Page 43 of 65 FirstFirst ... 18333435363738394041424344454647484950515253 ... LastLast
Results 841 to 860 of 1293

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

  1. #841

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.3 released!

    I have an issue where in my parthia playthrough I noticed a clan member getting the trait protecotor on the summary screen but the actual character did not get the trait after taking over governorship of clan land. Is this a bug or is there a trait limit because I did not see any traits on any general acting as a correct governor except the proper governor trait, not sure if there is any but since I saw the protector trait pop up in the summary it made me wonder.

  2. #842

    Default Re: Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.3 released!

    nevermind fixed it by spending time outside the settlement and then entering again.

  3. #843

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

    Is this version considered more or less polished than the previous version?

  4. #844

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

    It's got a huge number of campaign_script.txt changes, governments were either tweaked or overhauled, and lots of new units. Buuuuuuut there's the AI that was trained by a neural network fed countless reruns of Game of Thrones. It will attack you with a big army, sue for peace on the same turn, then attack you again with a bigger army 2 turns later.

  5. #845

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    My five cents on the bi-polar AI:
    - I really appreciate that you can fight against a faction and you're not bound to fight until you destroy it (or any other long time). I think this is a very good change.
    - but this have to be balanced. I've had a situation when on one turn the AI didn't want to strike any peace, while on the other I managed to squeeze out a tribute of 4k (Getail vs Lougiones, they're very rich at that moment, for any reason).
    - in my experience, in most cases the AI factions declare wars against other AI factions very easily but also end them in 3-5 turns for no apparent reason.
    All in all, a bit more stability would be welcome.

    On the long-range movement: it enables teleportation from one province to another, both for the AI and the player. Gathering the info about the AI armies doesn't make any sense - wherever they are, they can get to your doors. So you need to sit in your settlements because they come from thin air and siege you. All in all, the operational role of movement is very limited now. I think this is too much, even if it probably makes it easier for the AI to attack the settlements.
    i think the above two variables - the AI behaviour and longer range marches - may in fact be connected with the latter affecting the former because there is a whole lot of "contact zones" now between the factions (than was the case in previous patches). these multiplied "contact zones" may lead to greater propensity for aggression/war. so the fact that factions can reach each other quicker than before results in war and then often a prompt desire for peace when AI calculates that war isnt perhaps a feasible course of action (due to homeland proximity etc?). so perhaps reducing the movement for about 20-25% would not only solve issues outlined above with "teleportation" but also AI "bipolar behaviour".


    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    I've cut the movement points for armies down in the build, from 250 to 200.
    good to hear. would be great if this could be shared as a 'hotfix' of sorts please?

    i think the whole premise around increasing the movement ranges is based largely on the argument how far armies "can march realistically'". this is conceptually flawed approach. it should not be about how far they "can" travel but how far they will be "allowed" to. by "allowed" i mean the system of logistics and supply that army relies on. in a friendly territory sure, they can achieve miracles as the journey is organised and supported by existing infrastructure (see the Roman march to defeat Hasdrubal or Harold Godwinson's lightning marches to and fro York), but once you are in the unknown or worse hostile territory when locals implement scorched earth policy, things can ground to a halt.

    ideally you want to see differentiation of travel distances between nomads vs sedentary factions, "civilised"/better organised vs "uncivilised", own territory vs allied vs neutral vs hostile. not sure how much of it is possible though.

  6. #846

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarkiss View Post
    i think the above two variables - the AI behaviour and longer range marches - may in fact be connected with the latter affecting the former because there is a whole lot of "contact zones" now between the factions (than was the case in previous patches). these multiplied "contact zones" may lead to greater propensity for aggression/war. so the fact that factions can reach each other quicker than before results in war and then often a prompt desire for peace when AI calculates that war isnt perhaps a feasible course of action (due to homeland proximity etc?). so perhaps reducing the movement for about 20-25% would not only solve issues outlined above with "teleportation" but also AI "bipolar behaviour".
    At the very least the bipolar AI gives your generals a lot more action in the late game (Getting battle experience for future faction leaders/heirs and designated generals is more difficult in the late campaign if your rebel RNG sucks) as they feed armies into the meat-grinder, however this can turn into a grind as the AI fails to do anything particularly intelligent on the strategic level on the campaign map with all the extra movement that their armies have been granted this far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarkiss View Post
    good to hear. would be great if this could be shared as a 'hotfix' of sorts please?

    i think the whole premise around increasing the movement ranges is based largely on the argument how far armies "can march realistically'". this is conceptually flawed approach. it should not be about how far they "can" travel but how far they will be "allowed" to. by "allowed" i mean the system of logistics and supply that army relies on. in a friendly territory sure, they can achieve miracles as the journey is organised and supported by existing infrastructure (see the Roman march to defeat Hasdrubal or Harold Godwinson's lightning marches to and fro York), but once you are in the unknown or worse hostile territory when locals implement scorched earth policy, things can ground to a halt.

    ideally you want to see differentiation of travel distances between nomads vs sedentary factions, "civilised"/better organised vs "uncivilised", own territory vs allied vs neutral vs hostile. not sure how much of it is possible though.
    Erken's Strategikos submod takes some of the above into account and I have a feeling some of it will find its way into the mainstream, probably at the next full public release.
    To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
    - Sun Tzu



  7. #847

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

    my observation so far is that the AI isnt sure what to do with the increased movement ranges. it spreads its forces all over the place engaging in random, pointless wars even more than the norm for the legendary TW AI. another issue that the AI always had is adequately garrisoning it cities and this also get worse because it tends to send forces too far afield to be able to quickly counteract. i.e. i was besieging Pontic Trapezous whilst one of their armies was touring Balkans where they control no settlements at all. even if it tries to march back it will bump into all sorts of obstacles and never make it on time to reinforce the city. that said, i do like current range for the all-cavalry nomad armies that come and go at lighting speeds. for anyone else though, it does look out of place and purpose.

    i did play Erken's Strategikos and it contains a lot of cool features. it wasnt updated to the latest patch unfortunately.

    btw, in my Bosporan campaign noticed couple of cavalry units "left behind" on unit sizes: Raukhsalan Baragada (roxolani riders) & Sauroma Wazdata (sarmatian nobles) both at 102 on huge. this seems too large, especially for the latter unit.
    also, after capturing Trapezous from Pontus, cannot build anything above pacification. maybe to do with culture? its only got 10% Hellenistic polities atm.

  8. #848

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarkiss View Post
    my observation so far is that the AI isnt sure what to do with the increased movement ranges. it spreads its forces all over the place engaging in random, pointless wars even more than the norm for the legendary TW AI. another issue that the AI always had is adequately garrisoning it cities and this also get worse because it tends to send forces too far afield to be able to quickly counteract. i.e. i was besieging Pontic Trapezous whilst one of their armies was touring Balkans where they control no settlements at all. even if it tries to march back it will bump into all sorts of obstacles and never make it on time to reinforce the city. that said, i do like current range for the all-cavalry nomad armies that come and go at lighting speeds. for anyone else though, it does look out of place and purpose.

    i did play Erken's Strategikos and it contains a lot of cool features. it wasnt updated to the latest patch unfortunately.

    btw, in my Bosporan campaign noticed couple of cavalry units "left behind" on unit sizes: Raukhsalan Baragada (roxolani riders) & Sauroma Wazdata (sarmatian nobles) both at 102 on huge. this seems too large, especially for the latter unit.
    also, after capturing Trapezous from Pontus, cannot build anything above pacification. maybe to do with culture? its only got 10% Hellenistic polities atm.

    • For the Roxolani Riders and Sarmatian Nobles, their larger unit size of 102 puts them on par with Saka, Alan, Daha, Mazsaka and other nomadic elites which is fine by me imo, but it is still very strong.



    • I do find that the AI on occasion garrisons its cities very well in the late game, but early on it does not do it as well, leading to easy captures if the player times his sieges just right, there is also the exploit which involves taking advantage of the AI's occasional tendency to leave a single unit lying just outside the city. The plan involves attacking that lone unit in a field battle, drawing out the city's reinforcements, which gives the player the opportunity to wipe both out and capture the city without having to conduct a costly and lengthy siege.



    • For Trapezous, unfortunately, the KB has nothing to increase %HP quickly other than the military colony that every other Hellenistic faction gets except for the KH. This puts the KB in a bind as their capital only starts off with a tier 2 Hellenistic Polis with the only other one within striking distance being Sinope with the additional option of developing Khersonesos enough to upgrade from Minor Polis to Polis (That city starts with 40% HP IIRC which should be enough for an Oligarchic Administration) with the culture solely coming from the governor's influence. This ensures that you start generating colonists, but at a slow pace since you now just have one trio of lvl 2 polis. There is but one tip, build the colony before setting up Diallage Enchorios if you can, you need that culture to rise to 25% HP before you can advance from Diallage Enchorios to Arkhe Tyrranou.
    To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
    - Sun Tzu



  9. #849
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AEnima City, USA
    Posts
    1,646

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarkiss View Post
    it should not be about how far they "can" travel but how far they will be "allowed" to.
    Not sure I see a difference there. Either way, how bout how far they "did" in fact travel on average? Which is almost always more than the 250 points allow for. Gameplay arguments are one thing (even if conjecture and guesses based on feelings), but realism is never gonna be a reason for an average march rate of 2 miles a day (unless it is according to historians and sources. Just hasn't been the case from anything I've seen, with average march rates being around 10 miles a day and up to 20-30 or even more for particularly important or rushed marches for certain reasons).

  10. #850

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

    i wasnt considering the actual distances per se but the principle on which allowances and estimations seem to be built. point was, the longer marches need to be allowed/enabled, contingent upon the army type, terrain and territory in question, as well as infrastructure etc that enables the army to cover longer distances. crossing own territory is altogether different proposal than crossing enemy lands. in a game, on average, you want those things to factor in, regardless of whats default marching distance. as it is though, i dont see much of a benefit for the AI. it often spreads too thin and i agree with Jurand's points. i do again think the current distances could work for the nomads, agents and perhaps fleets.

    not sure it was reported already, Bosporan spy and assassin share the same strat map model. impossible to tell which is which and can occasionally lead to unintended consequences.

  11. #851

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

    The movement should definitely be kept for fleets. The one undeniable benefit of the new movement ranges is that it makes the late-game Cursus Honorum somewhat playable, fleets movement should be kept to facilitate this (somewhat appropriately, this will have the indirect effect of keeping Roman lands close to the Mediterranean).

  12. #852
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AEnima City, USA
    Posts
    1,646

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarkiss View Post
    the longer marches need to be allowed/enabled, contingent upon the army type, terrain and territory in question, as well as infrastructure etc that enables the army to cover longer distances.
    They are. An all cavalry type of army will cover much longer distances than a mixed type of army with infantry. Siege weapons shorten it even further I believe. Even more variety would be better, if light infantry had a different rate than heavy like in Empire/Napoleon (or maybe it already does? Will have to check). Terrain, territory and infrastructure also affect movement. March rates are contingent on no roads vs. roads vs. improved roads vs. highways. Further contingent on forested areas where movement is most restricted I'm pretty sure. Weather also has its effects depending on territorial climates, penalties for Summer in hot areas, Winter in cold. At least I think that's how it works, wouldn't be great if both applied globally so 2/4 turns a year always have a penalty everywhere.

    Even wider differences between every contingency would be great, like the difference between no roads and roads/improvements being more drastic. Or maybe the current ratio is realistic as it is. With 250 movement points currently you're getting around 2.5 miles/day without roads, around 5 miles/day with max level roads (so something less than that with the next update), which means armies march around twice as fast when marching in highly developed territories versus roughing it. That seems reasonable, who knows.

    crossing own territory is altogether different proposal than crossing enemy lands. in a game, on average, you want those things to factor in, regardless of whats default marching distance.
    I guess moving slower in enemy lands could make sense, not sure it would be necessary though. Certainly taking supplies and logistics into account maybe, but that could be represented by the supplies traits and things along those lines, maybe they already are. If traits can give negative movement penalties, and if there's reason to think or know that armies moved slower in enemy territory, negative movement penalties could be added to low supply traits (if they aren't already, though I think current supply related stuff only affects morale though might be wrong).

  13. #853

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarkiss View Post
    i wasnt considering the actual distances per se but the principle on which allowances and estimations seem to be built. point was, the longer marches need to be allowed/enabled, contingent upon the army type, terrain and territory in question, as well as infrastructure etc that enables the army to cover longer distances. crossing own territory is altogether different proposal than crossing enemy lands. in a game, on average, you want those things to factor in, regardless of whats default marching distance. as it is though, i dont see much of a benefit for the AI. it often spreads too thin and i agree with Jurand's points. i do again think the current distances could work for the nomads, agents and perhaps fleets.

    not sure it was reported already, Bosporan spy and assassin share the same strat map model. impossible to tell which is which and can occasionally lead to unintended consequences.
    Just a few examples/reports of how it seems to benefit the AI:
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post16015072
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post16015649
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post16018676

  14. #854

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooz View Post
    They are.
    yes, but thats the thing - with the current very generous distance allowances all these subtleties go out of window, thats my feeling anyway. perhaps differences can be made more pronounced? then again, not sure AI can handle it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aodh Mór Ó Néill View Post
    The movement should definitely be kept for fleets. The one undeniable benefit of the new movement ranges is that it makes the late-game Cursus Honorum somewhat playable, fleets movement should be kept to facilitate this (somewhat appropriately, this will have the indirect effect of keeping Roman lands close to the Mediterranean).
    im not against the fleets going as far as they do now, though be aware of pointless blockading the ports "feature".
    to be fair i never played Romans in EB2, just generally dont find them particularly interesting but also the whole cursus honorum always seemed too tedious and intimidating (the way it can be implemented in MTW2). so unfortunately Rome in EB2 has always been a non starter for me but hopefully you right.

  15. #855
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AEnima City, USA
    Posts
    1,646

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarkiss View Post
    perhaps differences can be made more pronounced
    Unfortunately not. At least from what I've looked into in trying to do that, seems the ratio/percentages of movement bonuses from roads is hardcoded. Hopefully I'm wrong though, unless again the current ratio is actually accurate as it is.

    Liking or not liking how it plays it is up to the perceiver, but claiming a realism argument is conceptually flawed without taking into account what realistic march rates are and how they translate to being represented in the game is less relative, more objectively objectionable.

  16. #856

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooz View Post
    Unfortunately not. At least from what I've looked into in trying to do that, seems the ratio/percentages of movement bonuses from roads is hardcoded. Hopefully I'm wrong though, unless again the current ratio is actually accurate as it is.

    Liking or not liking how it plays it is up to the perceiver, but claiming a realism argument is conceptually flawed without taking into account what realistic march rates are and how they translate to being represented in the game is less relative, more objectively objectionable.
    well, the distance traveled differs based on a host of factors so i find the figure of the "realistic" marching rate to be largely useless. context is everything. again, marching in own territory is altogether different from traveling through hostile environment etc, hence my objection to enshrining "the rate" to begin with. and whatever the actual rate was, it is too long atm imho, so no, i dont think it translates well to stay represented in the game the way it currently is. my personal opinion, mind you. if others enjoy it, good for you, it is currently default after all.

  17. #857
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AEnima City, USA
    Posts
    1,646

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

    I see, so you just mean realism has little to no place factoring into the decision of what the march rate should be (or what you want it to be), rather it should be purely a gameplay decision. Not that it is or isn't more or less realistic to have a certain number set as the movement points (which a certain number has to be set for it in the relevant file for the game to run). Well for a mod heavily based on realism, insofar as historical accuracy can be equated to realism (and historically accurate march rates can be considered realistic), it wouldn't be crazy to think that realism could indeed be a big factor in making that decision. Lots of decisions about the mod and gameplay have been made with realism/accuracy in mind, sometimes to the detriment of gameplay (again, depending on individual perspective and preferences, etc.). Though luckily I perceive higher movement rates to give benefits to gameplay myself, and anyone can set it to whatever they want regardless of the official release

  18. #858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooz View Post
    I see, so you just mean realism has little to no place factoring into the decision of what the march rate should be (or what you want it to be), rather it should be purely a gameplay decision. Not that it is or isn't more or less realistic to have a certain number set as the movement points (which a certain number has to be set for it in the relevant file for the game to run). Well for a mod heavily based on realism, insofar as historical accuracy can be equated to realism (and historically accurate march rates can be considered realistic), it wouldn't be crazy to think that realism could indeed be a big factor in making that decision. Lots of decisions about the mod and gameplay have been made with realism/accuracy in mind, sometimes to the detriment of gameplay (again, depending on individual perspective and preferences, etc.). Though luckily I perceive higher movement rates to give benefits to gameplay myself, and anyone can set it to whatever they want regardless of the official release
    im all for accuracy and realism but sometimes realism in one niche area comes at the cost that paradoxically diminishes it overall and this is a good show case of it. i played for about 170 turns as Bosporans now and these are my gripes with the current movement rates:

    • the differences between allied, hostile, different terrains, mounted and foot movement - all of these go down the drain because of how large an area can now be traversed in a single turn. you simply have no need for any of the important contextual considerations. whatever the circumstances are, you have plenty of movement points so in that sense it actually deducts realism rather than delivering it imho
    • AI and player armies alike can end up virtually anywhere within a few provinces radius now. this takes away any strategic considerations and randomises things too much, which isnt too good of a thing imho, and something player can take far greater advantage of due to better decision making process, cunning etc
    • we wrongly equate the game world with the real world. yes, in real world armies would sometimes converge on a province in a matter of weeks but would then stay there for months and years fighting, pacifying, re-fighting rebels etc. look at Trajan's campaigns into Dacia, Scipios campaigns in Iberia, Hannibal's stay in Italy etc. in the game's world this rarely happens - you march in and once the town is taken and a few units left behind there isnt much else to do so you march on. unlike real world, provinces are single settlement entities in the game hence you and the AI can hop around at the speed that would be unthinkable in real world
    • and this leads to the dumb AI and its issues. it arrives to the province but then bolts off the next turn. imagine it was Hannibal's army - one moment they are in Italy, next turn in Greece, then in Crimea and by the end of the year the army is in Germania. not a worry in the world, all perfectly reachable now with the current rates but would of course be highly improbable in real world. so by providing realism in one form, i feel that we take it away from a bigger picture
    • AI force dispersion and constant war-peace cycles are other areas made worse by the current rates imho (see the increased "contact zones" argument in one of the previous post)

    im not trying to impose my orthodoxy on anyone and glad folks enjoying it. for me the current rates are a good diversion from the norm, it is just different and that is a good thing to experience from time to time. but given the things mentioned above, i dont think i would be playing another campaign with the current rates. unfortunately, they just take away too much without introducing enough to compensate in the overall experience for me to stick to them.

  19. #859

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

    How changing movement points affects the Roman cursus honorum?

    "najłatwiej i najpiękniej nie gnębić drugich, ale samemu nad sobą pracować, żeby być możliwie jak najlepszym" Sokrates

  20. #860
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AEnima City, USA
    Posts
    1,646

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

    Meanwhile, I play with 500 movement points and love it lol. Each their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon Soul View Post
    How changing movement points affects the Roman cursus honorum?
    Just makes it easier for your characters to get to and from Rome for elections and such. Let's say you had a general operating in Iberia who comes up for election. It would take a year or more with previous version movement points to get back to Rome, basically pointless. More movement, faster can get there for politics and back in the field for action.

Posting Permissions

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