Page 15 of 32 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213141516171819202122232425 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 640

Thread: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A R2 released!

  1. #281

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Any ETA on the patch? I dont mind playing with some bugs here and there, but major ones like pergamon emergence are better off being released with a fix as soon as possible even by itself, imo. Odds are there will never be a perfect release so might as well keep releasing fixes as they come and then, after a couple of weeks or a month or so, releasing the new full version or what not (without the steam launcher and etc)
    Then, as throngs of his enemies bore down upon him and one of his followers said, "They are making at thee, O King," "Who else, pray," said Antigonus, "should be their mark? But Demetrius will come to my aid." This was his hope to the last, and to the last he kept watching eagerly for his son; then a whole cloud of javelins were let fly at him and he fell.

    -Plutarch, life of Demetrius.

    Arche Aiakidae-Epeiros EB2 AAR

  2. #282

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    It's what made EB1 dull after 100 turns. Fighting a half-dozen superfactions who spam you with 2-3 stacks every turn without fail is a chore, not fun.
    Oh, god, I recently replayed some EB1, and this is so true. Gets old really fast.

  3. #283

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    I'd like to add that on my first Carthage campaign, I saw the Numidians sending armies through my lands and across the desert to Cyrene, so blocking it off should improve the chances that they'll actually put up a fight against the Carthaginians

  4. #284
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AEnima City, USA
    Posts
    1,517

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Don't AI factions still end up with stack spam with a 50k guarantee?

  5. #285

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    I have noticed a problem. I guess AI stacks rebel more often and now I frequently see full stacks sitting close to AI settlements. The AI doesn't attack them but often has it's own full stack close by. So it is just wasting resources.

  6. #286

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooz View Post
    Don't AI factions still end up with stack spam with a 50k guarantee?
    No they don t. I get a max 2 stack attack at one time at one territory which is very normal. EB2 team really did their homevork this patch. There are factions at 20 regions in my campaign and I still don t see stack spam. Two armies mostly come to fight me at most. One can loose if one does not have a good idea how to defend territory. I remember years ago this mod was almost unplayable after turn 300.

  7. #287

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Quote Originally Posted by bismarck 1899 View Post
    I have noticed a problem. I guess AI stacks rebel more often and now I frequently see full stacks sitting close to AI settlements. The AI doesn't attack them but often has it's own full stack close by. So it is just wasting resources.
    That is true. CAI calculates how much force it needs to have nearby in order not to loose it s settlements. But the bad thing about that is Ai does not "clear" it s territory against those rebel stacks.

  8. #288
    Raiuga's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    155

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Two quick questions.

    1st - You still have the general rule that skirmishers standard formation is set to "loose" (close and loose formation values are the same) with few, if any excepctions to the rule, correct?

    2nd - H/M is still the recommended difficulty for the mod?

  9. #289

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    @Rad, as someone who cooperates in other mods and does so around balance and trying to transmit the gameplay and player vision to the more "history/realism focused" team members I appreciate your points. However you have to understand also that not all players are the same, and EBII public probably leans towards a side different than yours, though we know very well there is a bit of everything.

    I myself, for example, welcome this change. We know how limited the AI is in this game and how its already nudged in many ways to be somewhat competent. This is just one more, well arguably not even that because there is a very historical reason to have it like that on top of the gameplay one. Of course as a player Carthage of Ptolemaioi you may have some extra fun there without that block, but playing as anyone else this change can likely make both factions perform better against you. And seeing the new CAI I have hopes there may even be war eventaully between the 2.

    Speaking more generally. Im one of those players that prefers the AI expanding slowly, rebels lasting a good while and superfactions taking a long while to get a hold if they do at all. True is that I don't tend to expand very agressively myself barring maybe at the very start which mmay not make as OP and bored vs the AI. I enjoy a mix of short bursts of war with peace time, for gameplay reasons alone though on top of that I know is more historical. I can see how others maybe get bored, want to have more battles and seek a bigger challenge above all (or at least other things) but I myself certainly fit in that group which finds a late game grind of several stacks a turn a chore rather than exciting. No way is wrong,to each its own.

    However I also disagree in some things. I would like a bit more of alt history in some respects, but I gotta say that the team has always been pretty honest and straightforward mentioning they give primacy to historicity, so you know what you are getting into. Specially given that while doing that they have tried to also have the challenge, proof of that is the nudges of the AI, the scripts with extra (and hsitorically based) difficulties for the player, the balance of troop availabilities, stats, etc. Its a fine product, it doesn't mean it will fit everyone's tastes though (at least perfectly). Even with tis certain degree of rigidity I wouldn't call it a reenactment as campaigns do vary.

    We will either find a way, or make one.


  10. #290

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Recommended difficulty? Was thinking of VH campaign/M battles.

    "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    - Voltaire(1694–1778)

  11. #291

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    My understanding is that VH campaign cripples the diplomacy some, but I haven't played on VH campaign, personally.

  12. #292

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Quote Originally Posted by Aodh Mór Ó Néill View Post
    I'd like to add that on my first Carthage campaign, I saw the Numidians sending armies through my lands and across the desert to Cyrene, so blocking it off should improve the chances that they'll actually put up a fight against the Carthaginians
    Having played many Carthage campaigns, let me say that there's no need make Numidia more aggressive against Carthage. Those saddleless sons of guns will stab you in the back for sure, don't you worry about it
    I never attacked them because I knew that they were going to attack me first.

  13. #293

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jervaj View Post
    @Rad, as someone who cooperates in other mods and does so around balance and trying to transmit the gameplay and player vision to the more "history/realism focused" team members I appreciate your points. However you have to understand also that not all players are the same, and EBII public probably leans towards a side different than yours, though we know very well there is a bit of everything.

    I myself, for example, welcome this change. We know how limited the AI is in this game and how its already nudged in many ways to be somewhat competent. This is just one more, well arguably not even that because there is a very historical reason to have it like that on top of the gameplay one. Of course as a player Carthage of Ptolemaioi you may have some extra fun there without that block, but playing as anyone else this change can likely make both factions perform better against you. And seeing the new CAI I have hopes there may even be war eventaully between the 2.

    Speaking more generally. Im one of those players that prefers the AI expanding slowly, rebels lasting a good while and superfactions taking a long while to get a hold if they do at all. True is that I don't tend to expand very agressively myself barring maybe at the very start which mmay not make as OP and bored vs the AI. I enjoy a mix of short bursts of war with peace time, for gameplay reasons alone though on top of that I know is more historical. I can see how others maybe get bored, want to have more battles and seek a bigger challenge above all (or at least other things) but I myself certainly fit in that group which finds a late game grind of several stacks a turn a chore rather than exciting. No way is wrong,to each its own.

    However I also disagree in some things. I would like a bit more of alt history in some respects, but I gotta say that the team has always been pretty honest and straightforward mentioning they give primacy to historicity, so you know what you are getting into. Specially given that while doing that they have tried to also have the challenge, proof of that is the nudges of the AI, the scripts with extra (and hsitorically based) difficulties for the player, the balance of troop availabilities, stats, etc. Its a fine product, it doesn't mean it will fit everyone's tastes though (at least perfectly). Even with tis certain degree of rigidity I wouldn't call it a reenactment as campaigns do vary.
    Thank you for your input Jervaj, there are some good points there!

  14. #294

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    That they're neighbouring is irrelevant given what separated them and was a real consideration. That strip of desert was effectively impassable to armies. Now we have made it so.

    I fail to see how their shared border is irrelevant, given how both countries had good naval traditions which could ferry armies across the Mediterranean - something not easily replicated in Med2's engine, thus calling for a open land route.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    The AI is incapable of using props with any freedom, it can only be channelled in particular directions to make it behave in a way that's consistent with what it's supposed to be simulating. That's why there are countless toggles that involve guiding the AI to do certain things and not others.
    You missed my point. I'll try to give an example. Let's say that I'm looking at Ptolemaic Egypt in EB2. I love its governments, the units, the descriptions and every other bit of info that's put in. I also love the related scripts - as long as they don't force or strongly push the faction in a set direction. I don't want to see Egypt doing the same thing, campaign after campaign after campaign. It gets dull. If I want an in-depth knowledge of Ptolemaic Egypt, I'll read books related to it. EB2's bibliography thread is pretty neat.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    It's not the first time we did that. There's a coastal path on the northern Pontic shore we closed off with impassable terrain for the same reason, because it was a route that was not viable for large bodies of men to use. If it achieves the intended object of removing an option that wouldn't have existed in reality, then it's a job well done.
    So, you're saying that you closed one land route in Anatolia, but left others open. That's not the same as cutting a continent in half, now is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Yours is one player's experience. How many campaigns have you played as Carthage? I'd note you haven't played any in 2.35A yet, which people are already reporting is different.
    I played a Carthage campaign in every release prior to this one. Folks have reported that in 2.35A, islands are being invaded more than before. I welcome it. I don't see how it relates to your assertion that the AI is terrible at multi-pronged expansion.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    It's what made EB1 dull after 100 turns. Fighting a half-dozen superfactions who spam you with 2-3 stacks every turn without fail is a chore, not fun.
    EB1 is not EB2, someone said. EB2 armies are nowhere near as numerous and spammy, especially in comparison to other mods. The reason I had struggles (quite fun struggles, actually) getting reinforcements to fight the Seleucids is related to the distance those reinforcements had to cross, not to the number of Seleucid armies in the field. The reason I call the fighting attritional is because I don't like losing many troops. The most fun battle I ever had was one against the Romans. I managed to cause an almost instantaneous chain rout to the enemy army. How many troops did the Romans lose? Around 10%. I was thrilled because my losses were even smaller. That's a pretty big success on VH/VH difficulty.
    Also, if you score a number of victories in one sitting, the AI will be begging for peace. However, it must be done in one sitting because loading the game apparently resets the AI's stance to aggressive.

    If you want to see what a stack-spam is, play Third Age Total War on VH/VH. I must have shot 50,000,000 orcs there.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    You might not find that's the case in 2.35A. Again, look at the feedback we've already received.
    I will try to find said feedback. However, I don't think that a number of weak factions will ever pose a greater challenge to smaller number of stronger factions.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Different people get fun from different elements, for some that kick is precisely in learning something and being challenged in historically appropriate ways. We're not going to agree on the appropriate balance between historicity and gameplay, so your choices are to either accept it or get coding your own submod where those elements work differently.
    The olde "deal with it" sign off.

    I'll repeat that I believe that there's a line between historically appropriate and reenactment-via-game.

    I can't make anyone to do anything, but I will criticize what I perceive to be wrong. This is a public forum.

  15. #295

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Quote Originally Posted by Wulfburk View Post
    Any ETA on the patch? I dont mind playing with some bugs here and there, but major ones like pergamon emergence are better off being released with a fix as soon as possible even by itself, imo. Odds are there will never be a perfect release so might as well keep releasing fixes as they come and then, after a couple of weeks or a month or so, releasing the new full version or what not (without the steam launcher and etc)
    I would like to say within days, but we keep finding random things to tweak, because we're hoping not to release another one for a long while. Most recently, maritime changes to Arabia to stop ahistorical naval spam from Sab'yn (when their AI should be focused on land trade/expansion, not seaborne invasion of Egypt without even bothering to unify the Arabian peninsular).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kwebib View Post
    Oh, god, I recently replayed some EB1, and this is so true. Gets old really fast.
    Unfortunately, it's my enduring memory of EB1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aodh Mór Ó Néill View Post
    I'd like to add that on my first Carthage campaign, I saw the Numidians sending armies through my lands and across the desert to Cyrene, so blocking it off should improve the chances that they'll actually put up a fight against the Carthaginians
    Indeed it also stops the Rebels from the west wandering across and vice-versa. The same thinking applies, if someone from either side wants to invade the other, they should be raising fleets to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooz View Post
    Don't AI factions still end up with stack spam with a 50k guarantee?
    It's not a guarantee, it's a treasury ceiling. The way the script works is that if they accumulate more than 50k, it's taken away from them. In 2.35 that limit was 30k.

    Quote Originally Posted by bismarck 1899 View Post
    I have noticed a problem. I guess AI stacks rebel more often and now I frequently see full stacks sitting close to AI settlements. The AI doesn't attack them but often has it's own full stack close by. So it is just wasting resources.
    There are more Rebels around generally (with the revolts script being more consistent than the old "bandit" spawns), which may contribute to this. Plus those Rebels have leaders, which may make the AI factions more hesistant to attack them, particularly with Captain-led stacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiuga View Post
    Two quick questions.

    1st - You still have the general rule that skirmishers standard formation is set to "loose" (close and loose formation values are the same) with few, if any excepctions to the rule, correct?

    2nd - H/M is still the recommended difficulty for the mod?
    Yes, we haven't changed the formations for skirmishers.

    Yes, H/M still recommended (though z3n recommends H/H).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jervaj View Post
    @Rad, as someone who cooperates in other mods and does so around balance and trying to transmit the gameplay and player vision to the more "history/realism focused" team members I appreciate your points. However you have to understand also that not all players are the same, and EBII public probably leans towards a side different than yours, though we know very well there is a bit of everything.

    I myself, for example, welcome this change. We know how limited the AI is in this game and how its already nudged in many ways to be somewhat competent. This is just one more, well arguably not even that because there is a very historical reason to have it like that on top of the gameplay one. Of course as a player Carthage of Ptolemaioi you may have some extra fun there without that block, but playing as anyone else this change can likely make both factions perform better against you. And seeing the new CAI I have hopes there may even be war eventaully between the 2.

    Speaking more generally. Im one of those players that prefers the AI expanding slowly, rebels lasting a good while and superfactions taking a long while to get a hold if they do at all. True is that I don't tend to expand very agressively myself barring maybe at the very start which mmay not make as OP and bored vs the AI. I enjoy a mix of short bursts of war with peace time, for gameplay reasons alone though on top of that I know is more historical. I can see how others maybe get bored, want to have more battles and seek a bigger challenge above all (or at least other things) but I myself certainly fit in that group which finds a late game grind of several stacks a turn a chore rather than exciting. No way is wrong,to each its own.

    However I also disagree in some things. I would like a bit more of alt history in some respects, but I gotta say that the team has always been pretty honest and straightforward mentioning they give primacy to historicity, so you know what you are getting into. Specially given that while doing that they have tried to also have the challenge, proof of that is the nudges of the AI, the scripts with extra (and hsitorically based) difficulties for the player, the balance of troop availabilities, stats, etc. Its a fine product, it doesn't mean it will fit everyone's tastes though (at least perfectly). Even with tis certain degree of rigidity I wouldn't call it a reenactment as campaigns do vary.
    Thank you for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kwebib View Post
    My understanding is that VH campaign cripples the diplomacy some, but I haven't played on VH campaign, personally.
    Yep, Hard campaign difficulty is the best balance of diplomacy and still getting merc-hiring by the AI.

  16. #296

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    I fail to see how their shared border is irrelevant, given how both countries had good naval traditions which could ferry armies across the Mediterranean - something not easily replicated in Med2's engine, thus calling for a open land route.
    The shared border is completely irrelvant when the buffer zone in the middle of it means their writ doesn't realy run up to those lines on the map. They don't really share a border at all.

    Fortunately, we have a mechanic for simulating how both nations' naval traditions could allow them to ferry armies across the water. They're called navies, which both AIs have ample resources to recruit (and indeed get scripted bonus fleets every 40 turns - shortened from 80 turns in the patch).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    You missed my point. I'll try to give an example. Let's say that I'm looking at Ptolemaic Egypt in EB2. I love its governments, the units, the descriptions and every other bit of info that's put in. I also love the related scripts - as long as they don't force or strongly push the faction in a set direction. I don't want to see Egypt doing the same thing, campaign after campaign after campaign. It gets dull. If I want an in-depth knowledge of Ptolemaic Egypt, I'll read books related to it. EB2's bibliography thread is pretty neat.
    But they don't do the same thing campaign after campaign, so your argument is somewhat moot. What I want to see AI-Ptolemaioi do in every game is try to retain Egypt while expanding into Anatolia and Syria. The reality of how that design emerges will vary from game to game because of the activities of the human player and the randomness of AI-on-AI interaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    So, you're saying that you closed one land route in Anatolia, but left others open. That's not the same as cutting a continent in half, now is it?
    The continent isn't cut in half when the sea route is still open. You seem to be ignoring the fact that for armies, which is what we're talking about, there was no land route. The only thing that happened to an army marched across that desert was that it died.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    I played a Carthage campaign in every release prior to this one. Folks have reported that in 2.35A, islands are being invaded more than before. I welcome it. I don't see how it relates to your assertion that the AI is terrible at multi-pronged expansion.
    You have one player's perspective. I have reports of multiple people doing different things, some of them across just as lengthy campaigns as your own. You're extrapolating out from just one game that the AI is good at multi-pronged invasion. I see from multiple reports that most of the time, they are terrible at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    EB1 is not EB2, someone said. EB2 armies are nowhere near as numerous and spammy, especially in comparison to other mods. The reason I had struggles (quite fun struggles, actually) getting reinforcements to fight the Seleucids is related to the distance those reinforcements had to cross, not to the number of Seleucid armies in the field. The reason I call the fighting attritional is because I don't like losing many troops. The most fun battle I ever had was one against the Romans. I managed to cause an almost instantaneous chain rout to the enemy army. How many troops did the Romans lose? Around 10%. I was thrilled because my losses were even smaller. That's a pretty big success on VH/VH difficulty.
    Also, if you score a number of victories in one sitting, the AI will be begging for peace. However, it must be done in one sitting because loading the game apparently resets the AI's stance to aggressive.

    If you want to see what a stack-spam is, play Third Age Total War on VH/VH. I must have shot 50,000,000 orcs there.
    EBII is not EB1 precisely because one of my primary goals in my area of the mod's development is to ensure gameplay is as different as is possible. "Don't be like the things that annoyed me in EB1" is something I come back to all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    I will try to find said feedback. However, I don't think that a number of weak factions will ever pose a greater challenge to smaller number of stronger factions.
    Stronger factions will have a lot more unrest to deal with, now the revolts script is in. That includes the human player with lots of provinces. Again, you haven't played 2.35A to experience the change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    The olde "deal with it" sign off.

    I'll repeat that I believe that there's a line between historically appropriate and reenactment-via-game.

    I can't make anyone to do anything, but I will criticize what I perceive to be wrong. This is a public forum.
    That's ultimately your choice here. You can criticise away, I might engage with it and address it with my perspective. I am often receptive to feedback, because I want this to be a better mod. But the people I have to account for the gameplay decisions I make are the team, not you personally. And the goal I'm working towards is not the same as your desire for the mod (and indeed conflicts with it).

    You want a different balance of historicity and gameplay. I'm afraid you're not going to get that unless you roll your sleeves up and get coding.

  17. #297

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Hey guys got my other Pergamon campaign halted at turn 482. As usual nobody is re-emerging just it halts at Carthage turn and stops. Sending the campaign file..
    Attached Files Attached Files

  18. #298

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    You said:" I know that you may prefer a more gamey army composition in this case but 10 units for a garrison is more preferable. My guide about a historical army composition for a Carthaginian garrison could give you some ideas for a 10-unit army. Also, try to use more semi-professional units rather than professionals for more interesting battles."

    To me, this seems like you felt you knew my play style. You implied that my armies and garrisons mostly consist of expensive hard-hitters.
    My above comment is actually a misunderstanding (take into account that I define my level of English as humble, at best). That said, I used the auxiliary verb "may" to reinforce the notion that my comment was just a possibility due to some of your previous comments that you shared in the discussion with QS. Actually, it was just an unfortunate extrapolation. In any case, I didn't presume you are some sort of "gamey" player (which, by the way, it wouldn't be a bad thing but just a personal preference).


    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    I don't see what's "gamey" in maintaining a large garrison in a targeted, isolated border town. The borders can shift, but the borders must be protected.
    It depends on the faction, the context and the composition of that garrison. With more details, I could share my opinion regarding that hypothetical garrison on that isolated border town and if it is gamey or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    That's great. I'll destroy the rebel attackers like I destroyed Ptolemaic attackers. The thing is that I'll need far fewer troops to do so.
    Interesting, keeping Lapqi safe with a small/medium garrison is much more historically accurate than having a 20-unit garrison in that place. Definitely, the change on the map will be great.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    How come? I don't keep such high numbers of troops in garrison because I'm bored, I keep them because they are needed. Please read my above post - I keep 20 unit garrisons in newly conquered, distant, rebellious and border regions. Sometimes, only a combination of a capable FM, low taxes and a huge garrison keeps the region from rebelling. And I love that.



    Most of my armies are composed of semi-professionals. I prefer dependable but replaceable troops, such as the light Libyan hoplites and the Celtic light cavalry.

    On the other hand, I avoid elite units. While I do appreciate how their small recruitment pools and long refresh rates make them precious, their low numbers in a unit undermine their tactical value. A while ago, I welcomed the removal (limitation to bodyguard only, actually) of the Carthaginian noble cavalry unit and I made the decision to not recruit Sacred Band hoplites.

    Seems you have me confused with someone else.
    Honestly, Rad, I am tired of you. You were pretty dismissive and rude towards me when I was simply trying to keep an innocent conversation and it is not the first time you behave like this. I can perfectly remember the first time. It was when I joined the team and I said in TWC that the falcata had double-edge. You said me that I might be referring to the gladius hispaniensis instead but I responded you by saying that I was referring to the falcata. Then, you tried to prove me wrong, which is great, since I totally support the debates. That said, I was right and you only compared the falcata with the machaira (when they are very different type of swords in spite of the fact of the apparent similarity between these two weapons) given your lack of knowledge in this area. In summary, you only denied the technical and archaeological proofs as a stubborn person.

    From that moment, at least during the first years, you seized every opportunity to engage me in conversation in a rude way. At least most of those times the issue was not about an academic matter but about really trivial matters, like the last above example. I have noted that you are the kind of person who wants always to say, "I am right and you are wrong", and that is both sad and tedious. Now, you can say me that you have an attitude of (constructive?) criticism with me but I can only note that you are a rude person who is always on the defensive. I have had several interesting debates with some people in this forum and I can assure you that never had this type of problem with them. Even a heated debate I had with Roma in the past was made in a polite way, and it allows me to understad his sense of humour and appreciate his posts. But my discussion with you just make me feel I'm wasting my time and honestly, I've had enough of you given your history with the team and more specifically with me. Answer me if you want, but I won't reply you anymore.

    ---

    PS: Sometimes your observations are useful, especially, in regard to the stat-reviewing thread. So, don't think that my above comment is some sort of public reply of the team, it's just my personal opinion and has nothing to do with the other EB2 modders.
    Last edited by Trarco; April 20, 2021 at 10:21 AM.

  19. #299

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Allright. So I did the command "run_ai" and at the beginning of my next turn it showed that "Aedui vere destroyed" yet they had their stack in Bibrakte and the other stack ( factions re-emerge with two stacks ) was a Rebel one. I also want to point out that Aedui in my long camapaign were re-mereging for a sixth or seventh time and it was no problem with them. So it seems to me that in re-emergence script has certain character names that system does not read and it halts just before those factions re-emerging. Like I mentioned it was like an eight time Aedui appeared from the dead and one of the stacks did not appear for Aeidui but for the Rebels instead. Also not that after this "run_ai" my campaign did not destroy itself and I can continue to play without attack-autoresolve instantly like it was with Lugia Pergamon script. So campaign continues on I end turned 3 turns into the future it seemed fine so far. Pheeeww..

  20. #300

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A released!

    Quote Originally Posted by bordinis View Post
    Hey guys got my other Pergamon campaign halted at turn 482. As usual nobody is re-emerging just it halts at Carthage turn and stops. Sending the campaign file..
    Are you definite that it's Carthage's turn? Someone pointed this thread out to me, if you don't have a save from a way back to use, try attacking Carthage to change whatever decision the AI has made.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •