1.2 Overview & Previews Collection

[FlashHeart07]

Read the OP there will be small pop up texts when you reach a certain year in history and get a small lesson in ancient history


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dresden]

Yeah, we aren't really into forcing certain events on the player (although we may have some scripted events at some point). These are just messages that tell about what was happening at that time historically.

[Noone likes Thebes:(]

What's with that new/different Icon in Thessaly? Aetolian league perhaps?

[Dresden]

Indeed

[airborne guy]

Looks good. Good luck Team!

[Argive Strategos]

What is the aetolian roster going to be like? They were very good with light infantry, destroying much of the Gallic invasion force that invaded Greece.

[mirelicus]

Talking about pikes.They won't be able to push the enemies,right?

[KAM 2150]

If the system will work, then they will. I was able to bring the push in, depending on unit quality, but the system is very early and I am not aware what bugs will appear.

[ablebodie]

Curious about a couple other factions if you can spare a sec.

Who is it east of Tylis? Also, what is the faction holding Sinope? Looks like there are some new Celto-Iberians as well as Gauls. Wikipedia here we come!

[chriswhr]

Why doesnt Egypt have a region in southern Anatolia? 278 b.c was before the Syrian wars and Egypt possessed that region. And Egypt still had Cyrenaica, it was in 274 b.c when the brother of Ptolemy II rebelled.

[Dresden]

@chriswhr We have to fudge a few spots to get it right. For example, Galatia and the Celts really were still in invasion mode, but there are no hordes in Rome 2. So we have them set as holding the regions.

With Cyrenaica, Magas was constantly trying to become independent and I think crowned himself King before that? You are right about it being later than 278 but I left it in for 2 reasons - 1) to reflect that it was trying (and became) independent and 2) for gameplay reasons since Egypt is already the easiest spot on the map. The regions in Anatolia are hard to assign because they don't break down along the lines of that time. But I will look into what we can do there.

These are not final just yet as we are still discussing some various changes.

@ablebodie Tylis is actually going to be renamed I think, to represent the celtic invasion of the time. We will see about that though. To the east of them is currently the Thyni. Sinope is its own faction for now.

Edit -
Updated today after playing with some of the ideas here

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Scutarii]

When you say the Edetani are replacing the Cantabri, do you mean they will also be keeping most of the roster? I quite like the Cantabri's unit roster and see it as a strange choice to remove as a playable faction.

Somewhat unrelated to the thread, but do you have any plans to make rebellions any stronger? As it stands they are incredibly weak, even if you let them get to a full stack or get a slave rebellion, as they are entirely filled with the DEI garrison units. Having the rebel stacks fill with AOR units from the region with some garrison or faction units would make them a lot more threatening. Even the AI doesn't care if they let a region get to -100.

[tgoodenow]

One thing about Colchis is that their general units are garbage compared to the other hellenic cultures, will Colchis be getting more general units?

When playing AE : DEI mod, I found that liberating factions in each province allows you to get really OP really fast with one faction spam (Atilla Sassanid style) . Any plans to limit the amount of factions you can create? Maybe a negative diplomatic modifier per vassal?

[Dresden]

@Scutarii Edetani have a totally revamped roster. Cantabri will keep theirs but will no longer be playable. Maybe we can change that to have both be playable, but it seemed unnecessary given the 3 factions already in Iberia that are playable. We have no plans for rebellions at the moment, using garrison units makes the most sense to us but I understand why it would be less than challenging for some players.

@tgoodenow I think there is a plan for a Colchis overhaul but its not for sure yet. We don't have any system for negatives based on vassal number. But, most factions can't create satrapies. If they use them properly, they should be rewarded...but I understand your concerns there.

[muchandmore]

This looks fantastic, as usual. I have some questions though.

Is it possible for you guys to make it so satrapy's and client states are able to be 'confederated' (for lack of a better word) into their overlord state? For example if the Selucids are able to keep some of their eastern satraps happy for x amount of time then the satrap will accept confederation with the Selucids, becoming part of the empire proper. More or less how it works in Total War: Warhammer except I'd imagine only for Satraps and Clients.

In addition, is it possible to add back the feature of giving regions to other empires, like it was in older games? Perhaps only for the human player if the AI can't handle it.

Finally, what if Satraps/Clients, upon taking a city, either automatically give it to their overlord or the overlord is given a choice between allowing the vassal to keep it or take it for itself?

I feel that all of these admittedly very rough ideas would drastically reduce the amount of bordergore and plain nonsensical things happening (i.e losing a core city for a turn, being on the cusp of taking it back only for an ally to take it giving you no way to get it back yourself without waging war).

I'm sure most of that isn't possible within the limitations of the game, but a man can dream at least.

[Avarice1987]

I see the Etruscian League north of Rome.

Is this Faction Playable?

[TFCAliarcy]

No

[FlashHeart07]

This looks fantastic, as usual. I have some questions though.

Is it possible for you guys to make it so satrapy's and client states are able to be 'confederated' (for lack of a better word) into their overlord state? For example if the Selucids are able to keep some of their eastern satraps happy for x amount of time then the satrap will accept confederation with the Selucids, becoming part of the empire proper. More or less how it works in Total War: Warhammer except I'd imagine only for Satraps and Clients.

In addition, is it possible to add back the feature of giving regions to other empires, like it was in older games? Perhaps only for the human player if the AI can't handle it.

Finally, what if Satraps/Clients, upon taking a city, either automatically give it to their overlord or the overlord is given a choice between allowing the vassal to keep it or take it for itself?

I feel that all of these admittedly very rough ideas would drastically reduce the amount of bordergore and plain nonsensical things happening (i.e losing a core city for a turn, being on the cusp of taking it back only for an ally to take it giving you no way to get it back yourself without waging war).

I'm sure most of that isn't possible within the limitations of the game, but a man can dream at least.

This would require us to be able to mod the diplomacy. And we cant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mirelicus]

I was thinking about a script .Say you want to give a nation money.if you give it 5k,the script will give it also the closest region that you posses to that nation.the AI will be able to do the same thing.Can that be done?i mean,using the "give money" option as a way to give regions too?
I suppose the region that you give or receive would be a random one since you wouldn't be able to select which one you want .
Or,you could do the following:each region a faction has is a number.say,rome has 6 regions :1,2,3,4,5 and 6.If i want region 6,i should offer a different amount of gold.
region 1 would be 5k,region 2 would be 10 k,and so on.
Let me know what you think

[FlashHeart07]

Not worth it IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk