Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35 released!

[Krampus]

As above, it's not supposed to become the main focus of gameplay, just something to keep everyone on their toes and add a random element into the proceedings.

My brain read that as “random elephant to the proceedings” and reminded me of the turn after I took Pergamon and found a 3/4 rebel stack with a unit of Indian elephants nearby. Was one of the more interesting pitched battles of this campaign, only second to that time I fought a mixed army under Phyrrus, who had defected to the Macedonians.

With that, can we expect some rebel stacks to have elephants in them?

[QuintusSertorius]

No, the CAI thinks they're siege engines (flawed vestigial code form RTW) and can't use them effectively.

[Rad]

You people still looking for playtesters?

[Jervaj]

Core Hellenistic units, no upgrades. But both Thraikian and Galatian Colonists have upgrades.

Is there any plan to have potential reforms that give armour upgrades/changes to more hellenic units? Thinking of reforms in the spirit of the Carthaginian one that doesnt have to happen, it just might.

[ghost0128]

You people still looking for playtesters?

Yes, I myself have been overrun with work at work and haven't been able to put as much time as I want to. You'd be a good one for it, Rad!

[Rad]

Yes, I myself have been overrun with work at work and haven't been able to put as much time as I want to. You'd be a good one for it, Rad!

What do I have to do?

[Jurand of Cracow]

as it seems to be lost in many posts:

Ok, I got the line of thinking. Thanks for the anwers, QS.

What I have in mind is that the more I read history, the more I'm convinced that the main obstacle for the development of the big realms in the EBII period was the ability of any government (kings, republic, tribes) to effectively control the territories and to prevent them from seceding. I thought this mechanics of rebels is to make it possible to lose a region somewhere in the deep of your realm just because the locals feel the need for independence. It's why I think a really big stack should appear. The small ones - like 5-units - should be easily dealt with by the local governor and should not bother central much. From the gameplay perspective - they should not bother the player. My conclusion: only big stacks, worthy attention of the players, should appear.

Those were rare, and that's not what this mechanic is trying to replicate. What you're describing is what the peasant_revolt mechanic is for, when a whole settlement turns Rebel.

This is for the small scale "bush fires", the constant raiding from across the border or by neighbouring tribes, pirates and other masterless men. If a player isn't properly garrisoning settlements, especially those they regard as in their safe interior, this will remind them there's no such thing. They'll cause unrest and devastation until dealt with.

Ok, but I have the impression that if a player is careful enough, such a revolt never happens. Is there any "accidental hit on public order" mechanism so that the peasant_revolt may occur?

I'm just curious if such a mechanism exist or it's just a potential punishment for the unattentive players. And what do the team think about the issue - is it / would it be needed or not?

[QuintusSertorius]

as it seems to be lost in many posts:

I'm just curious if such a mechanism exist or it's just a potential punishment for the unattentive players. And what do the team think about the issue - is it / would it be needed or not?

The presence of Rebel stacks in a non-Rebel province causes a small amount of unrest, which I believe grows the longer it is present (just like devastation).

One thing I've absorbed from the Troublesome Regions script (which will be replaced by this) is that whenever the larger stack (now 8 units) appears, it also causes an additional 10% unrest in the settlement (20% in the places that were part of the older script).

Not enough to cause insta-revolt, by any meas, but may tip the balance in regions that are already restive.

[nvm]

Regarding CAI activity I can confirm that peaceful stance seems to make them way too passive, so a switch towards aggressive stance the moment any war starts would be a good improvement. In addition I must stress the observation that a part of what makes AI perform worse in expansion regarding rebels is their tendency to understimate town garrisons and send captains to attack them. A powerful garrison with a good commander thus might become completely unassailable for AI as the defending general will only heal most of the casualties and acquire more good traits from defeating the besiegers multiple times, and I'm honestly not sure at that point even an AI FM would be able to take the city. I imagine when the defending general finally dies of old age, they have a lot of less difficulty taking cities, which is the real reason AI factions take some time to pick up. Perhaps this fact could be used to fortify some more of the historically difficult to take rebellious areas.

[QuintusSertorius]

Regarding CAI activity I can confirm that peaceful stance seems to make them way too passive, so a switch towards aggressive stance the moment any war starts would be a good improvement. In addition I must stress the observation that a part of what makes AI perform worse in expansion regarding rebels is their tendency to understimate town garrisons and send captains to attack them. A powerful garrison with a good commander thus might become completely unassailable for AI as the defending general will only heal most of the casualties and acquire more good traits from defeating the besiegers multiple times, and I'm honestly not sure at that point even an AI FM would be able to take the city. I imagine when the defending general finally dies of old age, they have a lot of less difficulty taking cities, which is the real reason AI factions take some time to pick up. Perhaps this fact could be used to fortify some more of the historically difficult to take rebellious areas.

There's no viable way to check a faction is "at war" to use it as a switch. What I have done in the patch is make sure that every scripted "war trigger" also changes the AI stance to aggressive, so that those at least won't be phoney wars. Perhaps I should also increase the threshold for war weariness? Not by a lot, otherwise it makes the whole thing redundant.

[Jurand of Cracow]

The presence of Rebel stacks in a non-Rebel province causes a small amount of unrest, which I believe grows the longer it is present (just like devastation).

One thing I've absorbed from the Troublesome Regions script (which will be replaced by this) is that whenever the larger stack (now 8 units) appears, it also causes an additional 10% unrest in the settlement (20% in the places that were part of the older script).

Not enough to cause insta-revolt, by any meas, but may tip the balance in regions that are already restive.

Thanks for the answer, QS. it sounds convincing - replacing an artificial TR script with a mechanism. Now the question would be how the parameters would play out (ie: if they're not too low ;-)

[Tactics Mayers]

Where can I recruit the Saii Riders as the Sarmatians?

[Dooz]

Do battle traits gained from how strong your army is versus those you face depend on pure numbers of soldiers, or the actual qualitative strength when you hover over the bar? Like if you outnumber the enemy by several hundred, but the ratio shows 1:1, are you still liable to get negative traits because you had more soldiers?

[Genghis Skahn]

Do battle traits gained from how strong your army is versus those you face depend on pure numbers of soldiers, or the actual qualitative strength when you hover over the bar? Like if you outnumber the enemy by several hundred, but the ratio shows 1:1, are you still liable to get negative traits because you had more soldiers?

Yes to the battle odds question, but not quite sure on the negative traits question. I don't recall many triggers giving bad traits because of battle odds, but there are things like not having your FM participate in combat which could make him craven, for example.

[Dooz]

Thanks GS. However, because I phrased the question poorly, I'm not clear on the answer.

Are battle odds-based traits gained/lost based purely on number of soldiers involved, or the ratio that gets previewed when you hover mouse over the bar?

[Jervaj]

Thanks GS. However, because I phrased the question poorly, I'm not clear on the answer.

Are battle odds-based traits gained/lost based purely on number of soldiers involved, or the ratio that gets previewed when you hover mouse over the bar?

Theres many factors mixed in. Odds, total number of soldiers (larger battles have higher chances to have an effect and it may be increased too), percentage of casualties suffered, percentage of casualties inflicted, number of enemies killed by general, percentage of general bodyguard casualties......

Theres even a trait lines that improves through having superior odds. Its supossed to represent the general strategcial availability to fight in favorable conditions.

[QuintusSertorius]

Early feedback from the new "bandits" script is positive; while small they are appropriately dangerous that you can't just ignore them like some of the hardcoded spawns. It means keeping bigger garrisons than you might otherwise, or having a mobile force on hand to deal with them when they pop up, separate from your main conquering armies.

Where can I recruit the Saii Riders as the Sarmatians?

I'm struggling to remember exactly how 2.35 was set up, but I think they were accidentally omitted from the Royal Clan building in Khsaitai Ubastra. They should still appear in the Admin government in Varustana and Paphlagonia.

[Slaytaninc]

My biggest problem with constant low-scale rebellions is that they are destructive to your armies since you don't have replenishment and need to manually top off your troops. It's just an unnecessary annoyance to a game that's already significantly harder than the game it's a mod for.

Then again I also like Call of Warhammer and that has its own little difficulties. However that's for a setting where peace is the exception to war, as opposed to our history.

[QuintusSertorius]

My biggest problem with constant low-scale rebellions is that they are destructive to your armies since you don't have replenishment and need to manually top off your troops. It's just an unnecessary annoyance to a game that's already significantly harder than the game it's a mod for.

Then again I also like Call of Warhammer and that has its own little difficulties. However that's for a setting where peace is the exception to war, as opposed to our history.

They're not constant; outside the "Troublesome Regions" (the 181 regular provinces), they average every 40 turns or so (which includes a 25-turn cooldown). These aren't big spawns, 2/3rds of the time it's 5 units - but one with a proper leader and half-decent composition, not just a random assortment of levy junk led by a Captain as the hardcoded script would often throw out.

It means there's no such thing as a pacified interior region you can relax and ignore just because it doesn't border with another faction.

[Dooz]

That sounds like it's significantly less spawns than what we've had so far. I might actually miss the higher rate because I use them as training grounds for my young generals in their early twenties to gain experience up to veteran status before being eligible for external campaigns. But I also think the more sensible makeup and idea behind what they represent is probably a good step overall.