Europa Barbarorum 2.08e is released!

[b0Gia de Bodemloze]

Relax, historically cavarly fought only vs cavarly and with infantry only from behind and the rears. Also to chase infantry running. If there is game problem we will fix it.

[Barnabas]

About melee hit rates (which I think is also kinda responsible for low kill rates and prolonged combat), I understand from many posts that the real killing happened during the rout and the battles were more of shoving matches so the kill rates should remain low - is/was a standart argument about EBII.

I think I wrote this before but the thing is, isn't this information coming from mostly hellenistic forces of the era? I mean they were the ones using and writing about how hoplites fought and how a phalanx was used right? The thing is... how about other people and units which are found in much more quantities in game? I know about lack of resources and all that and I wouldn't want supermario battles either but why can't hardly almost undermored units fielding swords kill one another? Unless it is one hellenistic formation against another which is extremely rare in EBII considering all the units that are in game and all the battles actively taking place with those units, I argue that it was/should be a bloodbath. Even if it was a hastati vs a unit of bataroi it should be a quick bloodbath.

I'm not suggesting something like make hastatis or hoplites killing machines but increase the overall killrate. Steppe warfare horse charge, celtic warriors charging after javelins, overall germanic warfare I dunno iberian quick assult by young lightly armed warriors jumping on enemy... all of these styles of nonhistorical or speculative (because we have 0 sources by them unless hellenes or rome right?) warfare are right now being modelled after mediterrenean shoving matches which in game looks really strange when units just stand look move little stand look hit take hit nudge repeat for a long time.. They look like they are just symbolic tokens like heroes of might and magic (of course still total war engine).

Sacrifice the historical hoplites and phalanxes with nonshoving matches and high kill rates and make sense of all other warfares which use many light and lethal troops "charging".

Does anyone commanding any noncivilized (don't have better word for this) troops enjoy watching their battles? I know the aim is not eyecandy but the troops are! They are so well done with details and shieldpatterns and great looks based on best historical evidence! They just stand there looking at one another! These are Sweboz! These are naked fanatics! These warriors are waiting!

Feel free to bash the post or argue against it but please mind, this is NOT a troll post. Not perfectly educated at worst..

[QuintusSertorius]

Some pretty big alterations in 2.04b to the starting infrastructure for Carthage, which was woefully undeveloped. Missing port buildings, missing markets, missing temples. Net effect should mean AI Carthage actually recruits fleets, and the human player can afford them.

Good to know, thanks.

I had a CTD just a minute ago but I'm not sure where to find the log to post here. I made the edits to do with that according to the instructions in the first post, but I can't seem to find the folder or file it points to. Any idea where I should look, or is there a chance no log was created in the first place?

If you've amended the path for the log to the one in the first post, it'll be in [your M2TW directory]\mods\EBII\logs\ - it'll be the biggest file

About melee hit rates (which I think is also kinda responsible for low kill rates and prolonged combat), I understand from many posts that the real killing happened during the rout and the battles were more of shoving matches so the kill rates should remain low - is/was a standart argument about EBII.

I think I wrote this before but the thing is, isn't this information coming from mostly hellenistic forces of the era? I mean they were the ones using and writing about how hoplites fought and how a phalanx was used right? The thing is... how about other people and units which are found in much more quantities in game? I know about lack of resources and all that and I wouldn't want supermario battles either but why can't hardly almost undermored units fielding swords kill one another? Unless it is one hellenistic formation against another which is extremely rare in EBII considering all the units that are in game and all the battles actively taking place with those units, I argue that it was/should be a bloodbath. Even if it was a hastati vs a unit of bataroi it should be a quick bloodbath.

I'm not suggesting something like make hastatis or hoplites killing machines but increase the overall killrate. Steppe warfare horse charge, celtic warriors charging after javelins, overall germanic warfare I dunno iberian quick assult by young lightly armed warriors jumping on enemy... all of these styles of nonhistorical or speculative (because we have 0 sources by them unless hellenes or rome right?) warfare are right now being modelled after mediterrenean shoving matches which in game looks really strange when units just stand look move little stand look hit take hit nudge repeat for a long time.. They look like they are just symbolic tokens like heroes of might and magic (of course still total war engine).

Sacrifice the historical hoplites and phalanxes with nonshoving matches and high kill rates and make sense of all other warfares which use many light and lethal troops "charging".

Does anyone commanding any noncivilized (don't have better word for this) troops enjoy watching their battles? I know the aim is not eyecandy but the troops are! They are so well done with details and shieldpatterns and great looks based on best historical evidence! They just stand there looking at one another! These are Sweboz! These are naked fanatics! These warriors are waiting!

Feel free to bash the post or argue against it but please mind, this is NOT a troll post. Not perfectly educated at worst..

Hit rates are not going up. They're already higher than we'd like, because of the bizarre decision by CA to hardcode cohesion to tie into hit rates.

Higher kill rates will lead to insta-routs and battles that last seconds, which makes most of the other elements of the battle engine moot.

[Boogie Knight]

If you've amended the path for the log to the one in the first post, it'll be in [your M2TW directory]\mods\EBII\logs\ - it'll be the biggest file

*Removes skull. Scratches cranium.* I simply don't have that folder. Is it created when a log is generated? Aside from a corrupt autosave right after 2.04a was released I've not had any CTD's besides the one yesterday.

Shame about the hit rates. Seeing them all stand there making the occasional stab at one-another is a little lacklustre, but obviously as you say we can't have seconds-long battles. Is there a way to increase attack rates instead? As in, the rate at which an individual soldier model swings his sword/thrusts his spear? Of course given the prevalence of shields in this era those attacks don't actually need to do any damage. Perhaps giving more shield/armour bonus to counteract this would help?

I'm talking myself in circles there a bit. I suppose this is the difficulty with battle modding. To change one thing, you have to change others around it to keep it balanced. Can't be easy for you guys.

[delra]

cavarly fought only vs cavarly and with infantry only from behind and the rears

Great. But this whole concept and the balancing that goes with it can all be thrown out the window unless AI is taught to use cavalry accordingly. At the moment it doesn't, it does the exact opposite of it, with a whole bunch of mechanical difficulties on top of it. And that's the essence of my feedback.

[z3n]

Great. But this whole concept and the balancing that goes with it can all be thrown out the window unless AI is taught to use cavalry accordingly. At the moment it doesn't, it does the exact opposite of it, with a whole bunch of mechanical difficulties on top of it. And that's the essence of my feedback.

Not sure what the tone you mean to say this all in, but honestly while your feedback is helpful you're repeating yourself for no apparent reason. I already acknowledged I'll get around to it, and while I do have the CAI, diplomacy, pathfinding, cohesion and some related campaign mechanics to worry about alongside real obligations. Additionally, understanding how CA wrote things and why they wrote it the way they did takes time, alongside testing to confirm that theory is fact. So there's no need to be so upset about this, if you are. Again as I said your feedback was really helpful as it brought something to my attention which I wouldn't have known otherwise (limited time for the extensive testing needed in several aspects of the game).

[Ribtickler]

While I don't know if this is helpful, but considering the discussions I had to try a custom battle of cav vs infantry.Parthian catathracts vs hoplites. Test 1 was , 1v 1 frontal charge, got stuck in melee, hoplites won. Test 2 , 2 cataphracts vs 2 hoplites , results exactly the same as 1. Test 3, 3 cataphracts vs 3 hoplites , each cav unit charged a separate hoplite unit and I expected the same, which it was,in respect to the cav getting bogged down. But the infantry gradually got ground down, then one routed. That was the end for the hoplited, the second routed pretty fast while the final unit fighting 2 cataphracts lasted a little bit too long, but lost all the same. So I suppose we could go on and try all sorts of combinations with all sorts of different results.
I used heavy cav because they are the strongest cav for a frontal charge whilst the lighter ones , as said did different roles.

[Barnabas]

I never encountered anything like what you describe in BAI. I was always using Hard Campaign with Medium Battle's because I heard somewhere that hard battle's were adjusted for medium and very hard gives extra extra morale to BAI.

May it be correct that in very hard battle difficulty the BAI actually plays more tactical/smarter afterall?

[Hummer]

I never encountered anything like what you describe in BAI. I was always using Hard Campaign with Medium Battle's because I heard somewhere that hard battle's were adjusted for medium and very hard gives extra extra morale to BAI.

May it be correct that in very hard battle difficulty the BAI actually plays more tactical/smarter afterall?

I have been playing for a wile now on H/H and have found it very good. I can still get heroic victory in some cases. I'm not an EB member but I would recommend moving up to H battles.

[inforc]

i played 2.01 for a long time and cavalry were mostly useless for me.
then i upgraded directly to 2.04a.
now i am crushing good infantry like hastati with rear charges, just murdering them really. and that's with hippeis!
frontal charges... different story
but in the proper use for cavalry, i find they work exactly as they should.

[Ribtickler]

Just been remembering an old Parthian campaign. My cataphracts where awesome. But , if I could , I always went for rear or flank attacks. You could roll an entire army hitting it in the flank if it was already engaged in melee.
`Horses for courses`(couldnt resist), don't use medium cav for a heavy cav operations, use light cav to run down routers, etc. I have had issues with some aspects with cav, but these have already been mentioned in previous posts and responded to.

[delra]

Are you playing the most recent version of EBII?

Obviously.

I just tried what you said on Very Hard difficulty

I tried suggesting that before. That is not the recommended difficulty, and devs won't even hear about recommending it, or balancing the game for it.

As for your own charges, be sure to always use a double-click order with cavalry.

No need to teach me how to launch a charge. Teach it to the AI. :-) In my tests I am the infantry, it's AI that's supposed to defeat me with units costing 5x more than my defending unit - and cannot. My point being simply that AI's gameplay doesn't fit the way devs would wnat to model the cavalry usage in the ancient times.

because the AI Carthaginian cavalry unit pulled off 3 successful charges (i.e., withdrawing and re-charging)

I can't reproduce.

Summarising, let's see what z3n can come up with for the next version. No need to beat on that horse more (see what I did there:-p) at the moment, unless someone has actual lines of xml fixing the issues at hand.

[HaHawk]

I can't reproduce.

Summarising, let's see what z3n can come up with for the next version. No need to beat on that horse more (see what I did there:-p) at the moment, unless someone has actual lines of xml fixing the issues at hand.

Yes, I may be mistaken here. There is definitely room for improvement. It seems that in EBII, the AI does not withdraw its cavalry as often, if ever, to perform multiple charges. I could have sworn that it has happened to me before, but after playing 5 or 6 custom battles earlier, I did not see the AI cavalry disengage to perform a second charge a single time. I was rather disappointed. I will upload a video soon to illustrate what the AI in Stainless Steel does using Gracul's AI. Hopefully someone on the EBII team will know what to make of it.

Can anyone else confirm whether they often (or ever) see AI withdraw its cavalry to commit multiple charges?

Again, the unit card is often wrong in what it displays, the best way to check is to read their entries in the EDU.

Out of curiosity, will the unit cards be updated in the Autumn Release? Do they have to be manually updated? I had previously assumed that the text stats were auto-generated.

[Ribtickler]

As Rome 2.04a Sabellan hatstati appear(on stats on unit card) to be superior to both hatstati and princeps is this normal?

[QuintusSertorius]

As Rome 2.04a Sabellan hatstati appear(on stats on unit card) to be superior to both hatstati and princeps is this normal?

Comparing them to Hastati isn't very meaningful, that's spearman vs swordsman. They are more equivalent to Principes. Compared to Principes, they use their spear overhand, which is why their attack stat is higher, and they are lighter-equipped, which is why their defensive skill is higher.

Again, the unit card is often wrong in what it displays, the best way to check is to read their entries in the EDU.

[delra]

Speaking of, was there ever an explation from the EB team as to why Hastati are swordsmen and Principes spearmen, while it should be the other way round? (hasta = spear after all).

[jamminj]

hi guys, thought I would give some feedback on my multiple campaigns I have played using latest build.

1stly- no matter who I use, within 45 turns makidionia gets wiped out....

2nd- assassins seem to be way overpowered, 0 star taking out family members, in settlements, with 6+ star spy in there.. in fact, in my pergomon campaign, I am 104 turns in, and have had 5 faction heirs assassinated so far, all in settlements with spies in...
the computer seems to spam these at you every go, 3 to 4 from each faction.. how it can even afford the 5000 cost each go is baffling..
but the main issue is that they are untrained 0 stars, but can still kill your family members.. while my trained, 6 star + assassins have 4% chance of killing any general..
so my next point being, spies seem pretty useless...
the cpu doesn't seen to need them to infiltrate your settlement for their assassins to be able to kill or sabotage.. and your highly trained spy guild master spy, doesn't actually protect and prevent their assassins killing or sabotaging stuff... this needs fixing..

trade.... at the start of any campaign, when you click on settlement, trade tab, your settlements are already trading oversees with different factions, even though no trade agreement has been set up... intentional or bug????

besieging.... when besieging settlements with wooden walls, everything goes pretty smoothly, but on stone walls when your units reach the walls with ladders or towers, they will plant said equipment against the walls, and then walk away...... bug???
also, when dismounting units from stone walls as a defender, units seem to run out of the gate, thus opening the gate and letting the attackers in.... bug??

army composition seems to be good from all nations I have encountered, but stack spam still seems to be an issue.. primarily with the smaller nations.. they seem to be able to support 5/6 full stacks with only a couple of settlements, which then leads them to snowball across the map.. while larger nations who should be able to support large stacks, seem to have trouble supporting 2/3 stacks.. and thus get destroyed...


I've played 3 fairly long campaigns so far, Rome 280 turns, got the 1st reforms, but couldn't build troops outside of starting ones, unlike in eb1, so ive put that on hold.. :-)
kh, 200+ turns, having major issues getting 4 different state leaders, so have put that on hold, lol
and pergomon, which after being assassinated to pieces, have put that on hold as well..... :-)

keep up the great work, am looking forwards to next instalment..

had to edit as 1st post disappeared completely...

[delra]

trade.... at the start of any campaign, when you click on settlement, trade tab, your settlements are already trading oversees with different factions, even though no trade agreement has been set up... intentional or bug????

Trade Rights (which I think are nonsensical for that era?) double the initial (unlicensed) income from trade.

[Hummer]

Trade Rights (which I think are nonsensical for that era?) double the initial (unlicensed) income from trade.

Seriously?... there are so many things about M2TW I don't understand. I've always kind of wondered about trade. Does anyone know how the graphs are calculated? Or sometimes it appears that the graphs for faction strengths are on the wrong turn. I always found this in vanilla M2TW but I haven't seen it quite as prevalent in EB2.

[delra]

The rank of most advanced economy counts money surplus, so if you lose two stacks of troops on one turn, you can sweep ahead of Rome and Seleucids in an instant. Others make sense.