Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Guils]

Too much railroading i think? The reemergence script and rebellions and what not are this but in an immersive way and doesnt feels forced.

I think a draft system would be better.
When a war is declared, you should be able to trigger a draft to quickly recruit some low-level troops (with 0 waiting turn). There could be special forms of government/building to do it, but you could still favour instead a professional army.

[Lusitanio]

Yes, you may be right Wulfburk and that's why I wanted to discuss this on this forum. However, I must say that, if that could be applied only to factions that do not horde after all their cities are conquered, it may be interesting and more important than the reemergence script and the rebellions.
Let me explain, when factions reemerge, more often than not, their armies are quicky destroyed or even turn rebel very fast (at least in my experience), therefore not being able to make a big impact on the campaign.
Imagine that you are conquering the Romans and they only have two cities, being incapable of challenging you. You conquer one of the last two remaining cities and you proceed to end turn. What happens after would be an easy last fighting against the last of the Romans and they would never bother you again despite some minor armies from rebelions or a reemergence.
But what if after the turn ends, the Romans appear with a full army on their last city territory (or maybe their original capital) and an event saying: In a last effort to expel the invading armies, the Romans have called to every male citizen to arm himself and go to battle. Trying to recover what they have lost they have united in a single banner in order to destroy their enemies and bring peace to their lands!

I think it would make it harder to conquer them, both for the AI and the player, and it wouldn't be that unrealistic. Anyway, it is my opinion and you are free to disagree x)

[Marvzilla]

I wouldnt like the idea either as most factions already are throwing stack after stack to my front and manpower never lowers. I destroy them, I sack their cities, taking their financial backing, and the AI is still throwing the remaining money into units. I dont want to go total war all the time, but most factions wont react other wise and I almost always have to force diplomacy anyway.

[Lusitanio]

Well, I use this submod: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...native-Battles
And with the submod it happens most of the times that after beating their armies and going to siege their cities they tend to quickly sue for peace and not be like "to the death" like in Rome.

[Guils]

There is a mistake in the description of the Cornelii as it says that almost 30% of the Republican consuls were from this gens. A quick look at the Fasti Consulares shows that it is impossible. The real figure is closer to 10%.

[will1901]

Do besieged armies suffer casualties? Or is this just in my head from so many hours of Stainless Steel?

[Tuuvi]

It's been a while since I played EB but I had a random, wild idea the other day: What if units were given multiple hit points based on the the amount of armor and the size of the shield they're wearing? This way the degradation of armor during combat and the effects of missile weapons could be better simulated.

In order to prevent battles becoming a slog, attack values could be increased and armor and shield values could be reduced.

[QuintusSertorius]

Do besieged armies suffer casualties? Or is this just in my head from so many hours of Stainless Steel?

They do if besieged for multiple turns.

It's been a while since I played EB but I had a random, wild idea the other day: What if units were given multiple hit points based on the the amount of armor and the size of the shield they're wearing? This way the degradation of armor during combat and the effects of missile weapons could be better simulated.

In order to prevent battles becoming a slog, attack values could be increased and armor and shield values could be reduced.

No, we're not giving any unit multiple hit points; it messes with missiles and melee balance far too much. It would require a complete reworking of the combat system.

You're more than welcome to try it in your own game and tell us how it goes.

[Aper]

I steamrolled barbarian europe both with Arevaci and Aedui thanks to 4-6 light cavalry unit in each army. They often take a lot of casualties (up to 50%) but I just don't care because I have abundant replenishment. Maybe you could reduce the availability of light spanish and celtic cavalry a bit, it seems too high at the moment to me.

[QuintusSertorius]

I steamrolled barbarian europe both with Arevaci and Aedui thanks to 4-6 light cavalry unit in each army. They often take a lot of casualties (up to 50%) but I just don't care because I have abundant replenishment. Maybe you could reduce the availability of light spanish and celtic cavalry a bit, it seems too high at the moment to me.

The problem is that they're the only cavalry unit for those regions, so their refresh can't be spread out amongst other cavalry units (as is the case with most other rosters).

For the Aedui, the light cavalry doesn't diminish until the nobles become recruitable after the first reform. The Celts fielded a lot of cavalry, often up to a quarter of their force.

[Rad]

That would require a complete overhaul of the game with months, if not years of testing. Maybe make a submod?

[Lusitanio]

Aper come on, 4-6 light cavalry unit in each army? That's not realistic at all, you should have 3/4 max of that.

[Aper]

Actually if you do the math, with 2 FMs, 4 cavalry and 14 infantry my horsemen are 20% of the total number of warriors, well under the limit for celtic factions

[QuintusSertorius]

Actually if you do the math, with 2 FMs, 4 cavalry and 14 infantry my horsemen are 20% of the total number of warriors, well under the limit for celtic factions

FMs are cavalry, they count towards that number.

[Aper]

FMs are cavalry, they count towards that number.

But they are taken into account. I play on large, so 2 FM + 4x77 cavalry = more or less 400 men. 14x123 infantry = 1722 men , so cavalry is less than 1/5 of the total force. I usually don't use elite infantry, they are not cost effective IMO. Anyway now I use only 1 FM each army, and I'm considering using one less regular cavalry as well.

[HarkonRules]

Realistic or not, it's no secret that Cavalry are very cheesy in the hands of a somewhat experienced player. Hammer and Anvil is too easy and strong to spam and the AI has no chance of fighting back against it effectively. If you want a better challenge, limit yourself to 2 cavalry units.

[BHL 20]

Realistic or not, it's no secret that Cavalry are very cheesy in the hands of a somewhat experienced player. Hammer and Anvil is too easy and strong to spam and the AI has no chance of fighting back against it effectively. If you want a better challenge, limit yourself to 2 cavalry units.

Why on EB II subforum, does any strategy that works considered cheesy? Even something like hammer and anvil which isn't ahistorical.

[wermez]

Limit yourself on 15 unit stack (1 fm +2 cav + 12 inf) and tell me how do you fare against spanish javelin thunderstorm ahaha.

[Rad]

I never found that house rule to be historical. Realistically, you'd recruit as many troops as you needed/could and you wouldn't endanger your troops to have some sense of challenge.

God, I hate fighting the Iberians! They're not as sturdy as the Romans, but the javelin storms make me regret every battle.

[Aper]

We are going off topic, I was only suggesting that having 4, 5 and even 6 recruitable cavalry units in some cities is a bit too much imho, 3 would be plentiful I think. I can think of ways to handicap myself if I want, thank you