Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Lusitanio]

was trying out the banners from Alternative Battles submod by YourMadDoc. his decr_banner_new.xml seems to be compatible with 2.35 and i was wondering if they could be included in the main EB?
these banners look neat and are a nice middle way between the outsized bouncie vanilla ones and going custom no banners. they look rather realistic whilst not causing potential control/visibility difficulties of 'no banners'.
here is their description:

I play with the banners disabled in game but I agree with you, the banners in that submod look beter, in fact, before disabling the banners I was using that submod

[QuintusSertorius]

Morale bonuses don't work. They can't, there's no record to attach it to for any unit recruited in a place giving that benefit.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Morale bonuses don't work. They can't, there's no record to attach it to for any unit recruited in a place giving that benefit.

IIRC, they do give bonuses to the units that are inside the settlement - so for a defensive battle or for a battle where the units join as support. I'm not sure of that, however.
And obviously no longer-lasting benefits.

[Aper]

Hi, I tried to improve the performance of the Illyrian light phalanx and I found that giving them "long_pike" makes an amazing difference and doesn't seem to have any downside. Maybe it's because "short_pike" may be bugged, I remember that someone speculated it wasn't used in any official release because it didn't work as intended.

[Roma_Victrix]

Firstly, I just want to say that I love the little animation of the Germanic horn blower guy who lifts the horn up to his lips before sounding off marching orders and attacks. More of that please! All the little things like that really add to the immersion and realism of your mod, which is easily the best for M2TW Kingdoms.

Secondly, I simply adore the awesome monumental Greek and Roman style temples you get to see out in the countryside, but a skilled editor should seriously consider placing them inside the Hellenistic and Roman huge cities, respectively, where they can also be appreciated. For the Greek huge city I would place it next to the already existing gigantic temple, to make the acropolis look more like a finished complex. At the moment the acropolis is kind of barren, with way too much open space than a normal Greek acropolis should have had IMHO.

https://i.imgur.com/I2FX7mU.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/XyKVO6T.jpg


Finally, some well-deserved criticism: you guys need to fix this weird black sky thing, where the skies are pitch black but the terrain and soldiers are lit up like it's noontime on a sunny, totally cloudless day. It's just jarring and really breaks the immersion for me. It did this twice, two battles in a row the last time I played:

https://i.imgur.com/3dCFAFR.jpg

[Lusitanio]

In case it is useful, 0TheLastTemplar0 has made an animation for dual-wielding weapon units.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...6#post15738796

[Porphyrogenita]

Give non nomadic factions the ability to convert camps to settlement after the installation of the highest tier allied government building [closely allied] in the camp and a client ruler.
Should that same faction ever demolish the allied government AND install a factional government, the area should automatically rebel. Forever.....
That would allow for the development of the camp but only by it retaining its autonomy and culture.

[QuintusSertorius]

Give non nomadic factions the ability to convert camps to settlement after the installation of the highest tier allied government building [closely allied] in the camp and a client ruler.
Should that same faction ever demolish the allied government AND install a factional government, the area should automatically rebel. Forever.....
That would allow for the development of the camp but only by it retaining its autonomy and culture.

It's not possible to string those conditions together.

[Porphyrogenita]

Thanks QS,
I can see how a script could check for ownership and the existence of a faction govt building and the existence of a "city" and thus generate a rebellion (and the check could run for as long as the faction owned the province).
So I presume the issue must be with giving the non-nomad factions the ability to convert camps?
I have a plan B but I'll need to work on it some more!
Regards
P.

[QuintusSertorius]

Thanks QS,
I can see how a script could check for ownership and the existence of a faction govt building and the existence of a "city" and thus generate a rebellion (and the check could run for as long as the faction owned the province).
So I presume the issue must be with giving the non-nomad factions the ability to convert camps?
I have a plan B but I'll need to work on it some more!
Regards
P.

Camp conversion is done by a building in the EDB. Access to that building is in a single line which doesn't allow for the nuance of "this faction can build it when they have X building in place".

[Porphyrogenita]

Camp conversion is done by a building in the EDB. Access to that building is in a single line which doesn't allow for the nuance of "this faction can build it when they have X building in place".

Hi QS,
Do you mean this line:

"43401 castle_to_large_town castle requires factions { f_parthia, f_sweboz, f_saka, f_sauromatae, f_numidia, f_lugia, f_bosporan, f_nabatu, f_boii, f_getai, f_carthage, } and hidden_resource mixed and building_present_min_level hinterland_farms_nomadic nomfarms_three ;;;and building_present_min_level govbospor bosphelnom or building_present_min_level govparthia parth_snt"

Regards

P.

[QuintusSertorius]

Hi QS,
Do you mean this line:

"43401 castle_to_large_town castle requires factions { f_parthia, f_sweboz, f_saka, f_sauromatae, f_numidia, f_lugia, f_bosporan, f_nabatu, f_boii, f_getai, f_carthage, } and hidden_resource mixed and building_present_min_level hinterland_farms_nomadic nomfarms_three ;;;and building_present_min_level govbospor bosphelnom or building_present_min_level govparthia parth_snt"

Regards

P.

Yes, it only allows one set of conditions.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I wonder if the term "Strategic fortifications" doesn't sound too serious for the type of buildin in the EBII?
The second level, Waystation and Garrisons, sounds very apt, but that Strategic Fortifications sounds to like "Maginot Line", not really fit for the place..
What do you think?

[Domaje]

Hello EB team.
Every time I play the Romans I always make sure to have a notepad next to me to write down who are my consuls and praetors, and since when. I must say I feel like an authentic ancient roman scribus doing so !
But with the new roman trait for the military service, which is very handy, I was wondering if you could just do the same for the senior magistratures ? For example with a tool tip saying if this is the first, second or fifth year of the mandate. A thing like that. :-)

[Porphyrogenita]

Hmm, so as an interim measure, I could replace the factions with "factions { all }" and just use house rules.
The line is written as if the "and" implies parenthesis until the next "and" but I wonder if the line could be written (pardon my representational logic):
"f_parthia and hidden_resource mixed and building_present_min_level hinterland_farms_nomadic nomfarms_three OR f-XXXXX....[for the nomadic factions] OR f_Baktria and hidden_resource mixed and building_present_min_level hinterland_farms_nomadic and nomfarms_three and [gov type xxx] OR f_Rome and hidden_resource mixed and building_present_min_level hinterland_farms_nomadic and nomfarms_three and [gov type xxx] etc for the non-nomadic factions.
Is there a guide to this particular script or modifying the EDB?

[QuintusSertorius]

Changing it to all and using house rules is the simplest way; the AI never converts anything, because that requires the destruction of herds buildings, and the AI never destroys anything.

There are no brackets in EBD code, which can make the use of OR statements tricky.

[Porphyrogenita]

Thanks QS I'll give it a go.
I just realised that by duplicating the whole building entry but changing the factions to the non-nomadics and adding "and govtype etc" to the existing "and" conditions it will give exactly the the desired affect.
Regards
P.

[QuintusSertorius]

Thanks QS I'll give it a go.
I just realised that by duplicating the whole building entry but changing the factions to the non-nomadics and adding "and govtype etc" to the existing "and" conditions it will give exactly the the desired affect.
Regards
P.

Just be sure to use Notepad++ to make your changes.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Quintus,
what do you think now about slowing down somehow the player's expansion?
I mean: if the player wants to take the provinces one-by-one with little pause, he can conquer fast a number of them. This is especially true for the less developed / less populated provinces for the major stumbling block: the initial civil order hit (eg. unrest related to culture or famine) is comparatively small. The best way to deal with such unrest in smaller settlements is simply a garrison: the ratio number_of_troops / population is already high for just 1-2 units - and these actually come for free due to the free upkeep from own government.
My experience comes from the play with Pergamon and Pritanoi. In the latter case (obviously an easy one), I've taken all the British Islands (+6 provinces, Pritanoi have ownership and no additional unrest, but this actually doesn't matter) in 55 turns on VH/VH, with a few realistic restricting home-rules (like no attack in winter). I imagine that for the political system of Pritanoi such a land-grab would prompt a backlash, never mind the after-conquest rebellions in the very regions. This is not reflected in the mechanics (or maybe I'm yet to experience it ;-), even though one may easily imagine it, eg. every province taken lowers loyalty of all characters but this cools-down as the time passes. Perhaps such a mechanism starting only at a higher level of difficulty: H/VH (so that the people don't complain ;-)
Experience with Pergamon in 2.3 was similar (well, not precisely: only +2 provinces in 55 turns, but then I've moved quickly due to the inactivity of the AI - and also had little problems while having plenty of money and recruitment possibilities).
I know the argument about the role-playing, but maybe something has changed in the mind of the team and you imagine a kind of mechanism to deter the player from conquering provinces too fast?
btw, I really admire that the reaction of the units to the orders on the battlefield is not such an instant one. This is really realistic imo, really good!
another good thing: I've landed on the continent and the rebels are recruiting new units in the settlement! this prevented me from attacking and now it a big problem, I need to wait for more troops. Great!
To be clear: I don' want more difficulty just for difficulty but more realism in the speed of conquest. We've had a discussion on the losses in the battles in the past and I understand this cannot slow down the conquest (even though at VH I have loses of 20-30%, and experienced even 40%, so there's a slight such effect), so I'm looking forward for something different.
JoC

[Roma_Victrix]

Per my post on the previous page (which nobody replied to), are there any plans to revamp the Western Greek large and huge city settlement models, or for that matter the Eastern Greek ones? They clearly had a lot of work put into them but they're still just kind of...bland. The Roman cities look much more lively, detailed, authentic, realistic, colorful, etc.

For that matter, where are we with the awesome remodeling of the Punic Carthaginian town and city models? I remember seeing Tweets and updates about them long ago, but there has been visual and textual silence about that topic for a long time now. It would be nice to know if these are still being worked on or if they've sadly been abandoned.