Europa Barbarorum II....

[Pherion]

Man...I was excited about EB2 when I first heard about it. But when I play it now I just find it very very frustrating mod to play with.

There are quite a multitude of things I really hate about this mod, and these are it:

1.Combat is weird and not very interesting. I don't know why, but everytime any of my units charge at someone, 80% of them stop and only the front row of men keep doing the charge, specially if it's hoplite units, I have never seen this in any Mod in this game ever. Then they removed the kill moves, the great things about the new Total War games are the awesome movie like killing moves which makes it very entertaining to watch battles up close. As of now, their just poking the air in front of them like in Rome 1. I can forgive Rome 1 because it's old and this type of thing didn't exist back then, but it exists in Medieval 2 and they removed it on purpose for whatever reasons. And no mate, it never gets old. Playing Med since it came out and I still love watching the fights in Stainless Steel.

2.Hacks.Hacks Everywhere. I mean, I thought Stainless Steel was bad on VH/VH, but this mod takes the cake!! I play it on H/M and even on this difficulty, the AI is full of hacks. I saw once a tiny faction with only two regions have 7 full stacks. 2 regions...7 stacks....Meanwhile the Player with two regions can barely have one full stack. And this doesn't increase the difficulty, it increases frustration and it's just more meat for the meat grinder, just like Stainless Steel....but worse. I'm not saying EB1 didn't have the AI hacks either, but they are not as bad as this specially when using the Alex engine for it.

3.Flaccid Roman Experience. If you love Rome, you might be very disappointed with EB2, specially coming from EB1 or RS2. There are no Auxiliary units like in EB and there is no Imperial/Augustan Reform either, hell, you don't even have the damned Praetorian's! Both EB1 and RS2 grants you a much more entertaining experience of the Roman Empire atleast in the military side of things. If you want to play EB2, I recommend playing with any Greek or barbarian faction since they are far more interesting to play with at this stage. Also, does anyone uses those Polybian allied units? I've never used them because they take 30 turns to recruit!!! I mean, why would I ever use them? Occasionally, for and giggles I would, but I rather just use regular Roman units, specially when every region in Italy starts being able to get them.

4.EB2 101, when you conquer a region, sack it or exterminate it, preferably the latter. You can't really occupy anything in this game, unless of course you love crazy rave parties in Antiquity also known as Riots. The only option you have to click on is Extermination as that is the only option that truly works in this game, even sacking is risky. Sorry, you can't be Mr.Nice guy around here.

5.Cultural Mechanics. Now...up until this point I could still forgive everything and just go along with it, but this. THIS! This is the icing on the cake for me. As Rome and some other factions, you have NO Culture conversion buildings. Nope. Nothing. Nada. I played up until the Marian era and not once I saw something saying culture conversion X% anywhere. This makes it hell to expand, and frankly I prefer playing factions in this mod that don't require me to expand much but I just can't stand this . In Stainless Steel, you have priests, churches to convert Religion in any settlement. Here you get nothing, Culture here is like Religion, if you don't fix it you're not going to keep this region for long, and considering that in EB2 Cultural Problems are present nearly everywhere you go and are very harsh, you would think there would be ways of converting Culture quickly in a matter of 20 or 30 turns, but no. Nothing. If you have a region that you conquered and it was an overwhelmingly different Culture, prepare to leave a full stack there with a good general for about 50 turns atleast, before you even consider using that stack ever again, and even then, Riots will most likely happen. The only thing you can do, is to constantly exterminate the settlement until there is nothing left to exterminate. I guess this is the "Cultural Conversion Mechanic" of EB2. Keep killing them until they bend. I suppose corpses are easier to convince then living people, so fair point.


But, EB2 does have things I do enjoy.

1.Visuals. I'm not going to lie. EB2 has potentially some of the best looking units models of any Med2 mod, and the variety that exists in each unit is something I never get tired of looking at. It just feels damn good man. They nailed this one just right! Specially if you're coming from EB1.

2.Factions. There is a lot of variety in terms of factions in this mod. Plenty of Barbarian, Greek, eastern factions for you to choose from. Which allows for a lot of campaigns that will never be the same.

3.Re-emerging Factions. Not new to EB because Stainless Steel (SSHIP) Possesses this as well, but it is something that I wish every mod had, because even if a faction gets defeated, they may still come back, and in force!


And that's it. This is how EB2 is to me. And to be honest, I don't think I'll bother playing this anymore. If I have a Roman itch, I can just grab EB1 or RS2 and have a much better experience, sure I won't have the better visuals or the variety, but if I really want those things, I rather just wait for Ancient Empires mod for Attila which will have far better visuals then Med2 anyway. And as of now I am having a campaign as Rome in EB1 and I'm loving it way more then in EB2. I might still try EB2 at a later point in time when this has been finished perhaps, or maybe if I crave for a faction that doesn't exist in EB or RS. But if Ancient Empires (Campaign) comes out first before EB2 is finished, I don't think I'll ever come back to it.

This has been my experience in EB2 and it's also my opinion. And as such, treat it like an opinion. Feel free to disagree or agree as much as you like. My opinion and my experience is what is.

[QuintusSertorius]

1. The kill moves are full of bugs, both of the crashing kind, and visual disturbances. They also mess with combat balance, models wasting time carrying them out while being attacked and dying.

2. EB1 is much worse for "hacks" as you call it, the finance script there, along with the recruitment setup mean elite-spam is a permanent condition. The AI gets a lot less financial assistance in EBII and it doesn't have access to a never-ending stream of elites and identikit armies. Three regions is the minimum state for economic stability in EBII. Unlike in EB1, it's possible to defeat a faction without blitzing them out of existence. And they will stay defeated for a time. Nor will everyone who shares a land border with you attack incessantly until you wipe them out, which was what happened in every game in EB1.

3. There are plenty of auxiliaries, both within Italy and beyond it. What do you think Allied Governments are for? Or the Civitas Libera and (after the Marian reform) Provinciae governments.

The Augustan reforms are an irrelevant distraction. You really think many people are going to notice the absence of something that won't appear until turn 900 at the earliest? It's low priority for a reason. And it will only result in one new unit.

4. Exterminating wipes out infrastructure that would be useful in maintaining order, and permanently damages the population base. It's the worst option on taking a new place. Try putting a governor with high Influence in post to settle somewhere initially, then put in an Allied Government (with Client Ruler) as a more permanent solution.

5. Roman Trade Colonies convert to rel_g - did you look for them? You can even build them in Allied Governments, they are available everywhere outside Italy and require only markets be present.

As above, if you're repeatedly enslaving, you're making it worse. No you won't completely pacify somewhere in 20-30 turns, that's completely unrealistic. Even with conversion that won't happen, you'll stabilise them. Romanisation took generations, not 5 or 6 years.

[Pherion]

That's your view on it and your experience. Not mine. Thanks for sharing.

[QuintusSertorius]

That's your view on it and your experience. Not mine. Thanks for sharing.

It's not merely my "view", your "experience" contains factual errors - like not being aware of the Roman Trade Colony, which converts to Western Mediterranean Polities. Similarly using the Enslave option repeatedly sets up a spiral of ever-worsening chances of controlling a settlement.

[BHL 20]

1.Combat is weird and not very interesting.

Agreed.

2.Hacks.Hacks Everywhere.

Many mods, and especially EB1 are much worse in this regard. The EB II script only clears debt. I've personally never seen a faction with 2 regions have 7 stacks, maybe those were very low quality stacks for 2 very profitable regions.

3.Flaccid Roman Experience.

The EB II team has said there will be more units coming for Rome.

4.EB2 101, when you conquer a region, sack it or exterminate it, preferably the latter.

That's a terrible strategy unless the region's culture is totally different than yours. Usually you can prevent riots with a good governor, low taxes and a large garrison. There are simply too many downsides to exterminating to use it regularly.

5.Cultural Mechanics. I guess this is the "Cultural Conversion Mechanic" of EB2. Keep killing them until they bend. I suppose corpses are easier to convince then living people, so fair point.

You can always convert culture by using a high-influence FM as a governor.

Edit: And there's that building Quintus brought up. Didn't know about it because I never played Rome.

[Pherion]

Nein. I had markets all over and not once I saw trade Colonies and I reached Marian, the only colonies I saw were Latin Colonies, nothing about trade colonies. And I don't care if it contains "factual errors". It is what it is.

[Colos1987]

And you are playing the latest version, right?

[Pherion]

EB 2.2q. Not the most latest. But recent. It's where I started the campaign on.

[Colos1987]

Then something is wrong with your installation.

[Pherion]

Maybe, although I doubt it. I followed all the instructions carefully. But sure, I'll do a reinstall all over and see if I get those trade colonies. I assume they become available like the other colonies after turn 21 as long as I have a market right?

[QuintusSertorius]

Maybe, although I doubt it. I followed all the instructions carefully. But sure, I'll do a reinstall all over and see if I get those trade colonies. I assume they become available like the other colonies after turn 21 as long as I have a market right?

No. They don't require colonists or have anything to do with that script, they are a regular building. They only require a market and provide no recruitment.

[Colos1987]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...s-and-Colonies

[charlieh]

It's interesting. I actually really like the slow and conservative combat. Not that I want to start a debate where I have little knwoeldge, but, wouldn't this reflect ancient battles more accurately? I find it hard to imagine soldiers in epic duals, as described in Homeric epic, but, instead, imagine pretty cagey affairs where self preservation was the priority. Not sure, just a hunch.

[Falco]

It's interesting. I actually really like the slow and conservative combat. Not that I want to start a debate where I have little knwoeldge, but, wouldn't this reflect ancient battles more accurately? I find it hard to imagine soldiers in epic duals, as described in Homeric epic, but, instead, imagine pretty cagey affairs where self preservation was the priority. Not sure, just a hunch.

Yes it would. And considering EB is arguably the most historically accurate total war mod out there, fits the bill I would say .

[Hellenikon]

It sounds like you're just disappointed that EB2 doesn't have a "roman empire" faction, with eyecandy graphics and animations - if that's so then the newer TW titles will likely be more your thing, because EB2 is set during the Roman Republic. Your other complaints are based on features you haven't bothered to learn (ex. roman colonies), and basically trying to play this mod like an average total war title.

This mod has a steep learning curve, particularly if you don't put interest in learning the mod features, instead of assuming "It's M2TW, so it plays the same".The team is focused on development, and a lot of features are poorly explained and require you to: pay attention, search the forum, playtest yourself. There are threads explaining reforms, factional governments, etc.

If you don't put effort into learning how to play the mod, you're not going to enjoy it.

[Trarco]

It's interesting. I actually really like the slow and conservative combat.

I totally agree with you.

Not that I want to start a debate where I have little knwoeldge, but, wouldn't this reflect ancient battles more accurately? I find it hard to imagine soldiers in epic duals, as described in Homeric epic, but, instead, imagine pretty cagey affairs where self preservation was the priority. Not sure, just a hunch.

Yes, that is, I think that EB II has a relatively accurate way to show the way to fight.

Modern historiography has coined a term to describe the ancient warfare through a theoretical model. It is called "dynamic stand-off". It has been especially applied to the Republican legions and it suggests that the maniples and the centuries played a key role. They would have been more autonomous than previously intended, this way, they would have been able to abandon the line in order to individually assault the enemy lines (impetus type charge). This assault would mainly consist of throwing javelins. After that the soldiers came back to the main line. According to this model, most part of the battle consisted in exceptional assaults restricted to specific points of the enemy line. In regard with this model, it has also been suggested that the Roman maniples didn't develop perfect formations, instead they would have been more irregular, in the shape of an ameba. Some of the historians that support this hypothesis are Quesada, Sabin and Lendon.

In general terms, this is a model which is in line with the ancient battles that tended to be indecisive and prolonged. The objective was to weaken the enemy. There would have been many of these assaults during a phase of inactivity and resting. This phase was followed by the definitive charge (signa inferre). All the line infantry advanced on the enemy. For example Cannae could be a good example. Livy XXII, 47. 4-6:

Towards the end of the cavalry engagement the infantry got into action. At first they were evenly matched in strength and courage, as long as the Gauls and Spaniards maintained their ranks; but at last the Romans, by prolonged and frequent efforts [IMPETUS?], pushing forward with an even front and a dense line, drove in the wedge-like formation which projected from the enemy's line [INFERRE], for it was too thin to be strong; and then, as the Gauls and Spaniards gave way and fell back in confusion, pressed forward and without once stopping forced their way through the crowd of fleeing, panic-stricken foes, till they reached first the centre and ultimately —for they met with no resistance —the African supports.

The written sources that support the "impetus theory" can be found for example in Livy (III.35.7), (VI.13.2) and in Caesar BG (I.22) (IV.26) among many others.

[Jurand of Cracow]

It's interesting. I actually really like the slow and conservative combat.

So do I. The only thing that bothers me is the overuse of the hammer-and-anvil technique. Well, in EB1 the trick was to have many phalangitai and "roll the front" from one side with cavalry. Fortunately, it's less possible in the EB2, and lowering of the cavalry morale makes it even less useful. BTW, this change is not possible for the medieval warfare given the importance of the cavalry then, so in the mods like SSHIP the battles must stay fast.

[Cryoshakespeare]

Personally I don't find EB2 to be all that engaging compared to EB1, but I think it might just be that my enthusiasm for TW games died down after I finished up with EB1. I kind of feel, based on what I see on the forums, that somewhat too many decisions are made with the attempted goal of total historical verisimilitude, rather than what is fun and clear gameplay wise. But this is only a very general feeling, and I don't expect the voicing of my opinion to change that, if it's even happening. So while this project doesn't evoke as much personal passion for me anymore, I still think it's an incredible feat and worthy of praise and applause for the dev team.

[bordinis]

"I kind of feel, based on what I see on the forums, that somewhat too many decisions are made with the attempted goal of total historical verisimilitude, rather than what is fun and clear gameplay wise."

This. I said few years back that this mod should have had more game play fun value than historical, but yeah.. Sometimes i want Third age type of battles where units won't rout en mass after hammer and anvil, because i only do this to win battles because infantry units just don't feel "lethal" and just stall the battle for cavalry to engage and win and i most certainly do say this to people who complained that the mod is too easy, well, this is why it is too easy- the battles are made that way to be easy and i surely do not like that hoplites can hold on a city wall for 1 hour, which makes sieges not pleasant to play. Also light infantry based factions are doomed to be "bad" you need cavalry to "win" Campaign map is fine though.

[tony89]

Are there any plans to change the way units use their javelins? Every battle is a giant skirmish for the most part. Especially hurts barbarian factions who never get to use their charge.