Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Mamlaz]

Technically even the landed knights of the medieval period were levies

[Kilo11]

So, I find the debate here interesting, but I think you guys have started to talk past each other, and lost sight of the original point anyway.

First, to the debate here: As I understand it Mamlaz, mAIOR, and NapoleanMaster seem to be pressing the point that horse archers (hereafter HAs) did not create many casualties and were generally more of a nuisance on the battlefield or served a tactical but themselves non-lethal role. Ghengis Skahn, Quintus Sertorius, and the EB team in general are, I believe, holding the line on the idea that HAs were central units in many militaries and moreover essential for victory for peoples like the Saka, Sarmatae, and later the Huns and Mongols.

First things first, these points aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and it may be useful for you all to clarify what exactly your objection is to the other side (Ghengis Skahn's and Mamlaz's heating responses to one another seem to most forcefully show this need to clarify what the exact objection is). If one side is just saying they didn't kill many enemies and the other side is saying they were a crucial role for victory, these can certainly both be true. A further point of clarity that I think is very important to make is about how they were lethal. If the objection against HAs is that they weren't lethal when used against a shieldwall or fixed line, then this differs greatly from the idea that they weren't lethal period, even when firing at a flank or the rear of a unit. In some cases it seems like the anti-HA faction (I know you guys aren't really anti-HA, but bear with the unfair title) is objecting to them being lethal against the front of troops, and the pro-HA response seems to be trading on effectiveness when flanking or cutting down routing units, or thinning already light troops. Clarity in this would be helpful as well. Finally, I think the whole discussion about historical sources from both sides needs to given proper substantiation or omitted altogether. I'm not saying that any of the things cited are wrong or biased, but I can see the use of sources (without providing citations) as a sore point from both sides, and one which is derailing the discussion a bit.

To sum up my take on the debate so far, I don't think you guys actually are really disagreeing. I think the anti-HA people are saying they wouldn't kill well-armored troops with solid formations, the pro-HA people are saying they can do precisely that when flanking or drawing out such troops. I don't think this is a point the anti-HA folks will strongly object to, and the resistance is one due to misunderstanding of each other, not to real objections. Do correct me if I've misrepresented or misunderstood any point though.

Now, the second thing is that you have all seem to lost sight of the original -- and more important -- point anyway, which was that mAIOR thought missile units should have their damage nerfed because in his opinion they were too lethal. Now, I just ran a couple (very quick) tests, and I don't actually see a problem there. Using two units of Saka HAs against two units of Baktrian levy hoplite I did not manage to kill more than 30% of them if the arrows were consitently fired into their fronts, and nearly all of the casualties came when they were marching toward me and thus their lines were open and receiving unhindered fire. When they were set in lines without moving the kill rate was far lower though (certainly no more than 10%). However, if I used those two HAs to swing round and hit their sides or backs I could cut them down more like 50%-60% casualties, but that also seems fine, given that I was then firing into entirely unprotected areas. So, as far as archer balance in game goes, I can't see the objection.

[NapoleonMaster]

So, I find the debate here interesting, but I think you guys have started to talk past each other, and lost sight of the original point anyway.

First, to the debate here: As I understand it Mamlaz, mAIOR, and NapoleanMaster seem to be pressing the point that horse archers (hereafter HAs) did not create many casualties and were generally more of a nuisance on the battlefield or served a tactical but themselves non-lethal role. Ghengis Skahn, Quintus Sertorius, and the EB team in general are, I believe, holding the line on the idea that HAs were central units in many militaries and moreover essential for victory for peoples like the Saka, Sarmatae, and later the Huns and Mongols.

First things first, these points aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and it may be useful for you all to clarify what exactly your objection is to the other side (Ghengis Skahn's and Mamlaz's heating responses to one another seem to most forcefully show this need to clarify what the exact objection is). If one side is just saying they didn't kill many enemies and the other side is saying they were a crucial role for victory, these can certainly both be true. A further point of clarity that I think is very important to make is about how they were lethal. If the objection against HAs is that they weren't lethal when used against a shieldwall or fixed line, then this differs greatly from the idea that they weren't lethal period, even when firing at a flank or the rear of a unit. In some cases it seems like the anti-HA faction (I know you guys aren't really anti-HA, but bear with the unfair title) is objecting to them being lethal against the front of troops, and the pro-HA response seems to be trading on effectiveness when flanking or cutting down routing units, or thinning already light troops. Clarity in this would be helpful as well. Finally, I think the whole discussion about historical sources from both sides needs to given proper substantiation or omitted altogether. I'm not saying that any of the things cited are wrong or biased, but I can see the use of sources (without providing citations) as a sore point from both sides, and one which is derailing the discussion a bit.

To sum up my take on the debate so far, I don't think you guys actually are really disagreeing. I think the anti-HA people are saying they wouldn't kill well-armored troops with solid formations, the pro-HA people are saying they can do precisely that when flanking or drawing out such troops. I don't think this is a point the anti-HA folks will strongly object to, and the resistance is one due to misunderstanding of each other, not to real objections. Do correct me if I've misrepresented or misunderstood any point though.

Now, the second thing is that you have all seem to lost sight of the original -- and more important -- point anyway, which was that mAIOR thought missile units should have their damage nerfed because in his opinion they were too lethal. Now, I just ran a couple (very quick) tests, and I don't actually see a problem there. Using two units of Saka HAs against two units of Baktrian levy hoplite I did not manage to kill more than 30% of them if the arrows were consitently fired into their fronts, and nearly all of the casualties came when they were marching toward me and thus their lines were open and receiving unhindered fire. When they were set in lines without moving the kill rate was far lower though (certainly no more than 10%). However, if I used those two HAs to swing round and hit their sides or backs I could cut them down more like 50%-60% casualties, but that also seems fine, given that I was then firing into entirely unprotected areas. So, as far as archer balance in game goes, I can't see the objection.

Tbqh, i'm only saying that both horse archers and melee cavalry in nomadic armies were complementary to each other and otherwise they wouldn't achieve victory on their own, not that the HA didn't matter in battle.

Without HA, infantry-based armies wouldn't have been softened and demoralized to break their cohesion and to pave the way for the charge to rout the enemy and achieve victory. Instead, the infantry would have repelled the charging Lancers.

Without Lancers/Cataphracts there wouldn't be the hammer to crush the demoralized and softened enemy and the HA would be too light to smash the enemy line.

The point is that, again, no unit was the only decisive unit to win a battle, they complemented each other because otherwise, they wouldn't defeat the enemy on their own and this combination was used by almost all steppe-based nomadic armies.

[mAIOR]

My point was that arrows seemed to deadly in the mod. Too high casualties. I thought about using the flaming arrows in lieu of normal arrows so they would add a morale malus and lower overall casualties.

[Lusitanio]

My point was that arrows seemed to deadly in the mod. Too high casualties. I thought about using the flaming arrows in lieu of normal arrows so they would add a morale malus and lower overall casualties.

From my experience playing battles I don't think arrows are that deadly. They do their job in a wonderfull way, that is disturbing enemy units and killing some of them but not that much. For example, I have done some battle tests with 5 units of archers and yes, they can kill around 100 enemy units each but most of the kills are when units are running away from the battlefield. You can never rely on them and need to have good infantry troops to support them (therefore I recommend 2/3 max archers unitsin a full stack). So the way it's done in the mod is already good and won't change. If you feel that way you can do your own changes.

[QuintusSertorius]

My point was that arrows seemed to deadly in the mod. Too high casualties. I thought about using the flaming arrows in lieu of normal arrows so they would add a morale malus and lower overall casualties.

And you made your point. Sorry, I'm not rewriting the entire combat balance just because you think arrows kill too many. We don't accept every suggestion in this thread simply because someone made it.

Again, you are welcome to make whatever changes you like to your own installation, and if you can demonstrate a positive impact of these changes then we might consider it.

[mAIOR]

And you made your point. Sorry, I'm not rewriting the entire combat balance just because you think arrows kill too many. We don't accept every suggestion in this thread simply because someone made it.

Again, you are welcome to make whatever changes you like to your own installation, and if you can demonstrate a positive impact of these changes then we might consider it.

Alright. I will play around with scale and arrows then and then post the results. I am not trying to force you into anything. It was just literally something I thought after starting EB 2.3 for the first time. Mod is great btw.

[Kilo11]

I also find the actual gameplay with archers to be quite good. I like to have a few units of good ranged units, mainly because one of my house rules is to always fight in such a way as minimize friendly casualties (even if that means sacrificing other strategic goals). But there are very few battles where my archers make a real dent in the enemy. I generally use them to thin enemy ranged units, which are very light, so that my light cav can rout them quickly and get that threat out of the way, and then if possible I'll try to get behind one or two enemy units to hit their flanks. But I have definitely had battles before where the entire enemy line was assorted phalanxes and hoplites, and my archers never took down more than max 10% of the enemy units they were firing into. A fixed line of shields simply does not break under archer fire, which is as it should be, in my opinion.

[COMIS -3- ΠΑΝΙΩΝΑΡΑ]

Is it possible to add an event in high unrest territories ,so the player can pay an amount of money in order to keep the unrest in lower level for a small amount of turns every time?and to cancel it of course when the unrest is generally low?

[QuintusSertorius]

Is it possible to add an event in high unrest territories ,so the player can pay an amount of money in order to keep the unrest in lower level for a small amount of turns every time?and to cancel it of course when the unrest is generally low?

The script command that adds unrest only works in one direction. The only thing that can reduce it is time - it falls by 5% every season.

[HarkonRules]

He might be referring to regions with the Troublesome Regions script.

[isa0005]

So one thing I'd like to see, particularly with Greek factions, is more variability in the nationality of your generals based on the regions you control. I was playing as Epirus and managed to conquer quite a vast territory and found that many of the generals I was either being offered to adopt or marry into my family were all from the Epirotan region, despite having seized control of all of Greece, the Danubian regions, Thrace and Anatolia.

Also, a return of princesses in some fashion would be cool too. I know there is a submod that does that but it doesn't seem to work for me

[QuintusSertorius]

So one thing I'd like to see, particularly with Greek factions, is more variability in the nationality of your generals based on the regions you control. I was playing as Epirus and managed to conquer quite a vast territory and found that many of the generals I was either being offered to adopt or marry into my family were all from the Epirotan region, despite having seized control of all of Greece, the Danubian regions, Thrace and Anatolia.

With a limited number of ethnicities per faction (because you can't have more than 13 Conditions on a Trait trigger), that isn't really possible. The idea behind the ethnicities present is to focus on the ruling families of that faction and their distinct character at the start. So groups outside that will only ever get the most generic treatment at best. We have changed the mix of ethnicities for several factions (Carthage for example has several new ones, all the Puno-Italic ones have gone).

[isa0005]

Ah, okay, thats a shame but fair enough. Still glad to hear you’ve mixed things up a little

[Rad]

Small sugestion - make the rebel capitals more durable(ish).

I started a new Carthage campaign. The thing I noticed is that Syracuse has like 15 units in the initial garrison, but also happens to be affected by the garrison script that spawns 10 additional units. So, if the garrison is at its full 15 unit strength, half of the scripted garrioson does not spawn - it's kind of a waste.
Maybe spread those 5 extra initial units to the two roaming armies?

[Lusitanio]

Small sugestion - make the rebel capitals more durable(ish).

I started a new Carthage campaign. The thing I noticed is that Syracuse has like 15 units in the initial garrison, but also happens to be affected by the garrison script that spawns 10 additional units. So, if the garrison is at its full 15 unit strength, half of the scripted garrioson does not spawn - it's kind of a waste.
Maybe spread those 5 extra initial units to the two roaming armies?

It's already good as it is and with the rebels recruiting now, Syracuse can quickly transform in a fortress (still that doesn't stop it from being conquered since I saw the KH conquering the city in one of my testing campaigns).

However, I will try to convince the team to make life harder for the Carthaginians in other regions with something like a Roman army spamming after conquering Messana and maybe another Roman army spamming in Africa before the Xanthippus event.

[Hellenikon]

I really dislike any use of scripting to create armies out of nothing for the AI, specially for gameplay purposes. I am ok with it if it is used to represent some historical situation that the AI cannot recreate (like the ptolemies protecting Sinope or the kingship of macedonia).

[Lusitanio]

I really dislike any use of scripting to create armies out of nothing for the AI, especially for gameplay purposes. I am ok with it if it is used to represent some historical situation that the AI cannot recreate (like the ptolemies protecting Sinope or the kingship of macedonia).

I dislike it too. What I'm proposing is to represent what happened in history. For example, after conquering Messana, a Roman army would appear nearby and attack the city to represent the Romans coming to help the city.

And the one spamming in Africa intends to represent Regulus invasion of Africa in the First Punic War.

[Rad]

All I suggested is that the team takes the 5 units from the city garrison and redistribute them among the 2 roaming armies. That way, the two roaming armies will have more units and Syracuse will still have a complete garrison of 20 units when the garrison script kicks in. I'm saying this because Syracuse is a very early target for Rome and Carthage players - it's a shame to waste the garrison script.

[Kull]

All I suggested is that the team takes the 5 units from the city garrison and redistribute them among the 2 roaming armies. That way, the two roaming armies will have more units and Syracuse will still have a complete garrison of 20 units when the garrison script kicks in. I'm saying this because Syracuse is a very early target for Rome and Carthage players - it's a shame to waste the garrison script.

Not trying to be semantic, but the garrison script is only able to "fill it up". There's no code i'm aware of which says, "take excess units from the garrison script and place them inside existing rover stacks, wherever they happen to have wandered off too at that particular moment". You would need a separate script that spawns a completely different rover stack based on some criteria such as "city under siege".