AI Suggestion: Shorter Wars

[artaxerxes]

If I should point to THE element that still makes EB and RTW look ahistorical - the ONE thing in all the wondrous historical accuracy that convinces you that its still a game and not an actual time capsule - it is THIS: when two factions have each become great powers - let's say Bactria has usurped Pahlava and India and Seleukeia has pacified Asia Minor and the Ptolemies - it is ONLY a matter of time before a devastating war begins - and this war - faithful to the name of the series (Total War) - usually lasts till one of the combatants is completely torn apart and probably annihilated...

How historical is that? My suggestion - which would alter the way the AI plays quite much and would thus probably offend a lot of players who like the total wars (perhaps this could then be selected from the setup menu as a distinct possibility) - is an AI that, when it seems to be losing (i.e. it has lost a certain percent of its territory - for small factions this would be like 1 settlement and for large ones perhaps 3-5 + that the strength of the nearby enemy armies is superior to the strength of whatever troops it might be able to send to the rescue of the lost towns) it tries to surrender - and, in order to emulate the usual actions of a defeated king in real history, it offers, as well as ceasefire, a respectable sum of money and perhaps trade rights. In some situations, it may also surrender an outlying settlement to the victor (something the current AI is completely unable to do, holding on to each settlement with a kamikaze fanaticism as it does).
On the other hand if an AI is victorious - i.e. it defeats all nearby enemy armies or outnumbers them vastly and it takes a couple of settlements from the enemy - well, as EB and RTW is now, it continus the attack till the enemies are completely destroyed (taking the above example, if Bactria wins, it continues its triumph all the way to the shores of Asia Minor, even if Bactria wasn't the aggressor and really rather wanted to expand in a whole other direction). But how realistic is that (unless we're talking Romans, who should really continue to act that way:laugh4: )? Usually, in the wars between Seleucids and Ptolemies, or even the Punic Wars, the victor would, after having secured himself those enemy lands that he wanted, make peace with the enemy and demand a sum of money and perhaps more lands - but he wouldn't fight all the way to the end of the world.
So if Bactria wins against the Seleucids, my suggestion is that, if they're both AI's, Bactria will perhaps stop after taking five settlements and then offer peace at the price of a sixth settlement and a great sum of money. The Seleucids then decline, and the war goes on. The Seleucids lose two more setllements and then offer peace at a greater sum of money, and Bactria, who didn't want to conquer EVERYTHING ON THE MAP, but rather just wanted a slight expansion into the Iranian lands, accepts...

I know this will be HELL DIFFICULT TO DO, but if it is possible it would really make it easier for small states to survive the onslaught of the big and ensure a more realistic campaign - I know the Roman empire got big, but those kinda empires weren't that ordinary - yet in EB every game ends with 4 or 5 MASSIVE empires and no small states in between at all ;/

Even if it could be done, of course, a lot of players would prolly prefer the old settings, since a superpower AI is more challenging than a peace-loving one, and since the name of the game IS total war, after all. But if an AI as described above was possible, it would really enhance my playing experience, since I'd rather manage a medium-sized empire and fool myself that I'm really a middle-eastern monarch, who just wants to increase his borders a little here and there, but who's otherwise satisfied at developing HIS lands instead of taking everybody elses, than I'd go on a killing-spree wrecking everything with no thoughts of every stopping to stabilize my lands as if I was a hellenistic Genghis Khan. And when I try to live in peace, a handful of foreign lands of course grow into each their Megas Alexandros-sized empires and start crushing me with their boulders. Again, I know that Rome was big, but it was also alone - there wasn't a Germanic and a Hellenistic empire of the same size next to it, no, there were a lot of smaller states, cos smaller states normally prevailed in the history of the old world...

hope this suggestion is useful:beam:

[Intrepid Adventurer]

Excellent idea and I think in some ways this can be scripted. However, I fear most of the AI behavior is hardcoded, is it not? That would severely limit the possibilities. Plus, I assume the EB team would already have incorporated this behavior if it had been at all possible. I could be wrong, though.

[Lusted]

Campaign AI is moddable to quite an extent in Medieval II, unlike RTW.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I agree with you, artaxerxes.
Many small kindoms is both a lot more fun, and more historically accurate, than a couple of swelling blobs, devouring everything and everyone who happens to stand in their way.
It is probably not the easiest thing to implement, if at all possible, but I cincerely hope it will work.

[The General]

I support this proposition, too.

Death to the "Deaths"!

[artaxerxes]

I'm glad you agree (I was utterly convinced that war-loving people would flame my idea to death;) - not that I don't like the occasional world war, but it just doesn't feel so realistic).

I guess, in retrospect, that it's too late to implement this in EB2 (I don't know ANYTHING about programming, but I guess its a fundamental change that you ought to do at the beginning of a project - though I might be wrong). But I wanted to suggest it, cos' sometimes you don't want to "create the great Roman empire" or "restore Alexander's empire" or "conquer all as the Pahlava" - sometimes you want to try and be Pontus - and NOT expand beyond your natural barriers, but rather try how it must have been being an actual king of Pontus, whose chief concerns lay with neighbouring provinces, and not with globe-spanning empires. But every time you try this, you end up getting swallowed by some Galactic Empire-size opponent ;)

Also it feels unrealistic that empires spring up, which contain most of Northern Europe and Russia - and which are stable... even if Barbarian chiefs ever dominated such vast areas, they didn't do it for very long. But the AI builds such an empire, and its infrastructure seems to work as well (in preventing it from falling apart) as that of the great civilisations of the ancient wotld:laugh4:

This is NOT meant as a criticism of the EB team, and all examples of unrealistic AI's are given as humoristic pictures - I hope people understand, that Im not making fun of EB in general, since it isnt the game as such, which is in any way faulty, its rather some delicate features of the AI (and AI's of all games of all ages have always had features which we can only laugh at)

2 reasons why EB team shouldn't think I'm criticizin them: ;)

1) It is a fault of the Total War series and not of EB particularly - had the same problem in Medieval 1, when Spanish and Egyptians (just fx) would each conquer half the world and trash my tiny, esotic Aragonese city state ;)

2) EB has improved the game SO MUCH in SO MANY OTHER WAYS that its quite unbelievable. The addition of most of Asia really had me falling in love - to be able to fight in the ancient lands of Babylonians and Persians - instead of, as in RTW and Medieval 1, just to touch on the western ouskirts of those places - I mean, I LOVE that :) ... And with RTW I NEVER actually felt, that I was back in time - it really disappointed me... EB feels like a time machine:laugh4: - if it wasn't for the

couple of swelling blobs, devouring everything and everyone who happens to stand in their way.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[DefenderofFuture]

I'm under the impression that Lusted is right about this: CA has been making its games progressively easier to mod, and they've publicly stated that Empire is going to be even more so. I don't know exactly how AI coding works, but I'm pretty positive it's a lot easier to change behavior in M2TW than it was in RTW.

[hellenes]

I'm under the impression that Lusted is right about this: CA has been making its games progressively easier to mod, and they've publicly stated that Empire is going to be even more so. I don't know exactly how AI coding works, but I'm pretty positive it's a lot easier to change behavior in M2TW than it was in RTW.

IIRC there was NO way to mod AI in RTW...

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Yeah!

I've read that the AI in M2TW is much more moddable than the AI in RTW.
I hope that it is possible to implement that which we have been talking about here. The EB-team has worked miracles before...
And, as you said, artaxerxes, it's not the EB-teams fault. It's the vanilla AI that is the problem.
I'll keep my fingers crossed...

[Olaf The Great]

Like a reverse "Lord the Konion of Hellas may declare war on us if we attack (SETTLEMENT)!"

[Hax]

Well, I remember playing the Seljuks in BC, and Armenia did accept a ceasefire after say five years.

I gave them their homeland back, in return for 6000 florins.

[fahrenheit]

This is possible in M2TW if the campaign AI is adjusted right. I have played campaigns where I share Europe with one other large power (which in RTW it would be inevitable until we started fighting) and together we hold Europe till the end of the game.

[General Appo]

Indeed, im my experience alliances are much more likely to hold in MTW2. In my Denmark campaign I stayed allied with Venice for over 400 years, despite sharing borders for over 380 years and leaving my cities bordering them almost undefended, just ´cause I trusted them so much. The fact that we had something like 8 marriage alliances might have helped a bit though.

[Ayce]

I support this proposition, too.

Death to the "Deaths"!

But, in that period, there was always 1-2 „Deaths” (like our good friend the SPQR). One of them is certainly the player. But he needs a challenger, so I suggest keeping one faction at random at the start of the game with a total war AI. (maybe random between an „expansionist freak” and a „strong big regional power” type of AI)

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

But, in that period, there was always 1-2 „Deaths” (like our good friend the SPQR). One of them is certainly the player. But he needs a challenger, so I suggest keeping one faction at random at the start of the game with a total war AI. (maybe random between an „expansionist freak” and a „strong big regional power” type of AI)

Well, this is the thing that we don't really want. Sure, the SPQR should be expansionist, but when you have a game with such detail and diversity as EB, you'd really want to enjoy all those 30 factions in the same game, even though you might not always be at war with them, or even in contact with them. For me, just knowing that they are there is enough.

Then, when some of these would-be ghengises come knocking on your door, and like 10 of the other minor AI-kingdoms have had their doors knocked in and stampeded into the ground, some of that realistic feeling is gone.

By this, I don't mean that the game should be easier, or that AI factions should not expand, or try to conquer you, only that they might do this in a more "modest" way.

Then again, some factions, like SPQR and Parthia, should be at least somewhat more agressive than others, but not to the point where you have a world that is half red, half purple, with some colorful dots clinging on to the corners.

[Cartaphilus]

I totally agree whith you, Mithridates.

And another suggestion: try to make some penalty for oath-breakers. Even the romans try to maintain the truces they have given (hahahaha).

[Patriote]

I have the feeling that wars drag on ad vitam eternam simply because empires have "infinite" resources. They can pop out units faster than their treasure is going down. In real life(from what I know and can guess) ironically as an empire gets bigger, it also get harder to defend and control thus humongous amounts of funds were put into armed forces to control those territories.

It wasn't unusual for winning factions to be bankrupted after a series of wars, look at the situation of France after all the wars of Louis XIV. It became the greatest kingdom of Europe but its economic situation led to the revolution of its people later on (it is a rather minimalist explanation but you get the point)

In EB (although its been reduced A LOT compared to others TW games) empire get stronger and stronger as they acquire new lands because each new city pump resources into the central treasury. Also, as battles are fought, soldiers die reducing the upkeep cost meaning a bigger income to recruit more soldiers.. then war without end.

So maybe if someone would come up a solution such a script penalizing empires too big and/or making the deaths of soldiers not a good thing money speaking (I know I know always a new script) in combination with unit pool limitation, better AI diplomacy and multiple units recruitment (that can get a treasury down pretty quickly hehe) we'll have a situation where even mighty empires can get bankrupt; hoping the AI can cope with that and not just start acting stupidly:laugh4:

Anyways, just my 2cents, cheers

[Cartaphilus]

Yeah, the economy is one of the major problems of any empire.
The romans, the spanish, the french, and so on.
The unending wars in the borders were a bleeding of men and gold.
The spanish lost our empire in the Nederlands' revolt (two hundred years before we lost America, but we were doomed since the death of the great Duke of Alba).

I hope the economy will be a problem for the major empires in EB2. Now, only the barbarian factions have some troubles with money, but only if you try to build (cities and armies) without a stop.

[Irishmafia2020]

Generally speaking, the relations between states can be modded so that they are always evolving towards peace if they are at war, and evolving towards war while at peace. I remember that that was one element that I really liked about the "Long Road" mod. Of course if there was active fighting then neither side would sign a ceasefire, and vice versa if two peaceful parties were nice to each other their relations would improve even with the slight drain in relations that occurred each turn. The net result? Short, Limited Warfare that was largely focused on border regions. Some powers got big anyway, but they did not go looking for major wars until they had captured most of the nearby rebel territory. Of course you could always script in a certain amount of animosity between cultures - a permanent relations penalty between Rome and Carthage, or Greeks and Eastern cultures for example, so then you have general warfare along predictable fault lines... But seriously, I have seen MTW2 mods where all of this is moddable, so it is definitely possible!

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

That sounds lika a sort of solution to this problem.
However, I liked that idea about penalties for oath-breakers too. Then, maybe, your AI allies won't backstab you every time you are occupied fighting on another front. (which is more rule than exeption in both RTW and M2TW)

And also that a faction should know when they've been beaten, and offer money for peace, which they rarely do now. Nor do they agree to become a protectorate, even if you have several full stacks in their last territory, an their only unit is an ageing familymember, cowering in their last, besieged town. And if, by some miracle, they do sign a non-aggression pact, you can bet your shirt they'll be attacking you within the next few turns, no matter how bankrupt and undermanned they are.

Well, enough complaining now. If the M2TW AI as as moddable as has been said, who knows what the EB-team will accomplish?

Over and out.

[seriousbusiness]

The problem is diplomacy. It is completely inept and will rarely agree to a meaningful ceasefire for long, even if it's in their better interests. I don't think this is possible. I'm beginning to wonder how scalable the Empire: Total War engine will be. Doing EB in ETW might be more suitable, I'm beginning to think since this would enable us to fix all of the graphical, AI and balancing issues of the original EB. Of course we will need to wait and see, but that's where I feel this project will inevitably lead.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

EBII will be for M2TW, and that is, according to the EB-team, final. Perhaps there will be an EBIII for ETW, but that would mean having to do everything from scratch again, and they have gotten way too far on the M2TW-engine to do that now. In that case, we wouldn't see EBII for another decade!

And also, you may have noted that the last post in this thread was posted (by me:beam:) in early May, and quite a lot of info has been released since then. For example, in his Eagle Standard interview, Foot stated that they will use the recriutment system of M2TW to work towards the goal of stopping the eternal world-wars that campaigns always seem to end up in.
Also, the AI in M2TW is moddable, so perhaps the Diplomacy-AI won't be quite as stupid as in RTW or vanilla M2TW.

[theoldbelgian]

Yeah, the economy is one of the major problems of any empire.
The romans, the spanish, the french, and so on.
The unending wars in the borders were a bleeding of men and gold.
The spanish lost our empire in the Nederlands' revolt (two hundred years before we lost America, but we were doomed since the death of the great Duke of Alba).

I hope the economy will be a problem for the major empires in EB2. Now, only the barbarian factions have some troubles with money, but only if you try to build (cities and armies) without a stop.

ahem really nothing against spanish people but would you please not call the blood baron great
he wasn't quite the humanitarian in our provinces and we were the nice katholic south
I mean parents used to bring him up as a boogey man, that if they dind't listent the duke of alba would come and get them:inquisitive:

[Dutchhoplite]

He came to The Netherlands to handle a bunch of rebels and traitors to the Spanish crown. It may seem bloody and excessive now but i don't think he did antything that was different from 16th century practice.

And now back to those happy times B.C. ;)

[Majd il-Romani]

how about each faction has its own set of AI "rules" to follow. IE, Romani and Pahlava will have the "expansionist-freakzorz" AI, where it is belligerent and expansionist. Carthage would have a "make money" AI, etc