Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Jdrq]

Hello everyone, i know that barbarian reforms appear so late due to historical reasons and sadly im usually playing campaign for like 250-300 turns. Are you planning to make something like early and late era campaign for players like me who want to enjoy late era units but dont want to play that long campaign?

[tentaku]

I wonder if there is a mechanism that allows mercenaries to come with existing experience levels. Makes sense right, these guys are pros.

[Lyathon]

Jdrq you can have a poke around in the campaign_script and set the turn triggers of the reforms to a turn of your choice. Make sure to make a backup first.

[Wulfburk]

Is it possible to make a script, where when you get a family member with a large stack, say bigger than 1.5k, that becomes a rebel and betrays the faction, if he wins a battle against your Faction leader, with the faction leader dying in the process, this general is then "bribed" back into the faction, and made faction leader? (or at least bribed back into the faction...)

Or at least, is it possible to make such specific rebel armies (those stacks of yours that become rebel) very aggressive? Like, besieging your cities nearby and what not.

My full stack that rebelled is not moving from where he was before rebelling. Id love if he proceeded to try and take some of my nearby quite undefended cities


I know EB2 is against adding specific rebellion scripts, such as the social war for the romans. But then maybe some general scripts to spice up for all the factions would be interesting no? Such as these i suggested.

Maybe when you get a traitor to our people enough famous, the nearby city where he rebelled might also become eleutheroi (depending on some variables), or even other generals, say if the general has a son commanding another full stack. (instead of forcing it, have the loyalty of the sons lowered when the father betrays the faction).

Just some ideas.

[Lusitanio]

I don't think they can do what you asked Wulfburk since most of that is coded behaviour and cannot be modified.
In what difficulty are you playing? In Very Hard, the eleutheroi armies are more agressive (still not enough but that's what we have).

[Wulfburk]

Im playing on hard. I find eleutheroi armies to be quite aggressive on defending their city region, such as those in northern italy, just found it quite odd that this traitor stack instead is sitting on the same tile for a couple dozen turns.

[tentaku]

Im playing on hard. I find eleutheroi armies to be quite aggressive on defending their city region, such as those in northern italy, just found it quite odd that this traitor stack instead is sitting on the same tile for a couple dozen turns.

the AI is weird. my northern italy experience is exactly like your experience. My lightly defended city gets sieged by northern italian native rebels. And if i invade their settlements, they would pull their army from elsewhere to the invaded region to help defend. But my experience with Balkan native rebels is pretty peaceful, I leave a settlement lightly defended and their stack just sits outside of my province and did not invade me.

[Kilo11]

I have a small suggestion concerning the Arabian factions and their temples. In researching for my AAR I found that a number of the tribes of antique Arabia were Jewish, and so would have worshipped "Yahweh" and no one else. I was wondering if for the Saba' and Nabati one of the temples they can build could be retagged as a "Temple of Yahweh". The monotheistic aspect of it also wouldn't be a problem, because building a temple to one god does not mean other gods aren't also worshipped there (ostensibly when we build a temple to Zeus in Alexandria there are other temples there too, we are just choosing to focus our religious rites on the glorification of Zeus). It would be a rather small change (just a couple text files, unless I'm mistaken), but would add a little more flavor to the Arabian area I think and allow one to roleplay a bit more with religion and tribal affinities.

the AI is weird. my northern italy experience is exactly like your experience. My lightly defended city gets sieged by northern italian native rebels. And if i invade their settlements, they would pull their army from elsewhere to the invaded region to help defend. But my experience with Balkan native rebels is pretty peaceful, I leave a settlement lightly defended and their stack just sits outside of my province and did not invade me.

I have actually been thinking about this lately, and was wondering if the tag in parentheses with a rebel army/settlement means anything for the game mechanics? I mean, some armies simply say "Brigands", but some say a tribal or regional identifier like "Etruri". I often think of the tribally/regionally tagged ones as independent polities (i.e. not rebels), and only consider the ones that say "Brigand" to be actual rebels. Given that, it would make sense that some might be more warlike, some more peaceful, as some small tribes or city-states will in fact be more warlike/peaceful. If the tag has any meaning in game more than a simple name for that rebel stack's origin (the "if" is very important to have answered) it would be cool to have that in-game additional meaning impact gameplay in some fashion. For example, independent polities of a similar culture as you might be less likely to attack you, or ones of a different culture might get defense bonuses or something, to represent the importance of repelling foreign invaders. Just a thought, and one which hinges rather significantly on that first "if".

[Gurkhal]

Here's an idea that I've been thinking about. Its to add spouses as retainers to male characters. Right now its s total sausage feast with women in the ruling family being total non-entities. I realize that this is an unfortunate effect of how the game's design but I feel that maybe that could be done something with in order to bring some more life into that part of the system by making spouses retainers that, should the spouse die in the family tree, the retainer is removed from the male character.

You probably wonder, what's that adding to the game? I would say immersion and perhaps less sausage feast over all as well as more color to the characters. For example imagine that a Socialite Wife or a Soldier's Daughter could add some stuff beyond a faceless name for a wife.

Its not prioritized thing but I thought I would mention it and see what you think of it.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I have a small suggestion concerning the Arabian factions and their temples. In researching for my AAR I found that a number of the tribes of antique Arabia were Jewish, and so would have worshipped "Yahweh" and no one else.

This is correct for late antiquity (say 4-6c. AD) when Judaism had much success in (maybe unintended) proselytism, but I doubt it'd be correct for the EBII timeframe (500-700 year earlier). There're Jewish garrisons and Jewish emigrants, but not among Arabian tribes. At least I haven't heard about any the evidence, would be interesting to read.

[Kilo11]

This is correct for late antiquity (say 4-6c. AD) when Judaism had much success in (maybe unintended) proselytism, but I doubt it'd be correct for the EBII timeframe (500-700 year earlier). There're Jewish garrisons and Jewish emigrants, but not among Arabian tribes. At least I haven't heard about any the evidence, would be interesting to read.

You are correct that Judaism only had real "success" later on, but there were tribes around Lihyan and along the Hijaz (some likely all the way down in Himyar) that traced their lineage to Abraham and would have identified as being Jewish and worshipping Yahweh. Not necessarily many tribes, but from what I have read there were certainly tribes here and there. (Lineage is still a very important aspect of Arabian culture, and so many of these tribes to this day make a point of showing that they came from this or that progenitor and converted to this or that religion at such and such time.) Also, from my reading it seems that the "success" that came in the 4th century AD refers to ruling elites turning to Judaism, but that indicates nothing about the religious beliefs of the various tribes, many of which would be distinct and regional and not adhere to any trend found among the upper classes. Whether Judaism was minor enough to not merit being included is maybe a discussion for the team, but it was certainly present to varying extents all along the western edge of the Arabian peninsula.

[Jurand of Cracow]

You are correct that Judaism only had real "success" later on, but there were tribes around Lihyan and along the Hijaz (some likely all the way down in Himyar) that traced their lineage to Abraham and would have identified as being Jewish and worshipping Yahweh. Not necessarily many tribes, but from what I have read there were certainly tribes here and there. (Lineage is still a very important aspect of Arabian culture, and so many of these tribes to this day make a point of showing that they came from this or that progenitor and converted to this or that religion at such and such time.) Also, from my reading it seems that the "success" that came in the 4th century AD refers to ruling elites turning to Judaism, but that indicates nothing about the religious beliefs of the various tribes, many of which would be distinct and regional and not adhere to any trend found among the upper classes. Whether Judaism was minor enough to not merit being included is maybe a discussion for the team, but it was certainly present to varying extents all along the western edge of the Arabian peninsula.

This is difficult for me to agree given three things I know: 1. in the Book of Deuteronomy there's a clear ban to make sacrifices not in the Shrine in Jerusalem, 2. the Dead Sea scrolls (1c. BC) show that the canon of the Jewish holy books was established quite early, 3. there's a known case of a Jewish community in Elephantine that made such sacrifices and was banned by the Jerusalem priests.
The one-god concept (say Illah) was known to the Arabs (again, at least in 4-6c AD) but this wouldn't make them Jewish or worshipping Yahweh.
Anyway, in the EBII team there're perhaps people who can say it with more credibility.

[Kull]

Here's an idea that I've been thinking about. Its to add spouses as retainers to male characters. Right now its s total sausage feast with women in the ruling family being total non-entities. I realize that this is an unfortunate effect of how the game's design but I feel that maybe that could be done something with in order to bring some more life into that part of the system by making spouses retainers that, should the spouse die in the family tree, the retainer is removed from the male character.

You probably wonder, what's that adding to the game? I would say immersion and perhaps less sausage feast over all as well as more color to the characters. For example imagine that a Socialite Wife or a Soldier's Daughter could add some stuff beyond a faceless name for a wife.

Its not prioritized thing but I thought I would mention it and see what you think of it.

We've talked about this, but the major problem is the disconnect between the Family Tree and the potential wife ancillary (and the same with daughters). You could have a dead wife showing up in the family tree and still have the living ancillary, while daughters will likely marry and move off with their spouse to another location, but will still be part of Dad's entourage (and you can't transfer her to the husband, because the ancillary will still be a "daughter").

The mod has always had a couple of female characters that bend this rule a bit (mother-in-laws and problem mothers - both of which were inherited from vanilla RTW), but the best opportunity for adding new "family tree friendly" female relatives involves nieces, cousins, and aunts, possibly even the wives of guys in your entourage. All of those could plausibly belong to the (invisible) family of the wife or husband who marries into the tree from outside or be affiliated with "people you know". Likewise, having an "older woman" mentor/finance provider would fit well. All of which ignores slaves and mistresses of various sorts who are already represented, albeit not with a great deal of depth in most cases.

[Gurkhal]

We've talked about this, but the major problem is the disconnect between the Family Tree and the potential wife ancillary (and the same with daughters). You could have a dead wife showing up in the family tree and still have the living ancillary, while daughters will likely marry and move off with their spouse to another location, but will still be part of Dad's entourage (and you can't transfer her to the husband, because the ancillary will still be a "daughter").

The mod has always had a couple of female characters that bend this rule a bit (mother-in-laws and problem mothers - both of which were inherited from vanilla RTW), but the best opportunity for adding new "family tree friendly" female relatives involves nieces, cousins, and aunts, possibly even the wives of guys in your entourage. All of those could plausibly belong to the (invisible) family of the wife or husband who marries into the tree from outside or be affiliated with "people you know". Likewise, having an "older woman" mentor/finance provider would fit well. All of which ignores slaves and mistresses of various sorts who are already represented, albeit not with a great deal of depth in most cases.

I see. Sorry to hear, but thanks for taking it into account and explaining the problems its potential execution.

[tentaku]

Suggestion for the faction re emergence event.

If the re emerging faction's city belonged to another faction. The re emergent faction should enter war right away with the faction previously owning that city.

[QuintusSertorius]

Suggestion for the faction re emergence event.

If the re emerging faction's city belonged to another faction. The re emergent faction should enter war right away with the faction previously owning that city.

We're struggling to get the thing to emerge where it's supposed to in the first place; but I believe the mechanic only works when taking ownership from the Rebels.

[tentaku]

but I believe the mechanic only works when taking ownership from the Rebels.

but in my roman campaign, computer epirus's pella and korinth both turned back to the already dead makedon and KH, directly from being owned by epirus. And because there is no epirus stack next to these cities after the re emergence event, I suspect the original epirus stacks inside those cities were simply deleted.... hmmm nevertheless it's a very cool feature, and makes me want to keep a computer faction alive and weak, instead of destroying it and have it re emerge with a full stack.

[Kilo11]

I have a suggestion regarding conversion of camps to settlements. I get that only certain factions can make the forcible conversion, as it represents a significant change of lifestyle and arguably only people with some familiarity and closeness to the nomadic group might be able to successfully settle them. That makes sense to me and I have no objection. However, there is also a sense in which the people might just settle themselves, and then it doesn't make sense that the camp cannot be converted to a settlement.

My suggestion would be to make it so that if 1) the nomadic culture of a region has dropped below some very low threshold (I was thinking maybe 20%) and 2) stays that low for a sufficient amount of time then --> make the camp conversion structure buildable, regardless of who the owning faction is for that specific territory. For the mechanics of it I was thinking that a counter could start once the settlement culture (nomadic) drops low enough, and the counter would increase with each turn that the culture stays that low, and if the counter reaches a high enough turn number then the building becomes available.

This would be a good improvement to the game, because as it is certain camps are basically useless to capture unless you are the "right" faction and can convert them later, which is sort of lame. It also makes more historical sense because if, for example, Ptolemaic Egypt captures Najran (camp in southwestern Arabia) and holds it for 200 years, with the culture becoming entirely "Greekified" in the process, then the people will also start to become more "Greek", with a significant number being willing to change lifestyle. To set it so that conversion is only possible when one is of a "similar" culture ignores that culture changes throughout the game, with regions slowly assimilating to the ruling faction's culture over time. Also, there are additional restrictions that make little sense, like that certain camps are apparently not at all convertible, even for factions of essentially the same culture (e.g. Najran and Gerrha are both as far as I know non-convertible, even for the Nabati and Saba). While aridness might lend credence to the idea that people in these places couldn't settle in large centers, this still ignores that there were even in antiquity settled areas throughout these places. Moreover, it would seem that such aridness would be better reflected in the population and population growth numbers rather than in some settled/nomadic feature, as Gerrha is at the outset quite large (1300 people; for reference, Sparta is only 2200, despite being in a seemingly much more human-friendly environment). All in all, I understand and also quite like the use of the M2TW castles as camps and having them be significantly different from settlements, but to make them fixed as camps even when they grow very large and become entirely assimilated to a settled culture is odd, to say the least. I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts or objections to this idea.

[Kull]

I have a suggestion regarding conversion of camps to settlements.

There's a few things to keep in mind:

1) The team is constrained by the realities of the game engine. A single settlement is really a representation of the region as a whole. Saying that one can find isolated examples of "non-camps" in certain regions is completely beside the point - there are always outliers, but they do not represent the province as a whole.

2) The time frame of the mod is only 300 years, and the sorts of real-life cultural & technological conversions necessary to turn camps into thriving metropolises complete with highways and all the massive urban infrastructure attendant to an urbanized PROVINCE is simply impossible in certain regions, in this short window of time. Not talking about game mechanisms, but real life.

3) The game does not allow us to model logistics in a realistic fashion. You can assemble an army in Alexandria and march it all the way to Saba (or Carthage) without suffering a single casualty. Watering and feeding them in the desert? Completely unnecessary. In that context, camps are a way to impose some level of difficulty, both as unattractive conquest targets and as limiters on movement (i.e. no roads)

4) Faction conversion restrictions are primarily aimed at the settled factions, for the very good reason that you can't find any instances of these groups building vast urban infrastructures in "camp regions" during the time frame of the mod (and for hundreds of years after, if not more). We do allow the factions of some local cultures to convert a select group of "camp-at-the-start" settlements, but even then only to the "Pastoral Settlement" level of urban development (i.e no highways or giant libraries or huge amphitheatres), since the regions in question did historically develop earlier than the pure camps, so it *might* be possible for some acceleration to happen in the EB2 time frame. But even with that, certain regions are completely off limits for conversion by anybody (for the reasons noted above)

Anyway, the system is "functioning as intended" so players that desire significant alteration in the mechanics and location of conversion will have to mod it themselves.

[Kilo11]

There's a few things to keep in mind [about settlements]:

...

...

Thanks for the response Kull. Your points are all on, and given those I respectfully withdraw my suggestion.

The point about the settlement representing the region and not the actual particular settlement is also something I regularly forget. Because it's not really Gerrha that's got a population of 1300, but rather the entire east coast of Arabia, which makes sense. And that area is huge in comparison to say Attika, and so it would have a comparable population given that while arid it's huge.