Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A R3.5 released!

[bismarck 1899]

I like the new rebel system. Now, as rome, I actually have to come up with a system with legions, support units and so on. Hopefully you can solve the issue with the full stacks.

[nvm]

Gameplay wise I feel it's worth a try to see how this change reflects on the world. If it results in absolutely 0 interaction between Rome/Carthage and Ptolemaioi ever again, then it'd be fair to revert the change. The thing that irks me about AI performance is their tendency to send captain led armies when they have plenty of generals who could do it instead, and these armies end up getting absolutely obliterated due to low morale. Unfortunately at the same time I don't see a good solution to that, as I do not feel auto generating generals for captain led armies is also the right thing to do.

But this is also one of the reasons that AI struggles to expand so much.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Gameplay wise I feel it's worth a try to see how this change reflects on the world. If it results in absolutely 0 interaction between Rome/Carthage and Ptolemaioi ever again, then it'd be fair to revert the change. The thing that irks me about AI performance is their tendency to send captain led armies when they have plenty of generals who could do it instead, and these armies end up getting absolutely obliterated due to low morale. Unfortunately at the same time I don't see a good solution to that, as I do not feel auto generating generals for captain led armies is also the right thing to do.

But this is also one of the reasons that AI struggles to expand so much.

A modding question: is there a way to script adding a general to an army with a captain?

[bordinis]

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.

It s Aedui this time. One stack spawned in Bibrakte as Aedui stack and another just nearby as a Rebel stack. After "run_ai" I am able to run camapign with no problem.

[QuintusSertorius]

A modding question: is there a way to script adding a general to an army with a captain?

I'm extremely dubious that there's a simple one. Not even sure how you'd begin to identify a Captain or where they are to spawn a general.

[Erken]

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..

I have tested your save. First i used toggle_fow to keep an eye on the aedui, and then it worked perfectly each time. Next i have tested without toggle_fow several times and each time i had the same problem than you. I don't understand why this kind of thing happens in this conditions, it seems rather improbable. I will probably add a little monitor triggering run_ai when the player press esc in the case, since it should be an ordinary reflex in case of problem.

[Martin N]

Wasn't there a debate or something about an impassable border between Carthage/Egypt? Just seen that they have gone to war with each other in the deserts of Africa - https://i.imgur.com/RK68KTH.jpg, so how is it supposed to work?

[bordinis]

I have tested your save. First i used toggle_fow to keep an eye on the aedui, and then it worked perfectly each time. Next i have tested without toggle_fow several times and each time i had the same problem than you. I don't understand why this kind of thing happens in this conditions, it seems rather improbable. I will probably add a little monitor triggering run_ai when the player press esc in the case, since it should be an ordinary reflex in case of problem.

I did the same thing. First i did "toggle_fow" and then typed "run_ai" and the turn started with Aedui being re-emerged but with one stack only. Still playing, camapaign works and did not corrupt itself this time. I just forgot to write down that generals name which spawned as a Rebel stack..Not sure what s going on with those re-emerging generals, some work fine others do not..

[Rad]

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.

I do not agree. I think it's easier to see it on a different example. If you used the same method to cut off the Iberian peninsula from today's France, factions from one side would still attempt to invade the other, they'd just have a more difficult time due to an absence of a land route.

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).

And how well to does the AI use navies to ferry troops from one side of the continent to another? I can say that I have seen some measure of AI navies moving troops from continents to islands, or from islands to continents (Britain to mainland Europe), but I can't say that I've seen many AI armies being ferried within a continent via ship.

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.

The changes you're introducing help make the game far more predictable, linear - they bring the game closer to a reenactment.

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.

Again, we come back to the AI -while I have seen some islands invasions, I haven't seen much troop transport from one side of the continent to the other.

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Turn 336. Look at the map. Egypt holding its core lands. Seleucids maintaining a hefty amount of land despite being surrounded. Solid Pritanoi, Gallic, Pergamon, Getai, Sauromatoe, Armenia, Taksashila, Saka Rauka, Sab'yn etc. Sweboz have expanded north, south, east and west. Thanks to me, the Romans and the two Iberian faction are gone. I like this map. It's also a far cry from the picture you try to paint.

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.

I'm glad that you agree that EB2 does not have a stack spam issue.

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.

As soon as the 2nd release is out, I'll start a campaign. I'm eager to play, but I'm not eager for bugs and ctds.

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).

I'll repeat. I have no way of making anyone do anything. I'm not paying you or the mod, you do not answer to me or to any other player. I will speak my mind, though.

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.

There's no need to state the obvious... unless of course, you want to casually remind everyone how important you are because you are one of the people making changes to the mod.

[Rad]

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).

I don't think your English is humble at all. I think that you're perfectly capable of using it to try to talk down to someone under a facade of friendly assistance.

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.

I will once again repeat that I keep large garrisons in newly conquered, distant, rebellious and border regions. For clarity's sake, I will explain what they are and why more troops are stationed there:
1. Newly conquered regions - Recently conquered cities suffer increased happiness/public order penalties, due to the conquest itself and due to a potential difference of culture. A large garrison is one of the things used to counter said penalties.
2. Distant regions - Regions that are distant to the player's capital suffer happiness/public order penalties because the population feels shunned from the center of power, authority is harder to maintain etc. Again, having a large garrison helps.
3. Rebellious regions - Some regions are more rebellious, thanks to one of EB2's scripts. Larger garrisons help keep the locals in check.
4. Border regions - Border regions are more likely to be attacked by AI factions. Having a larger-than-average military presence in said regions help keep the region in the player's control until relief arrives.

While historical accuracy should always be taken into account in regards to the composition of the garrison, the size of the garrison is primarily dictated by game factors - happiness levels and external threats.

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.

While historical accuracy should always be taken into account in regards to the composition of the garrison, the size of the garrison is primarily dictated by game factors - happiness levels and external threats.

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.

This is where I need to pause. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You were being dismissive towards me. You were talking down to me. You disregarded what I wrote about where and why I place strong garrisons (perfectly valid, game related reasons) and started instructing me about historical accuracy. Then you implied that I'm some sort of "gamey" player who amasses historically inaccurate armies - which is very bad thing in the eyes of the good, history-loving folk of this mod.

I might be wrong, but this is what I saw - you tried to portray me as some sort of dumb brute, a brute whose opinion is irrelevant.

How did I react? Was I that rude? I asked why a 20 unit garrison wouldn't be historically accurate after factoring in the game parameters (distance, unhappiness with the recent conquest/culture differences, external threats etc). I pointed out that my play style mainly relies on common troop types instead of expensive and rarer, better performing units - quite contrary to what you said (you mentioned that I should "use more semi-professional units rather than professionals", among other things). After I pointed out that my play style is quite bit different from what you wrote, you said that you weren't familiar with my play style. I pointed out that you were now contradicting yourself.

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.

So, you can hold a grudge. Apparently, for a very long time.

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.

The reason I contradicted you is the same reason I contradict anyone and everyone presenting claims I am not familiar with/that aren't in line with what I think I know. I don't want to prove you wrong. I want to be proven wrong. I want you to help me learn by proving yourself right. In order to do that, you will need to present more data and more information - which will help me learn. Over the years, I changed quite a few of my views thanks to people replying to me with good, solid arguments and information.

You said that you preferred spend your free time developing EB2 rather than developing a long debate. Fair enough, your time is your own, but I still felt unanswered. The conversation went downhill from then on.

From that moment, at least during the first years, you seized every opportunity to engage me in conversation in a rude way.

This is your imagination speaking. I did not seek your out or something like that. I engage in topics that interest me - unit appearance and stats, splitting continents in half etc.

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.

The sad thing is that you mistake my curiosity and desire to learn through information presentation and debate as attacks and you take it very, very personally. I'm some guy on the internet. You, like most of us, probably have bigger problems to deal with in your daily life. I just hope your responses to those problems are better.

[Genava]

Please Rad, try to defuse the situation instead of adding fuel to the fire.

Trarco is really a person who puts a lot of effort into the mod and provides a lot of support to everybody. A lot of things you are enjoying from the mod is due to his contribution.

[Rad]

I am all for defusion, but I will never accept the role of on-duty culprit (I have no idea how well that term translates into English).

Mad props to everyone in the team for using their time, knowledge and skills to make and impove this mod, that was never in question.

[bismarck 1899]

I just want to throw in here that studies show that people perceive online communication as more negative than it is often intended. This form of communication lacks important cues like gestures, facial expressions and intonation.

[Rad]

You're right, the format of the conversation is not helpful.

[QuintusSertorius]

Wasn't there a debate or something about an impassable border between Carthage/Egypt? Just seen that they have gone to war with each other in the deserts of Africa - https://i.imgur.com/RK68KTH.jpg, so how is it supposed to work?

Only turn 28 and AI-Carthage already has designs on Egypt?

In R2 it's an invisible, impassable barrier following the border between Kyrene and Syrthim, and following the line of Eremos where it touches on Syrthim and Phasania (so they can't sneak around it by going deep into the desert to the south.

[ARK93]

I haven't played the new patch yet as I haven't had the time, but since a couple of debates are ongoing I wanted to give my opinions while the topics are still being discussed.

I really like the idea of removing the land route along the North African coast. I like the historical accuracy the change will provide but that isn't my only reason. In my previous campaigns Carthage has failed to be a threat in the Western Mediterranean. Perhaps this will have the added bonus of pushing AI-Carthage to challenge the Romans in Sicily, or push north through Iberia. I haven't played many campaigns as Eastern factions, but if the ptolemaic faction is pushed to expand Northwards by this change I may consider playing a Seleucid campaign just for the challenge of taking them on.

As for the new rebels script, I like the idea of a more challenging alternative to the bandit spawns. I am curious as to why the armies will all be 5 or 8 units strong, as opposed to being a variety of sizes, say 4-6 and 8-12. Is this due to some limitation in the base game? I feel knowing exactly how large spawning armies will be makes it a little too easy to have a counter measure in place, but I suspect the EB team have thought about this more than I have.

Lastly I'd just like to say a massive thank you to the EB team. I'm still amazed that the team are still working on the mod nevermind releasing a massive update like this all these years down the line. I think those of us playing the mod need to remember that these guys are asking nothing in return and trying to create a mod for all of us to enjoy. We might not like every single change, but without their hard work we'd probably have stopped playing the game years ago. Some people are being very pushy with their opinions and the team have done a good job of responding patiently and explaining their choices, but ultimately they've made a mod that plays the way they want it too, and why shouldn't they? If we don't share their play style we can always go play a different mod or play an older release of EB2.

[Martin N]

Only turn 28 and AI-Carthage already has designs on Egypt?

In R2 it's an invisible, impassable barrier following the border between Kyrene and Syrthim, and following the line of Eremos where it touches on Syrthim and Phasania (so they can't sneak around it by going deep into the desert to the south.

Apparently so yes, but i actually think its Egypt who started it because Carthage had relatively few men in the area and Egypt are besieging Kyrene now with a 17 unit army. Edit: but Massylia broke their treaty with Carthage as well fighting on Egypts side so i guess not. And i see you guys was talking about Rome 2 and not EB, my mistake then, im not that familiar with the game have all but given up on "modern" total war since that... launch in 2013.

[Wulfburk]

r2 is release two of 2.35A (the next patch) and not rome 2.

[QuintusSertorius]

As for the new rebels script, I like the idea of a more challenging alternative to the bandit spawns. I am curious as to why the armies will all be 5 or 8 units strong, as opposed to being a variety of sizes, say 4-6 and 8-12. Is this due to some limitation in the base game? I feel knowing exactly how large spawning armies will be makes it a little too easy to have a counter measure in place, but I suspect the EB team have thought about this more than I have.

There's no limitation, it's more that those are appropriate sized stacks for what they represent and their frequency. It's internal dissent or larger cross-border raids by people who resent the central authority. A 5-unit stack represents about 8,000 men, and 8-unit stack about 12,000 men. That's a lot of bodies to be raised in the hinterland of a province more frequently than every couple of generations

Too big and they skew the game towards stamping on Rebels when they appear. Too small and they'd have little impact beyond nuisance. What makes them a threat is twofold. Firstly, they have a proper named character for a leader, which means their morale is much higher than the old "bandit" spawns and the Rebel CAI is more active with them (they will besiege poorly garrisoned settlements). Secondly, their composition means there's no trash, like the old 3 units of Akontistai and the like that would spawn randomly. It means if your empire gets large, you need to maintain a force for internal security, which is also good practise for young FMs.

Apparently so yes, but i actually think its Egypt who started it because Carthage had relatively few men in the area and Egypt are besieging Kyrene now with a 17 unit army. Edit: but Massylia broke their treaty with Carthage as well fighting on Egypts side so i guess not. And i see you guys was talking about Rome 2 and not EB, my mistake then, im not that familiar with the game have all but given up on "modern" total war since that... launch in 2013.

No, R2 isn't R2TW:

r2 is release two of 2.35A (the next patch) and not rome 2.

Precisely, sorry for the confusion.

[Martin N]

No, R2 isn't R2TW: Precisely, sorry for the confusion.

Not just your fault, i assumed what it was as opposed to really thinking about it too. Guessing such a change won't be savegame compatible either so it might be worth putting this on hold because i actually quite like the sound of it. I followed your logic in that debate to a certain extent and would prefer Carthage and Egypt couldn't as easily expand in that direction.