Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[QuintusSertorius]

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

As I said, that's a consequence of low cavalry variety in those regions, unlike lots of other places there's only one unit rather than at least two. Even the regional ones are variations on the type, rather than additional. If you're stacking Arevaci colonisation with governments, you may end up with a lot of Riders, depending on your choices.

[Aper]

As I said, that's a consequence of low cavalry variety in those regions, unlike lots of other places there's only one unit rather than at least two. Even the regional ones are variations on the type, rather than additional. If you're stacking Arevaci colonisation with governments, you may end up with a lot of Riders, depending on your choices.

Thank you for the explanation Quintus. You understood I was suggesting a small design change, and not asking how to get a challenge (and this would be the wrong thread for that)

[QuintusSertorius]

Thank you for the explanation Quintus. You understood I was suggesting a small design change, and not asking how to get a challenge (and this would be the wrong thread for that)

Unless the rosters for the colonies change, there isn't a lot I can do about the low variety. At the least, the mercenary-hiring script should be relieving the Arevaci player of some of their pool of Riders from Sekeiza and Kontrebia fairly frequently.

[Wulfburk]

A lot of players are heavy on the house rules (even ahistorical house rules) to keep a challenge due to the weak AI of total war games.

I for one enjoy a lot to keep historical army compositions, and when playing hellenistic factions i usually try to keep around 3-5 cavalry units

[Rad]

If you believe you can recruit too many units - don't recruit too many units.
Like others stated, Celtic and Iberian armies had no shortage of cavalry.

[Genghis Skahn]

One of my few house rules is that I rarely, if ever(unless for expediency with auto-resolve) assault cities. I pretty much exclusively starve them out unless the city is totally defenseless, of course.

There are two reasons for this:

1)I hate M2TW sieges, they're just so messy and unwieldy(especially those ridiculous invisible spaces between buildings that pretty much makes using formations in cities impossible). Therefore, I lose much less troops by fighting their starve-out sallies instead.
2)It allows the CAI ample time to recruit a rescue force, and in my experience it reliably delivers in that regard, so long as you give them enough time.

Give it a try if you're looking for some big battles from the AI. You might find yourself outnumbered and have to retreat, even. z3n has suggested in the past that the M2TW CAI isn't smart enough to know how to properly respond to well-performed blitzing(like bringing a stack by sea to a coastal/island city, sacking it, and then leaving before they can muster up reinforcements). That problem, as we all know, can technically be treated with some good ol' fashioned stack-spam IMO...But we all know how stack spam is. It can get really really old, fast.

Regarding the OP cavalry discussion:

I would also suggest that the problem is compounded by, IMO, the M2TW engine's love of all things cavalry. It's no secret that infantry performed much more excellently in RTW. In EBII a few bogged down lightish(not paper thin, mind you) cavalry units can actually stay(without recharging) in a melee with Batoroi/Gargokladioi and even win, given they aren't flanked by something else(note: they probably could not do so with spearmen, but this wouldn't happen against EBI swordsmen, since cavalry had little staying power). Source: fought a rebel army with tons of Akus Eporedoi in it; stationed all my swordsmen on my right flank in the corner of the map thinking it would be enough, but no, the many cavalry units overwhelmed the sword using units without needing to recharge(and when I tried to rescue my swordsmen and flank them with my FM+his support cav, he got fukt by their sheer numbers as well). Anyhow, the point is, I've always found cavalry in M2TW to be OP compared to like every other unit type.

I should note that I'm not really complaining about EBII swordsmen--infantry in EB is rather good, it's just that I've found M2TW cavalry to be a bit naturally OP.

That's my two cents, anyways.

[Marvzilla]

One of my few house rules is that I rarely, if ever(unless for expediency with auto-resolve) assault cities. I pretty much exclusively starve them out unless the city is totally defenseless, of course.

There are two reasons for this:

1)I hate M2TW sieges, they're just so messy and unwieldy(especially those ridiculous invisible spaces between buildings that pretty much makes using formations in cities impossible). Therefore, I lose much less troops by fighting their starve-out sallies instead.
2)It allows the CAI ample time to recruit a rescue force, and in my experience it reliably delivers in that regard, so long as you give them enough time.

Give it a try if you're looking for some big battles from the AI. You might find yourself outnumbered and have to retreat, even. z3n has suggested in the past that the M2TW CAI isn't smart enough to know how to properly respond to well-performed blitzing(like bringing a stack by sea to a coastal/island city, sacking it, and then leaving before they can muster up reinforcements). That problem, as we all know, can technically be treated with some good ol' fashioned stack-spam IMO...But we all know how stack spam is. It can get really really old, fast.

Regarding the OP cavalry discussion:

I would also suggest that the problem is compounded by, IMO, the M2TW engine's love of all things cavalry. It's no secret that infantry performed much more excellently in RTW. In EBII a few bogged down lightish(not paper thin, mind you) cavalry units can actually stay(without recharging) in a melee with Batoroi/Gargokladioi and even win, given they aren't flanked by something else(note: they probably could not do so with spearmen, but this wouldn't happen against EBI swordsmen, since cavalry had little staying power). Source: fought a rebel army with tons of Akus Eporedoi in it; stationed all my swordsmen on my right flank in the corner of the map thinking it would be enough, but no, the many cavalry units overwhelmed the sword using units without needing to recharge(and when I tried to rescue my swordsmen and flank them with my FM+his support cav, he got fukt by their sheer numbers as well). Anyhow, the point is, I've always found cavalry in M2TW to be OP compared to like every other unit type.

I should note that I'm not really complaining about EBII swordsmen--infantry in EB is rather good, it's just that I've found M2TW cavalry to be a bit naturally OP.

That's my two cents, anyways.

In my experience even heavy Cavalry of the Hellenistic Dynasties and the local variants are pretty flimsy in melee combat/staying power, even against knife armed skirmishers such as Toxotai.

[hlidskjalf]

city assaults are also incredibly rare historically, no? in the punic wars I can only recall a night assault at Tarentum maybe, and only one in Sicily during the first war? it would be interesting if individual cities could be more easily bribed by the presence of a stronger local military force. if an impressive enemy stack came into your territory and two of your cities "defected" to that faction because of the presence of that stack allowing them to be bribed easily, that would cause some more fun in tense border-wars

probably impossible to mod that in the game though

[Mamlaz]

Well, I would not say incredibly rare, just not that common.

For example, the more famous ones;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_...2%80%93291_BC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Saguntum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_...2%80%93212_BC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Capua_(211_BC)

etc.

Note, they are likely heavily outnumbered by siege assaults that failed, which were also much less likely to be written about.

Heck, from my memory, I think there were at least several to a dozen city assaults during the Cretan War alone.

It is the same as with castle assaults during the medieval period, the trope that they were very rare goes out the window once you start noticing the short or vague mentions of failed assaults as you read various stuff.

[Genghis Skahn]

Well, assaults seemed to have had a high probability of failure. If my memory is correct, Thucydides mentions quite a few failed assaults in his writings.

[Sarkiss]

the siegecraft of Classical Greece (described by Thucydides) is rudimentary and most of the emphasis was placed on encircling the place and starving out the defenders. those methods were qualitatively different from what was to come during Philip II's reign. Philip's full-time soldiers were much more accustomed and willing to assault cities when compared to the citizen militias of city states. plus, Philip maintain an expansive siege train, which only added to the willingness to besiege and assault as opposed to largely passive techniques of Classical Greece where the prevalent equipment was mostly restricted to basic battering rams and assault ladders. due to the improved know-how, during Hellenistic period sieges/city assaults seemed to have been a more regular occurrence than large scale pitched battles. a good read on this is Besieged: Siege Warfare in the Ancient World by D. B. Campbell.

[Mamlaz]

It was also the advent of torsion siege machinery that hyped up siege assaults.

[hlidskjalf]

thanks Mamlaz! and now I do recall another - it was Africanus attacking Carthage Nova maybe? that was interesting, and bloody.

[Erken]

Besieged is a good introduction, with the advantage of offering a global perspective, but i would recommend Philo of Byzantium for a more concrete approach. His Poliorketika adresses the architecture as well as the preparations and the different ways of attack and defence. To read it after Aeneas Tacticus gives a good overview of the evolution of siegecraft.

[Lusitanio]

I'm not sure if EBII already uses it for some nomad factions, but what you think about using the Apach WarPath for the nomad factions?
BTW: And the technology stealing (reforms in some way) to be used (for example) by Carthage when Hannibal troops started using some roman equipment - Creating a new unit, the Lybian Heavy Hoplite / Carthaginian Veterans / African Veterans (the name is complicated but the unit existed and would be a great final inclusion on Carthage main unit rooster)

[QuintusSertorius]

I'm not sure if EBII already uses it for some nomad factions, but what you think about using the Apach WarPath for the nomad factions?
BTW: And the technology stealing (reforms in some way) to be used (for example) by Carthage when Hannibal troops started using some roman equipment - Creating a new unit, the Lybian Heavy Hoplite / Carthaginian Veterans / African Veterans (the name is complicated but the unit existed and would be a great final inclusion on Carthage main unit rooster)

We already have "late" Carthaginian units triggered by their reform, which includes an armour upgrade for the Liby-Phoenician Infantry and Libyan Skirmishers, and a late version of the Libyan Hoplites and Libyan Swordsmen.

[Lusitanio]

We already have "late" Carthaginian units triggered by their reform, which includes an armour upgrade for the Liby-Phoenician Infantry and Libyan Skirmishers, and a late version of the Libyan Hoplites and Libyan Swordsmen.

Yes, that part is true and I really appreciate the Carthaginian "late" units, however, for the Libyans who fought for Hannibal, according to both Polybius and Livy (Polyb. 3.87.3, 114.1; Liv. 22.46.4) they were armed with the best Roman equipment looted from the battles of the Trebia and Trasimene. What exactly were they armed with, defensive items like shields, helmets and greaves, or did they also receive offensive weapons such as pila or gladii?

Livy mentions an episode where Libyans are mistaken for Roman soldiers at close range, which suggests they wore the panoply of scutums, greaves and helmets and even their tunics to pass themselves off as Roman.
We could guess that Hannibal troops used the equipment from the Battle of Trasimene until the Battle of Zama (so around 15 years using it) and they would probably keep using it had they had not been defeated.

EBII has nothing like this beauty:

[NapoleonMaster]

Yes, that part is true and I really appreciate the Carthaginian "late" units, however, for the Libyans who fought for Hannibal, according to both Polybius and Livy (Polyb. 3.87.3, 114.1; Liv. 22.46.4) they were armed with the best Roman equipment looted from the battles of the Trebia and Trasimene. What exactly were they armed with, defensive items like shields, helmets and greaves, or did they also receive offensive weapons such as pila or gladii?

Livy mentions an episode where Libyans are mistaken for Roman soldiers at close range, which suggests they wore the panoply of scutums, greaves and helmets and even their tunics to pass themselves off as Roman.
We could guess that Hannibal troops used the equipment from the Battle of Trasimene until the Battle of Zama (so around 15 years using it) and they would probably keep using it had they had not been defeated.

EBII has nothing like this beauty:

You already have those with the Lybian swordsmen.

This is what EB team has to say about this :

"Several stelae (the ones from El Hofra and Cirta) and a few written sources (Polybius and Livy) depict the use of the gladius hispaniensis, Montefortino helmet and the thureos by the Carthaginian armies, by either Carthaginian citizens or their Libyan subjects. These elements were adopted because of their cheap production and effectiveness, but when exactly this happened is still discussed by historians. The most popular theory is that they weren't adopted before the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.) and that the use of these elements was a product of Gallic and Roman influences. Polybius uses the term "speirai" (unit similar to the Roman maniple) to describe Hannibal's soldiers who fought at Cannae. Some hypotheses speak of a Hannibalic innovation, in which the classic phalanx was replaced by small and mobile units of men that fought in a way similar to the Roman style of warfare. This is reinforced by the way Hannibal had his troops take up Roman equipment. Although the idea of a Punic army organized in several maniples (a way of fighting in which the combination of thureos and sword is more effective than in a large phalanx) is intriguing, we don't have enough evidence to accept this hypothesis."

[Trarco]

You already have those with the Lybian infantry.

This is what EB team has to say about this :

"Several stelae (the ones from El Hofra and Cirta) and a few written sources (Polybius and Livy) depict the use of the gladius hispaniensis, Montefortino helmet and the thureos by the Carthaginian armies, by either Carthaginian citizens or their Libyan subjects. These elements were adopted because of their cheap production and effectiveness, but when exactly this happened is still discussed by historians. The most popular theory is that they weren't adopted before the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.) and that the use of these elements was a product of Gallic and Roman influences. Polybius uses the term "speirai" (unit similar to the Roman maniple) to describe Hannibal's soldiers who fought at Cannae. Some hypotheses speak of a Hannibalic innovation, in which the classic phalanx was replaced by small and mobile units of men that fought in a way similar to the Roman style of warfare. This is reinforced by the way Hannibal had his troops take up Roman equipment. Although the idea of a Punic army organized in several maniples (a way of fighting in which the combination of thureos and sword is more effective than in a large phalanx) is intriguing, we don't have enough evidence to accept this hypothesis."

Thanks, that's the type of reply I wanted to provide since it's after all my concept . Also, note that both gladius and thureos were weapons that surely were adopted by Carthage close to the Second Punic War, especially in the case of the gladius that is a Celtiberian modification of the La Tene sword. So, the current concept should cover this "Hannibalic event". After all, that is not a steal of the Roman technology, for example during the Second Punic War Romans adopted Iberian weapons and Iberians adopted Roman weapons, both peoples benefited from their enemies.

[Lusitanio]

Damm guys, those are some very good arguments from both Napoleon and Trarco. Indeed, while I would love to see some carthaginian heavy spearmen with scutum shields, your arguments seem to have defeated that idea

Anyway, since we are here, what you think about a reform on the sacred band in order for them to have the bigger oval shields?
And the Apach warpath can it be used by nomads or even barbarian factions to simulate migrations to some regions?