage/Rome/Alexandria/etc. at their heydey, and we could at least run our troops around in a custom battle, even if they aren't on the strat map.

[Kilo11]

So I just had another thought. Not sure if it is possibly implemented already, or if it would even be possible, but I was thinking it would be cool if somehow defenders for a siege battle could have increased ammunition for missile troops. I mean, it's not like they would have weight restrictions due to being on the march or anything, and plausibly they would have at least some advance notice of an incoming army and could stock up on arrows and javelins and have them placed around the walls and towers so that missile troops could replenish midway through battle. It wouldn't have to be infinite ammo, or even so much as a double ration. Maybe just like a 20-50% bump or something.

[Genghis Skahn]

So I just had another thought. Not sure if it is possibly implemented already, or if it would even be possible, but I was thinking it would be cool if somehow defenders for a siege battle could have increased ammunition for missile troops. I mean, it's not like they would have weight restrictions due to being on the march or anything, and plausibly they would have at least some advance notice of an incoming army and could stock up on arrows and javelins and have them placed around the walls and towers so that missile troops could replenish midway through battle. It wouldn't have to be infinite ammo, or even so much as a double ration. Maybe just like a 20-50% bump or something.

No way that's possible AFAIK. It would obviously make sense, but it's not possible without a whole new unit AFAIK.

[Kilo11]

No way that's possible AFAIK. It would obviously make sense, but it's not possible without a whole new unit AFAIK.

That's unfortunate. I thought that maybe scripts could be used to change some unit stats, and then just change the ammo amount up at prebattlescroll and then put it back down at postbattlescroll. I totally understand if that's not doable though. My usual method for getting results is trying crazy (but cool) ideas until they work, but alas, they sometimes are simply impossible

[Lusitanio]

I would like to suggest armor uppgrades on Carthage to be more "roman", as we have proofs that Hannibal army took the shields and armour from roman dead soldiers because they were better, it would make sense for Carthage units to have that armour (especially shield)after the second reform. And if Carthage had won the war, they would most certain start using that type of armour.
You could use for inspiration this units from Midnite submod from De Bello Mundi.

[Lusitanio]

Other suggestions:

Units that have javelins often loose the ordered formation they are in when they start throwing the javelins at the enemy. I have seen that in the TATW DAC mod units don't loose the formation when they throw the javelins. I think that that hould be implemented to EBII units, at least for the trained ones, because when I have a single line of units, the ones who have javelins start throwing them and then they loose the formation order they had, which is very weird.

How about uppgrading Carthage Sacred Band with thyreos/thureous shield? Ancient empires mod gives an example of how it could be done but it would also make sense in an historical way for them to start using that type of shield.

[QuintusSertorius]

Throwing in perfectly co-ordinated volleys that don't lose formation is unrealistic. So is throwing javelins without a run up.

[Lusitanio]

Throwing in perfectly co-ordinated volleys that don't lose formation is unrealistic. So is throwing javelins without a run up.

I understand Quintus, and I have to say that when I saw it firstly happening in EBII (I was used to playing only rtw mods) I was surprised but happy because it was very realistic. But there are some cons like the fact that the units loose completly the orderly formation they previously had and sometimes it even happens that I have skirmisher units behind my hoplites and suddendly they are engaging the enemy troops because they got to close.
If it was possible to make it in a way that they didn't took so much steeps to throw the javelins or make it so that trained units didn't did that it would be nice but I understand your point if you want to keep it that way.

[QuintusSertorius]

I understand Quintus, and I have to say that when I saw it firstly happening in EBII (I was used to playing only rtw mods) I was surprised but happy because it was very realistic. But there are some cons like the fact that the units loose completly the orderly formation they previously had and sometimes it even happens that I have skirmisher units behind my hoplites and suddendly they are engaging the enemy troops because they got to close.
If it was possible to make it in a way that they didn't took so much steeps to throw the javelins or make it so that trained units didn't did that it would be nice but I understand your point if you want to keep it that way.

It adds to the difficulty too, which is another reason the deliberate change was made to change all javelin-throwers to the run-up animation, not the "throws from standing" one. The animations are still there if you want to change your own game, but I'm afraid from the perspective of the released mod, it's not going to change. You'll have to account for the shift in where a unit is as they throw, re-positioning them if necessary to keep them in one spot.

[Beckitz]

For the time being, one possible solution for you is to use separate teams for melee. Have one unit throw javelins while another unit closes in. That way your volley unit can't be charged by the enemy. Besides, that will do the most possible damage to the enemy morale

[Lusitanio]

Oh right, thanks for the answers Beckitz and Quintus. I would like them not to run that much from the initial position but if that's not possible I prefer to keep it like it is.
Thanks anyway I still would like to know your opinions about the other suggestions :p

[Dargaron]

So, this is a very minor thing, but I was wondering if it would be possible to give the province and government buildings a higher priority when revealing buildings in non-player settlements. I notice that certain buildings seem more likely to get revealed when my spy gets near a settlement (like markets and roads), while sometimes the province or governmental buildings are concealed because my spy isn't high enough level. You'd think that how a province is governed would be the first thing you'd be able to determine about a province. (If nothing else, you can go to the plot-important NPC and ask them questions about who's in charge - I figure that's how it works.)

Is that a thing that's possible?

[QuintusSertorius]

So, this is a very minor thing, but I was wondering if it would be possible to give the province and government buildings a higher priority when revealing buildings in non-player settlements. I notice that certain buildings seem more likely to get revealed when my spy gets near a settlement (like markets and roads), while sometimes the province or governmental buildings are concealed because my spy isn't high enough level. You'd think that how a province is governed would be the first thing you'd be able to determine about a province. (If nothing else, you can go to the plot-important NPC and ask them questions about who's in charge - I figure that's how it works.)

Is that a thing that's possible?

I suspect what is revealed is hardcoded, or else working on a specific set of mechanics of which I'm unaware.

[Dargaron]

Ah, darn it. I was thinking that maybe it fed into the same mechanic that determines how difficult a building is to sabotage, and these buildings were given fairly high protection to prevent the AI from destroying province buildings and stuff.

[QuintusSertorius]

Ah, darn it. I was thinking that maybe it fed into the same mechanic that determines how difficult a building is to sabotage, and these buildings were given fairly high protection to prevent the AI from destroying province buildings and stuff.

That's another where I'm afraid I have no idea how the underlying mechanics work (as in where it gets the multiplier to determine which buildings are harder or easier to sabotage).

Some buildings, like the province buildings are "hinterland" structures in the EDB, which means they're indestructible.

[Domaje]

Hey EB Team !
I was thinking about the same issue than Dargaron lately. Isn't there a hidden ressource applied to the walls and port buildings that reveal them in the settlement panel, as long as the settlement is out of the fog of war ? Something linked to the fact those buildings have 3D models on the strategic map ?
I thought it may be the case because when you disable the FoW using the consol, you can see the walls and port buildings of all the settlements on the map, even without having a spy or a character close to them.
If so, it could be used for the government buildings as well, as it would offer a nice RP value knowing easily how the AI factions rule their lands.

[QuintusSertorius]

Hey EB Team !
I was thinking about the same issue than Dargaron lately. Isn't there a hidden ressource applied to the walls and port buildings that reveal them in the settlement panel, as long as the settlement is out of the fog of war ? Something linked to the fact those buildings have 3D models on the strategic map ?
I thought it may be the case because when you disable the FoW using the consol, you can see the walls and port buildings of all the settlements on the map, even without having a spy or a character close to them.
If so, it could be used for the government buildings as well, as it would offer a nice RP value knowing easily how the AI factions rule their lands.

I think that's hardcoded, because both buildings have graphical representations on the campaign map which you can see regardless of the building browser.

[Kilo11]

I think that's hardcoded, because both buildings have graphical representations on the campaign map which you can see regardless of the building browser.

Does that hold for mines as well, because they are also shown on the strat map, right? If so, then those should also be revealed in the settlement when fog of war is cleared...

[bordinis]

Is there a way to make CAI less passive and make more wars on a human player. Every campaign I land with full stack in Anatolia or Egypt and loot their cities and their armies stand there and do nothing, sometimes it seems that CAI has troubles assembling pieces of units in full stacks.. And often they do not retake sacked cities of theirs just standing there doing nothing. Very unresponsive. Played other mods did not see those problems there at all, For instance, Third age DAC.. Any of you have these things in your campaigns? You especially can see that in late game when there is 5-7 factions left, and being at war with human player, CAI while having 19 full stacks just runs arround with them back and forth and not sieging atacking anything of human player.. Has anyone saw this after 600 turns in game?

[Sudden Death]

Hi,

I am playing with battles on VH, and typically when I charge a low-tier Greek javelin unit with heavy lancer cavalry, it can sometimes take minutes for that low tier javelin unit to rout. Is this a result of the battle difficulty? I really don't like playing on lower battle difficulties considering how easy it is to exploit the AI to begin with.