Europa Barbarorum 2.08e is released!

[HFox]

Hi
Getai ecomony
I have played this faction at least 20 times, probably a lot more over the past three months. Almost without exception economically it seems to loose half its revenue after 4-6 turns.
Currently (year 270) having captured the obvious coastal target and reduced my army by half, put a mounted unit in the only available village, the income of my capital has still dropped by over 50%.
This is not an odd exception.
I have replayed this scenario five times, trying differing strategies, since the last release and this scenario has been repeated each time. My only guess is there seems to be a huge impact from devastation as there are at least four large rebel armies locally which are mostly too strong to attack. I generally rout the one small rebel army close to the capital in the first turn.
To role play this to recover you would have to reduce your armies to almost nothing and with five large rebel armies on your doorstep would be an unnatural decision.
Is the area of effect of devastation too large?
Is the fiscal effect of devastation too great?
Am I barking up the wrong tree and just a bad player? :)

[QuintusSertorius]

What version are you playing? From 2.04i onwards, they get decent FM bodyguards which might make a difference in battle.

I don't know if the geographic impact of devastation can be varied, but the fiscal impact is capped so it shouldn't get too egregious. All I can suggest is using your starting forces to at least clear the direction you'd like to expand of one of those armies. Their placement is mostly to do with the size of settlements they are guarding (anything with a large town or bigger gets an army).

[HFox]

As stated playing the latest version, have been regularly updating and revising the getai since first release of eb2. The bodyguards are not the issue ( I lost a general in turn three of latest game so only 2 of the 3 normal bodyguard units), also disbanded half the cavalry and 2/3rds of the starting merc pool to try and recover but v hard (180 gold per turn surplus) with income still dropped to 50%.

The roving armies tend to find and sit on watchtowers, if you build watchtowers they attract roving units like moths to a flame. Two games ago i built three watch towers and within 2 turns all were occupied from armies outside of my borders.

IMHO the faction isn't feasibly playable at the minute with the usual caveat of me just being rubbish.

You cant attack North, the roving stack near sarmisegetusa is too strong, east you can take the coastal town but then are too weak to take a third town (you have to assault, you can't afford to wait 4 turns), NE there are two roving stacks and it takes too long to reach the city to make a fiscal difference. South is possible but again the roving defending army has better units than you and you end up with the same net result as heading east, too weak and broke to proceed.

Historically weren't the getai rich...which is why the romans went for them?

[QuintusSertorius]

The mines in Sarmizsegethusa are your ticket to a viable economy - you just have to get through those fierce Rebels first.

As for being broke - that's the early-game choice. Disband your units and try to build up your economy slowly, or use what you've got and go deep into debt until you've carved out enough of an empire to work through the debt. Someone gave some feedback on a recent Getai campaign on TWC; they went all out at the start and got back in the black soon enough.

[QuintusSertorius]

Changelist for 2.05:

• Further update to Baktrian mission to make certain it triggers.
• Tweaks to Baktrian and Hayastan independence scripts. Captures are monitored when they're in rebellion.
• Doubled chances of Mauryan punitive expeditions spawning, to ensure reform script triggers properly.
• Added a market to Chighu
• Added a Patava pool to Epirote Native/Supervised Native Admin, and to Celtic migration governments.
• Revision of Roman civlib to put in a clearer structure to the pools and added an Anatolian pool.
• Lugian governments brought into conformity with other "barbarian" ones.
• Added slingers to the Illyrian pools. Added a placeholder Thraikian pool to Hellenistic governments.
• Tweaks to carthage_poils, carthage_council and numidia4 governments.
• Reform-oriented tweaks to greek1, greek2, hellen1 and hellen2 Allied Government pools. Also to polis and helcol buildings.
• Replaced Cappadocian Cavalry with Anatolian Medium Cavalry.
• Update to Pontic factional governments - pontos2 and pontos3 revised to be more like Hellenistic pools - ie local levies.
• Quick update of govgandara and govsaba - closed double-counting and altered some pools.
• Big update of Iberian pools - we have new "Iberian Levy Spearman" and "Iberian Levy Skirmiser" units (ie renaming and repurposing of existing units).
• Doubled Rebel recruit_pool refresh rates (but left pool caps unchanged).
• Increased economic support for Makedonia, Numidia and Saka.
• CAI updates to defense rules and diplomacy.
• Recosted Illyrians and Hoplitai Haploi. Tweaks to Celtiberian Skirmishers and Leusitane Light Spearmen.
• Review of cavalry stamina for consistency; heavy and most medium cavalry do not have hardy, missile and skirmish cavalry all do. Steppe cavalry have very_hardy to represent their practise of each warrior having remounts.
• Review of infantry mass for consistency. Numerous skirmishers standardised.
• Iberian and Eastern light cavalry put on ponies instead of horses.
• Removal of illyria from Landa Skordiskoii
• Updated diplomacy screen UI for cul_3 that was reversing confirm/deny.
• Re-enabled huge_stone_walls for Hellenistic and other factions that were disabled.
• CAI, diplomacy and pathfinding updates. Implemented different skirmishing distances for javelin and archer cavalry. Update to reinforcement AI.

[gosam]

Thanks for the update!

A little thing I've noticed : Alkyoneus (from Makedon) picked up the occasional drinker trait, while he starts with the metriopotes (moderate drinker) one.
IIRC, I've even had a save on one of the previous 2.04 versions where he ended up with the sot trait.

[gosam]

Apologies for the double post.

I've started a Hayasdan game. After building the tribal government in 5 provinces, I got the kingdom reform and unlocked the satrapy governments. Two points :
- I've conquered Gazaka after the reform and found that both the tribal government and the satrapy were available as choices. Is this normal? I thought the satrapy was a straight upgrade.
- The satrapy seems to restrict recruitment to cavalry only, apart from Armavir where I can still get some infantry. Is this WAD? Should I have held on building the satrapies untill more reforms were enacted? At this point I have 8 settlements, with infantry available only in one. (Edit : Turns out the infantry in Armavir comes from a native colony building)

More general observations : Pontos is rocking out this time! First the Ptolemies took the whole south coast of asia minor + Syria and Assyria. Then Pergamon and Pontos attack the ptolemies, with Pergamon taking Lydia, Ionia, Karia and Pamphylia, while Pontos took Kilikia, Syria, Assyria, and then drove south to Syria Koile and Phoinike! This is turn 84 btw.

2nd edit : After upgrading Karkathiokerta to a city, I have the option to build there a Royal Kingdom of Hayasdan government. From the Faction governments and colonies thread over at twc, it seemed as it's only buildable in Armavir.
Though it makes sense that the Imperial Capital of Hayasdan is the only one to be restricted to Armavir.

[QuintusSertorius]

Traits are a bigger job than I can do by myself in these test releases. We're hoping to get a major review of them as part of the autumn release.

Upgrade path is intentional, from the precursor post-reform there are three choices (though it may only display two).

Satrapy is supposed to be just cavalry - it's expected that you'd build an eastcol (Native Colony) there for your main recruitment. By the way, that's where Armavir's other units are coming from. You should have held off building the Satrapy until you'd gotten at least the first tier of the Native Colony in place.

Good to see Pontos doing well - though that may be in part because you're Hayastan.

Royal Capital is just the highest tier of government for anywhere that's not-Armavir. So working as intended. Though you should only be able to build one of these under particular conditions.

[QuintusSertorius]

Changelog for 2.05b - ended up being a much more significant edit than I'd initially planned:

• Uazali removed from Anatolian levy pools. Restructured Anatolian recruit pools more generally.
• Getic Mezenai armour reduced by 2 points on review.
• Cappadocian Tribesmen re-statted as skirmishers.
• Correction to Roman military tribune trigger and Marian reform trait.
• Updated requirements to upgrade to hay_imperial. Alterations to Hayastan government pools.
• Leusitane switched from rel_f to rel_i.
• Levies removed from eastcol (Native Garrison)
• Alteration of Pontos starting armies.
• Fixed the bugged Amber Route building in Histria.
• Hippeis given the secondary weapon (a shorter spear) they already had.
• Fix to basic trait (Sharp/Charismatic/Vigorous) inheritance.
• Adjusted cost and recruit_priority_offset of Arabian ships to address naval spam.
• Iberians using the scutarii shield now late/reform units.
• Rejig of herds building pools. Iberian units removed
• Rework of mercenary pools to take into account troops phasing in and out.
• Slight increase to Makedonian forces in the Peloponnese and moved both armies.
• Brakara and Lankia converted from camps to villages.
• Army in Sinope removed.
• Agent cap on AI diplomats; they can recruit no more than 4.

Plus z3n's CAI/diplomacy and BAI/pathfinding changes in more detail:
Campaign/Diplomacy AI
1) Alliances issue resolved
2) Faction relations now matter more in regards to invasion decisions, the map should end up looking a bit different from normal
3) Adjustment to the invasion strength algorithm, should mean that attacks with less than a .99 strength ratio do not happen. Need feedback on that
4) Alliances slightly less stable without adequate relations
5) Sucessful requests for attacks on a faction will now divert a much larger amount of resources towards the target, additionally it should be somewhat easier if you posses the necessary relations

Pathfinding/Battle AI
1) Threat detection and prevention is improved for the defensive AI
2) Additional tactics implemented to prevent unnecessary disengagement and prioritize elevation
3) Pathfinding in regards to elevation adjusted to balance elevation pathfinding and AI prioritization of elevation
4) Hill assault tactics by the AI should be more 'intelligent' in the sense that if under fire and losing 10%~ of their melee units they will start to run up the hill. Otherwise they'll walk and conserve their stamina.
5) Defending versus a sally out should exhibit slightly more reactivity. Though this is only the start of said improvement, as more work will be done in future updates on the defensive/offensive part of the Siege AI.
6) AI will start to plan during the engagement which side (front/sides/rear) to assault units on in a more cohesive and sensible manner.

[QuintusSertorius]

Changelist for 2.05c:

• Pools switched between Bosporan Tyrranos and Oligarchy governments.
• Tidy up of hidden_resource requirements for numerous factional governments.
• Reviewed and amended the early assistance money script. Also reworked withdrawal of assistance. Essentially most factions have been equalised.
• Cap on diplomats should actually work now.

That might seem a short list, but ignoring the housekeeping, the big thing is the third one - the change to the money script. I'm keen to see if that fixes the inadvertent issue introduced in 2.04g onwards. Also whether it reduces the Gray Death.

I'd also like some feedback on Rebel recruitment and how the AI is treating mercenaries (on Hard campaign difficulty).

[Reskin]

Hi.

Thanks for all your work... being a TW addict and history buff I really want to enjoy it. Perhaps someone could help me with the following install issue?

To be clear, I installed 2.01 in the SEGA mods folder as per usual and suggestion by the game. Played a Grand Campaign for a turn. Had some unspecified error crashes at startup and later in the game... but it ran eventually. Do I have to uninstall the 2.01 game and reinstall in a new folder as you suggested, C:\M2TW\mods\EBII , to then patch with 2.05c ? I assumed so but I can't see EB listed as an installed game in control panel! All the other MTW kingdom games are there, no EBII. So how do I uninstall it? I am such a technonoob!

Thanks again.

[Michael King]

Hi Reskin,

I'm unsure about what you mean with the SEGA mods folder?

In any case, EBII has to be installed in the mods folder (where you will also find the kingdoms campaigns), which can be found in your M2TW folder. If you want to uninstall it, but can't find EBII in your installed programs list, there should be an uninstaller in your main M2TW folder, the file should be called Unins000.exe (there will also be a Unins000.dat), and it should have the EBII icon as its icon in the folder. Just run that one.

Regards.

[QuintusSertorius]

Changelist for 2.06:

• Update to Bosporan Tyrannos government. Tyrannos reworked (like Pontic Philos), Oligarcy reviewed for applicability in intended areas.
• Added new royal_core hidden_resource, primarily for Pontic Hypobasileia, but may have other uses later.
• Corrected the Taksashila Independence script (courtesy of myarta).
• Amendment to the Baktrian section of the colonist script to ensure it fires when it should.
• Bonus Rebel recruitment in Syrakousai.
• Fixed Akontistai's melee attack value.
• Updated recruitment in the hay_caucas and hay_satrap. Also altered parth_pbm and parth_sat.
• Added Nabataens to third tier of roads_garrison.
• Removed the walls from Lankia and Brakara that prevent them being upgraded.
• Reviewed Saka reform script.
• Reworked Sauromatian and Saka Admin buildings. Also corrected the lack of local troops in later Saka buildings.
• Changes to requirements of migration governments. Expansion of Leusitane and Arevaci Confed pools to cover each other's homelands.
• Properly fixed the Toutanakoi. They now use underhand spears as intended.
• Added Patava pool to Roman civlib.
• Increased cost of Pontomora Fleet to reduce barbarian naval spam.
• Raised max adoption age from 30 to 45 - should hopefully mean more FMs for Teutonic factions.
• Removed colonist requirement for Carthaginian colony precursor building. Fixed faulty requirement for trade colony.
• Mastia removed from Carthage - turned Rebel. Garrison moved to Gader. Mastia renamed Kart-Hadast if taken by Carthage.
• Added native pool to Carthaginian Allied Colony. Expansion of several merc pools for Carthage (only).
• Removed bonuses from govallied and raised cost by 100 mnai - to encourage AI to build other government buildings. Also moved it to the bottom of the government section.
• Gaesatae recruitment fixed - only in the Rhone valley.
• Increased morale of Perkwunas and Slaganz.
• Apollodoros (Pergamene FM) ethnicity fixed when Comes of Age.
• Client Rulers implemented. They can be recruited in the Allied Government precursor building - the first step in establishing one. But the refresh is deliberately low; if they die you need to destroy the building and start again.
• Nabataean Horse Archers removed from southern Arabian pools and starting garrisons. Left in mercenary pools, however.
• Taksashila switched back to rel_i.
• Elephants restored to a military formation.
• Completely reworked and re-concepted the eastcol building - now a Foreign Military Settlers building.
• Correction to the Felsina mission for Boii - faulty distance trigger now fixed.
• New money script using inc_kings_purse instead of console_command add_money (allegedly the AI can "see" the former, where the latter is treated as mysterious free money). Reduced surplus on debt relief. Equalised withdrawal of support so everyone is impacted the same at 6+ provinces.
• Amendments to the availability of "Galatians" and "Thracians" in the helcol.
• Updated KH Archon titles script - courtesy of gosam.
• Disabled AI-KH auto-siege-Knossos script. Added rebel garrisons to minor settlements on Krete.
• Numerous changes to diplomacy, faction relations CAI and BAI.

Assuming there are no major bugs discovered, this should be the last big update before the Autumn release.

You may note that Parthian, Hayastan, Saka and Sauromatae recruitment has been amended, as has the Native Colony building. There are also Client Rulers to try out. I'd also be interested in what playing Carthage is like now the balance of things has changed.

[Reskin]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for replying. My apologies for not replying sooner but I forgot my password and strangely The Org was not emailing the reset... it works now.

I meant the SEGA folder C:\Program Files (x86)\SEGA\Medieval II Total War\mods where all the campaigns are, which is the folder the 2.01 suggested I install it in. That is precisely the folder you say not to install 2.05 into hence I am asking about reinstalling it... But now you are saying it has to be in the mods with the rest of the campaigns, which is also the one you say not to install in, so I am confused. Do I have to completely reinstall all my M2TW mods in a shorter folder name? Say it ain't so!

All the best,

Daniel

[Michael King]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for replying. My apologies for not replying sooner but I forgot my password and strangely The Org was not emailing the reset... it works now.

I meant the SEGA folder C:\Program Files (x86)\SEGA\Medieval II Total War\mods where all the campaigns are, which is the folder the 2.01 suggested I install it in. That is precisely the folder you say not to install 2.05 into hence I am asking about reinstalling it... But now you are saying it has to be in the mods with the rest of the campaigns, which is also the one you say not to install in, so I am confused. Do I have to completely reinstall all my M2TW mods in a shorter folder name? Say it ain't so!

All the best,

Daniel

Well, the folder you describe is the correct mods folder, where EB II should be installed.

Sadly, EB II (and many other mods) can have issues when M2TW is installed in Program Files, so if you're having trouble with it, maybe reinstalling the game in a shorter path can help. For example, my game is installed in G:\Games\Medieval II Total War\ (G:\Games\Medieval II Total War\mods\EBII).

It sucks, but maybe reinstalling might be the best option.

[V.T. Marvin]

Another, less painful option is to simply copy your "C:\Program Files (x86)\SEGA\Medieval II Total War" folder and paste it as, for example "C:\Games\M2TW". If space is an issue you can then delete all other mods in this new "C:\Games\M2TW\mods" folder and then install EBII there. :cents:

It will save your original game and other mods you might already have, while still giving you well functioning EBII.

[Artemisia]

Hi there. I loved EBI but took a while to try EBII due to remembered M2TW as an unplayable trainwreck, so I'm still a little wary about the engine

So far, I've played 50-60 turns with both Saba and Pontos.

Campaign AI behaviour - does the AI combine armies properly and attack with large stacks; move with purpose; respond appropriately either to attack or defend; conduct diplomacy consistent with it's military activities; use balanced armies; use it's navies appropriately; does each faction feel like it is acting according to it's own agenda, not all following the same script?

It looks like mostly the AI does these things, a big improvement over both EBI and vanilla Kingdoms. However, it's not very good at them; the AI still makes some boneheaded decisions like starting wars on multiple fronts when it can't really afford to do so, but at least it's not some crazy berserker that always attacks its neighbours, and I've had the AI offer ceasefires when it starts losing and actually honour treaties (however, it still has trouble making concessions during negotiations, this is Total War after all).

On thing I've noticed with the AI merging stacks is that, while it tries to avoid attacking piece meal with small stacks, it tries to merge them too close to its target, so if the player is proactive they can attack the small stacks before they merge together. If possible, the AI should be programmed to first merge its forces, and only then move towards its target.

Campaign AI economics - harder to discern, but does the AI seem to have unlimited money, throwing stack after stack at you, or it is more constrained than it was; is the replenishment rate change noticeable?

I don't know if it's the replenishment rate holding it up, but the AI seems to spam stacks less than what I'm used to. Although I have noticed it emptying a merc pool in one turn.

Early campaign difficulty - are the Rebel garrisons in particular appropriately daunting, or are they too big? How quickly to AI factions expand?

Rebel garrisons looked really scary at first glance—but the autocalc allows the winner to take relatively little attrition past a certain point in the balance of forces (3:2 to 2:1). If you can achieve that it's possible to take rebel settlement after rebel settlement, especially if your faction doesn't have cultural issues (so you don't need to drop large garrisons to hold your conquests). Some AI factions expanded very fast in my two saves (Hayasdan and Bosporos grew surprisingly fast for instance) while others remained stuck in their starting position for 50+ turns.

One thing I noticed is that the rebels cause a huge ammount of lost income through devastation in the early game. It makes them feel like much more of a threat and forces you to deal with them, but the ammount of lost income is rather brutal for smaller factions—and essentially forces them to blitz or die, which I don't think is intentional.

Battle AI behaviour - does the AI hold a line, execute a plan of it's own rather than trying to "match" your movement, try to turn your flanks with cavalry and light infantry?

The AI seems to stick to its plan, to a fault even. It has definitely stopped shuffling its units around and responding constantly to small movements. On the downside, it appears very reluctant to change its plans, leading to things like heavy infantry chasing cavalry all over the map, and AI units spending too long finishing off a surrounded unit and not moving to help elsewhere on the battlefield.

The AI seems to make clumsy flanking attempts at times. But not really with cavalry—it uses its shock cavalry in the centre, which IIRC is a vanilla behaviour.

Overall I was very pleasantly surprised with the AI behaviour.

Unit performance - does cavalry move at a realistic speed and have the right impact when charging; does infantry move at a realistic speed and keep their formations when moving and fighting; do skirmishers use their missiles properly and seem effective against unarmoured targets and from the rear; are elephants effective and realistic-seeming; do units generally have a feeling of weight and solidity to them, not like two blobs brushing against each other? When feeding back here, be specific about which units you observed.

This is where it shows that the M2TW engine is still a trainwreck

Charging impact for both cavalry and infantry is often negated by pathing and formation issues. An extreme example was a unit of AI Hoplitai who became stuck in place with "Charging" as their status. They didn't move at all for several minutes, except for two soldiers (out of 150).

Units have trouble keeping formation when marching. Some examples fresh in my memory include the Cappadocian axemen/skirmisher soldiers randomly switching from line to column formation while marching and Pantodapoi Phalangitai moving to a narrower, deeper box from their assigned line formation.

Missile troops in general feel terribly ineffective. However considering how slowly melee troops kill it may not be unbalanced, although the very slow pace of battles makes for insipid gameplay, honestly. I would like lethality to go up across the board.

Skirmishers have issues because of their limited range, which generally forces compact formations—the loose formations that feel more logical are inefficient, because you end up with part of the unit out of range of the target. When put on skirmish mode, skirmishers get caught less often than in EBI, but they also tend to spend all their time running away and not use their javelins much or at all. In any case, I often disable skirmish mode because the units tend to be really dumb about which direction to run in.

Units in melee inevitably lose formation sooner or later and become blobs pouring into each other. Even phalangites with guard mode enabled fighting hoplitai get mixed up in the enemy formation.

I did not play with or against elephants.



Some more general observations:

• Units have a lot of trouble killing each other. My first battle was quite a shock when I (as Saba) tried to storm a rebel settlement and the battle ended in a draw because defenders weren't dying fast enough, and this is with lightly armoured Arabian units. In several battles I've see a general surrounded lose all his bodyguards and proceed to fight alone against hundreds of men for minutes, being knocked down dozens of times in the process. It just looks silly. I realise that historically armies didn't slaughter each other in ten minutes, but it's just pointlessly time-consuming and, honestly, a bit boring for battles to drag on like this. Please make casualties happen faster.
• levied Toxotai, Persian archers and Cretans all have the same missile attack value. I realise there are limits to how granular you can make it, but generic Greek archers being as accurate and deadly as the most famous mercenary archers and the bowmen of a renowned archery nation feels wrong. It also means there's little point in hiring the more expensive Cretans.
• Western Tribal culture fades noticeably in Galatia. It looks possible that Celtic units will become unavailable there by around 220BCE. Maybe the unique building in Ankyra (the Galatian meeting forest) could have some cultural conversion to Western Tribal?
• This was already the case in EBI, but Kappadokia Pontika can't produce warships—despite including Herakleia Pontika which produced some very big warships historically.
• Misthophoroi Hoplitai are the unarmoured Hoplitai Haploi kind, even though their unit card shows body armour shouldn't professional mercenary hoplites be the better equipped flavour of hoplite anyway?
• Using the minor settlements and no-upkeep slots to garrison units for free and then gathering them up for campaigns feels a lot more immersive

[V.T. Marvin]

Thank you for your excellent and detailed feed-back.:

I can't comment on much, however this...

[*]This was already the case in EBI, but Kappadokia Pontika can't produce warships—despite including Herakleia Pontika which produced some very big warships historically.

...was just an omission that is now fixed in the dev build and will be fixed in the next public release as well. Thank you!

[QuintusSertorius]

Firstly, thank you for the detailed feedback. It's always good to have, especially from people new to EBII.

Some more general observations:
Units have a lot of trouble killing each other. My first battle was quite a shock when I (as Saba) tried to storm a rebel settlement and the battle ended in a draw because defenders weren't dying fast enough, and this is with lightly armoured Arabian units. In several battles I've see a general surrounded lose all his bodyguards and proceed to fight alone against hundreds of men for minutes, being knocked down dozens of times in the process. It just looks silly. I realise that historically armies didn't slaughter each other in ten minutes, but it's just pointlessly time-consuming and, honestly, a bit boring for battles to drag on like this. Please make casualties happen faster.

Something you have to understand regarding kill rates is the huge amount of compromise involved from a number of different angles. In the RTW engine, every unit has it's own lethality setting allowing a lot of granularity. In their infinite wisdom, in M2TW, CA chose to abstract this down to a single number. For every kind of unit. There is just one number for melee kill rates, push it too high and cavalry charges become ridiculously overpowered. Too low and not only does melee take a long time, but cohesion suffers (because of course it's logical to tie cohesion to kill rates...). We've gone for a balance of cohesion, stable battle pace and not too overpowered cavalry charges.

You don't win battles in EBII by killing the other guys quickly. That's by design. As far as we know most kills in ancient battles tended to happen during a rout, not in the contested part. You win by breaking their morale. It means rather than insta-routs ending battles lasting a few minutes where most of the facets about a unit don't actually matter, instead stamina and morale come into play. Units with low stamina get tired - which impacts their morale. Units with low morale break earlier. You generally win by flanking and cavalry charges to the rear are especially effective - even with lighter units. It means you can actually change tactics, respond to crises, and have to deal with issues like shoring up wavering units, or having your general have to go off and rally those who have broken. Because they do often return to the fight if the battle isn't lost. With faster kills, that wouldn't happen either.

Sieges have completely borked pathfinding, they're not representative of proper field battles. That will improve in the autumn release, because settlements have been completely redone. Including removing the impassable (but empty) spaces that are "reserved" for future construction. That should assist in being able to flank during sieges.

Otherwise if it's too slow - turn the speed up.

levied Toxotai, Persian archers and Cretans all have the same missile attack value. I realise there are limits to how granular you can make it, but generic Greek archers being as accurate and deadly as the most famous mercenary archers and the bowmen of a renowned archery nation feels wrong. It also means there's little point in hiring the more expensive Cretans.

They might have the same attack value, but they use a different projectile with different ranges (and different amounts of ammo). Kretans and Persians can stand outside Toxotai's range and decimate them, especially because the latter are unarmoured. Kretans have armour which means any return fire from the Toxotai is much less effective, and they can actually fight in melee. What you pay for with Kretans is not only a Greek archer with an eastern archer's range, but a unit who turn into medium infantry when they've expended their ammunition. When you're only using one archer unit in your army, they're a much more efficient choice than Toxotai.

Toxotai are not as accurate or as deadly; and indeed a coming change will make levy archers unable to fire synchronised volleys, which will make the distinction even clearer.

Western Tribal culture fades noticeably in Galatia. It looks possible that Celtic units will become unavailable there by around 220BCE. Maybe the unique building in Ankyra (the Galatian meeting forest) could have some cultural conversion to Western Tribal?

Conversion mechanics are mostly working as intended now; the biggest impacts are the governor you choose and any conversion-impacting buildings. As Pontos if you install any of their more sophisticated governments, you will get conversion to Eastern Imperial. If you have an influential governor and build Native Colonies, that will happen even faster. However, aside from Allied Governments, the level of Western Tribal shouldn't make any difference to the units available there.

Misthophoroi Hoplitai are the unarmoured Hoplitai Haploi kind, even though their unit card shows body armour shouldn't professional mercenary hoplites be the better equipped flavour of hoplite anyway?

We've changed the concept of the unit, but we don't have a new card (or indeed a new model) for them yet. They're professionals in the ekdromoi (light hoplite) mould which is more flexible and better-suited to mercenary work (most of which was patrolling and raiding) than the much more heavily-armoured regular Hoplitai.

[z3n]

The AI seems to stick to its plan, to a fault even. It has definitely stopped shuffling its units around and responding constantly to small movements. On the downside, it appears very reluctant to change its plans, leading to things like heavy infantry chasing cavalry all over the map, and AI units spending too long finishing off a surrounded unit and not moving to help elsewhere on the battlefield.

The AI seems to make clumsy flanking attempts at times. But not really with cavalry—it uses its shock cavalry in the centre, which IIRC is a vanilla behaviour.

Overall I was very pleasantly surprised with the AI behaviour.

Glad to hear that.
Getting shock cavalry to perform better has been a long standing battle of mine. Currently I'm having to redesign the premise behind how the AI behaves and how it utilizes the XML file. Instead of relying on what I presume to be internal algorithms I've tried to write elements in such a way that encourage the AI to use its troops in a more efficient and sensible manner.

As you've observed, it's not always gone too well. Hopefully in future battles the cavalry disengage and reevaluate their target/priorities like they're supposed to. They should eventually end up either hitting your flank or trying to go for a double envelopment.

In 2.06a and onwards I hope to improve upon the rest of what you mentioned. Thanks again for the feedback, we really appreciate such through reports.

It looks like mostly the AI does these things, a big improvement over both EBI and vanilla Kingdoms. However, it's not very good at them; the AI still makes some boneheaded decisions like starting wars on multiple fronts when it can't really afford to do so, but at least it's not some crazy berserker that always attacks its neighbours, and I've had the AI offer ceasefires when it starts losing and actually honour treaties (however, it still has trouble making concessions during negotiations, this is Total War after all).

On thing I've noticed with the AI merging stacks is that, while it tries to avoid attacking piece meal with small stacks, it tries to merge them too close to its target, so if the player is proactive they can attack the small stacks before they merge together. If possible, the AI should be programmed to first merge its forces, and only then move towards its target.

Unfortunately this is due to being able to change everything (what,when,where,why) except how in regards to CAI decision making. Anotherwords it's a combination of my being unable to do anything about how the CAI pathfinder and how the LTGD (long term goal director) works. I do have access to a couple of LTGD related algorithms, other than that however I don't have access to the underlying architecture within the engine.

So for the moment things will probably remain the same as the current state of things is a choice between getting the CAI to move into high gear immediately when acting on defensive decisions, or allowing it to sit indefinitely until it finally plans a relief force. In essence, invasion decisions have a fundemental role when working with the defensive ones, so I have to find the right balance. Originally CA planned to implement a 'defensive priority' which would really open things up with allocation of units/armies in a more efficient and effective way, (especially siege relief forces) but they never did and I couldn't make it work because the parser info/architecture simply wasn't in place for that.

[Artemisia]

As you've observed, it's not always gone too well. Hopefully in future battles the cavalry disengage and reevaluate their target/priorities like they're supposed to. They should eventually end up either hitting your flank or trying to go for a double envelopment.

Just to clarify, I do see the AI retreating its cavalry and charging again. They're not necessarily very judicious in deciding when to retreat and most of the time charge the same unit again (not always a bad thing, of course), but they do try to break away and charge again after a while in melee. Of course, some of the time the unit gets stuck due to one guy not making it out of melee, or breaks formation trying to charge, although those aren't problems specific to the AI.

And while they're usually charging in the centre, at least they're supported in EBII. I remember in vanilla M2TW (and mods like Broken Crescent or King or Country) the AI would litterally suicide its heavy cavalry FM into my centre. It was like the AI was trying to lose so you've taken it a long way from that :)

Conversion mechanics are mostly working as intended now; the biggest impacts are the governor you choose and any conversion-impacting buildings. As Pontos if you install any of their more sophisticated governments, you will get conversion to Eastern Imperial. If you have an influential governor and build Native Colonies, that will happen even faster. However, aside from Allied Governments, the level of Western Tribal shouldn't make any difference to the units available there.

I'm sorry but you misunderstand: it's not that they're easy to deliberately assimilate, but that their culture is at risk of vanishing on its own. It's not too bad while they remain rebels (it declines, but slowly in my game as Saba) but as Pontos with an allied government and client ruler their culture is collapsing fast, 2% a year or more it seems. As I understand it, being bordered by a lot of Eastern Tribal and Hellenistic provinces has an influence on culture as well, though from what you say perhaps not using the client ruler would slow their cultural loss?

As an aside, it's a nice touch that EBII assigns the correct ethnicity to client rulers. Although it's sad the ethnicity trait doesn't seem to affect cultural conversion (hardcoded limitation maybe?).

Something you have to understand regarding kill rates is the huge amount of compromise involved from a number of different angles. In the RTW engine, every unit has it's own lethality setting allowing a lot of granularity. In their infinite wisdom, in M2TW, CA chose to abstract this down to a single number. For every kind of unit. There is just one number for melee kill rates, push it too high and cavalry charges become ridiculously overpowered. Too low and not only does melee take a long time, but cohesion suffers (because of course it's logical to tie cohesion to kill rates...). We've gone for a balance of cohesion, stable battle pace and not too overpowered cavalry charges.

You don't win battles in EBII by killing the other guys quickly. That's by design. As far as we know most kills in ancient battles tended to happen during a rout, not in the contested part. You win by breaking their morale. It means rather than insta-routs ending battles lasting a few minutes where most of the facets about a unit don't actually matter, instead stamina and morale come into play. Units with low stamina get tired - which impacts their morale. Units with low morale break earlier. You generally win by flanking and cavalry charges to the rear are especially effective - even with lighter units. It means you can actually change tactics, respond to crises, and have to deal with issues like shoring up wavering units, or having your general have to go off and rally those who have broken. Because they do often return to the fight if the battle isn't lost. With faster kills, that wouldn't happen either.

It's not a historical issue, though. Historically troops didn't die fighting very much, they were run down during routs, disappeared after a defeat (or just a long campaign), or died of disease much more often. Of these only the pursuit is shown is shown at all, and not very completely, in the game, so abstractions have to be made anyway. I also think you're way overestimating how overpowered cavalry charges would become; this is the M2TW engine still, with charges not always working in the first place I appreciate it's hard to work within the limitations, but I still think the lethality (or attack values maybe) should be turned up at least slightly.

They might have the same attack value, but they use a different projectile with different ranges (and different amounts of ammo). Kretans and Persians can stand outside Toxotai's range and decimate them, especially because the latter are unarmoured. Kretans have armour which means any return fire from the Toxotai is much less effective, and they can actually fight in melee. What you pay for with Kretans is not only a Greek archer with an eastern archer's range, but a unit who turn into medium infantry when they've expended their ammunition. When you're only using one archer unit in your army, they're a much more efficient choice than Toxotai.

Toxotai are not as accurate or as deadly; and indeed a coming change will make levy archers unable to fire synchronised volleys, which will make the distinction even clearer.

Unless I'm misinterpreting descr_projectiles it seems Toxotai are slightly more accurate than Cretans and just as deadly. The Cretans have 3 more arrows, which is not that much of an advantage, and they are less terrible in melee but uh, I'm not buying archers to serve as assault infantry. Certainly this is born up by my ingame experience: Cretans archery isn't better. They have longer range, but that doesn't stop the Toxotai from emptying their quivers.

Archery duels are only really relevant against horse archers and such. Even then, I don't see the point in Cretans when Eastern archers have the same range, and some have shields too. You need screening infantry for them anyway. Cretans will certainly do better on their own, but even the AI now avoids throwing unsupported archers around

Finally, I don't see a synchronised volley special ability in the game if it's a passive thing, I'm not noticing much synchronisation from my archers and even less from the AI's.

So, I still don't find the Cretans (or even the Persians) living up to their reputations in-game. Certainly, historically, archery depended a lot on how many arrows you could put in the air, but quality of the archers seems to me to have been more important than I find it to be for most of the in-game archers (if only because of something hard to model in TW, but better trained archers could shoot faster and be less tired by it).

Also, I've noticed missile attacks don't scale with experience like they did in Rome. So you could possibly up them a bit without risking gold-chevroned archers getting silly strong, as was the case with EBI.

We've changed the concept of the unit, but we don't have a new card (or indeed a new model) for them yet. They're professionals in the ekdromoi (light hoplite) mould which is more flexible and better-suited to mercenary work (most of which was patrolling and raiding) than the much more heavily-armoured regular Hoplitai.

Oh okay, that makes sense, and is even hinted at in the description (although it could be made clearer)

Since it seems there are plans for non-merc Ekdromoi, are there plans to reintroduce heavier merc hoplites? It would seem to me that in both cases, it was largely the same men who would lighten their gear for mobile actions and then wear the heavier armour if they expected a pitched battle, so it would make sense for the player to have the choice of which style to recruit. Besides, mercenary hoplites have always been useful in the game for factions with a hard time getting heavier line troops

[QuintusSertorius]

I'm sorry but you misunderstand: it's not that they're easy to deliberately assimilate, but that their culture is at risk of vanishing on its own. It's not too bad while they remain rebels (it declines, but slowly in my game as Saba) but as Pontos with an allied government and client ruler their culture is collapsing fast, 2% a year or more it seems. As I understand it, being bordered by a lot of Eastern Tribal and Hellenistic provinces has an influence on culture as well, though from what you say perhaps not using the client ruler would slow their cultural loss?

As an aside, it's a nice touch that EBII assigns the correct ethnicity to client rulers. Although it's sad the ethnicity trait doesn't seem to affect cultural conversion (hardcoded limitation maybe?).

As you've correctly identified, Galatia specifically is suffering from the effect of being surrounded by places with a different culture. I could possibly tone down the "nearby province" conversion effect some.

It's not a historical issue, though. Historically troops didn't die fighting very much, they were run down during routs, disappeared after a defeat (or just a long campaign), or died of disease much more often. Of these only the pursuit is shown is shown at all, and not very completely, in the game, so abstractions have to be made anyway. I also think you're way overestimating how overpowered cavalry charges would become; this is the M2TW engine still, with charges not always working in the first place I appreciate it's hard to work within the limitations, but I still think the lethality (or attack values maybe) should be turned up at least slightly.

Cavalry charges in M2TW take a lot of practise to pull off correctly - certainly harder than it was in EB1. Often what's needed is more distance. With practise, I find virtually any cavalry with a spear can perform pretty devastating charges to the rear - especially when repeated. Any higher than 0.35 and sword-armed cavalry will be able to do the same and any distinction would be lost. Plus as I said, it tips the balance away from stamina and morale having a meaningful impact.

Unless I'm misinterpreting descr_projectiles it seems Toxotai are slightly more accurate than Cretans and just as deadly. The Cretans have 3 more arrows, which is not that much of an advantage, and they are less terrible in melee but uh, I'm not buying archers to serve as assault infantry. Certainly this is born up by my ingame experience: Cretans archery isn't better. They have longer range, but that doesn't stop the Toxotai from emptying their quivers.

Archery duels are only really relevant against horse archers and such. Even then, I don't see the point in Cretans when Eastern archers have the same range, and some have shields too. You need screening infantry for them anyway. Cretans will certainly do better on their own, but even the AI now avoids throwing unsupported archers around

Finally, I don't see a synchronised volley special ability in the game if it's a passive thing, I'm not noticing much synchronisation from my archers and even less from the AI's.

So, I still don't find the Cretans (or even the Persians) living up to their reputations in-game. Certainly, historically, archery depended a lot on how many arrows you could put in the air, but quality of the archers seems to me to have been more important than I find it to be for most of the in-game archers (if only because of something hard to model in TW, but better trained archers could shoot faster and be less tired by it).

I'll get someone to have a look at the respective properties of the light_arrow and medium_arrow projectiles - that may be an error.

I also wonder if levies using self bows (Toxotai, Celtic Archers, etc) should have their attack lowered - again I'll raise it for discussion.

Also, I've noticed missile attacks don't scale with experience like they did in Rome. So you could possibly up them a bit without risking gold-chevroned archers getting silly strong, as was the case with EBI.

Experience doesn't work the same in M2TW; only the 1st, 4th and 7th chevrons actually do anything, as I understand it. Hardcoded in any case.

Oh okay, that makes sense, and is even hinted at in the description (although it could be made clearer)

Since it seems there are plans for non-merc Ekdromoi, are there plans to reintroduce heavier merc hoplites? It would seem to me that in both cases, it was largely the same men who would lighten their gear for mobile actions and then wear the heavier armour if they expected a pitched battle, so it would make sense for the player to have the choice of which style to recruit. Besides, mercenary hoplites have always been useful in the game for factions with a hard time getting heavier line troops

No non-merc Ekdromoi - the historians are pretty clear that they only make sense for mercs. For the rest of the world, things have moved on - there's the Hemithorakitai Peltophoroi (coming in the autumn release) who are eventually replaced by the Thureophoroi as "lighter than Hoplite" units.

Regular ones won't get heavier - the heavy hoplites are elites (Hypaspistai, Epilektoi Hoplitai, Carthaginian Sacred Band). No plans for heavier mercenaries either.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

As you've correctly identified, Galatia specifically is suffering from the effect of being surrounded by places with a different culture. I could possibly tone down the "nearby province" conversion effect some.

Well...the Galatians did Helenise to a great extent, as far as I'm aware. Is it possible to have their more Helenised (later) units to become available upon a certain level of Hellenisation?

[QuintusSertorius]

Well...the Galatians did Helenise to a great extent, as far as I'm aware. Is it possible to have their more Helenised (later) units to become available upon a certain level of Hellenisation?

There is a Galatian Kleruchoi infantry unit planned - just not ready yet. They'd come from the Hellenistic colony in the right parts of Anatolia and Egypt.

[QuintusSertorius]

Changelist for 2.06a:

• Eastern and Steppe Client info card replaced with one that won't cause CTDs. Steppe Client Rulers added to Parthia. Fix to silver surfer Client Rulers. Adjustment to what is available in Arabia - east now gets Iranian Clients. Fix to stop Client Rulers becoming Hegemons. Fix to recruitment in villages.
• Replaced eastern_axeman model with one that actually has javelins - thank Sylon for that.
• Sauromatian and Sakan early government buildings brought into line with the Pahlavan ones which are the model. This means regional recruitment options both pre- and post-reform.
• Removed the requirement for your own army to be 1000 or more men from the Pergamon reform script.
• Fix to the "Olympic cycle" script that was failing to fire in the case of Carthginian (and possibly Hellenistic) colonisation.
• Removed colony-point cost of Carthaginian precursor colony. Gadir and Atiqa upgraded to carthage_polis governments.
• Update to projectiles that was preventing archers and slingers firing properly with their new BAI.
• Reduced Roman colonial recruitment pools.
• Unreachable Rebel in Saka-land moved. Saka can now build Native Colonies after their reform.
• Another rejig of the money script - moving debt relief and withdrawal of assistance above the annual bounty and adjusting for the weaker factions.
• Major overhaul of the Hellenistic Colony - now regionalised and varied. No more Kretikoi in Afghanistan.
• Some tweaks to Numidian government pools (numidia3 and numidia4) to give them some better options if they take Carthaginian territory. Also in Libya (using Carthaginian-Libyan units).
• Changed relative recruit_priority_offset of Libyan Infantry and Numidian Cavalry to encourage AI-Carthage not to spam the former.
• Changed rename of Mastia when taken by Carthage to Qart-Hadast just in case same name as the capital causes issues.
• Added a free upkeep slot to Carthaginian Settler Colonies.
• All Iberian cavalry (not just the skirmisher) put on ponies - the Iberian horse was quite small.
• Relaxed the prerequisites on some infrastructure buildings so that more can be done with an Allied Government.
• Updates to archer formations and BAI to make them usable again. Distinction between levies and more professional types - the latter can fire co-ordinated/synchronised volleys.

[Artemisia]

Two issues I've noticed:

Firstly, CAI tends to ignore undefended settlements (major and minor). Its behaviour is much more logical if they are garrisoned.


Secondly, there's this ford that can't be used since one of its banks is mountains:


I'm not sure if it's meant to be usable or not, but I think either there shouldn't be a ford or both banks should be passable.

[HFox]

Really like the way the game play has developed with these set of releases, couple of thoughts:
The upkeep of fleets, does their maintenance/support ever alter when in port? My thought being it should be lower.
Also could they be damaged from extended periods away, such as settlement building being sabotaged, and so need a refit from a home port?
Also ( I know you mentioned this before but I can't find it) what happened to storms at sea?
Finally - would you ever look at armies surrendering/capitulating after a siege rather than the futile sally forth? I have only seen this once when besieging a village, with a small rebel army occupying it and outnumbered by 170%, but never in a settlement siege?

[Sylon]

Two issues I've noticed:

Firstly, CAI tends to ignore undefended settlements (major and minor). Its behaviour is much more logical if they are garrisoned.


Secondly, there's this ford that can't be used since one of its banks is mountains:

I'm not sure if it's meant to be usable or not, but I think either there shouldn't be a ford or both banks should be passable.

The bug about AI ignoring undefended settlements is hardcoded, I think. I've seen it mentioned in regards to a couple of mods, but all anyone ever discussed was how to work around it, as opposed to fix it. So I'm guessing it's hardcoded.

There are a couple of terrain bugs around. Our last mapper disappeared a couple of months back, so we don't have anyone capable of editing the map terrain itself. Still, thanks for the feedback.

Really like the way the game play has developed with these set of releases, couple of thoughts:
The upkeep of fleets, does their maintenance/support ever alter when in port? My thought being it should be lower.
Also could they be damaged from extended periods away, such as settlement building being sabotaged, and so need a refit from a home port?
Also ( I know you mentioned this before but I can't find it) what happened to storms at sea?
Finally - would you ever look at armies surrendering/capitulating after a siege rather than the futile sally forth? I have only seen this once when besieging a village, with a small rebel army occupying it and outnumbered by 170%, but never in a settlement siege?

1) No, it doesn't. There is no way to lower or remove upkeep of fleets when in a port.

2) I don't think so, unless you use disasters to design some sort of system. I highly doubt such a system would be designed, however. For starters, you would need some way to differentiate between a fleet in a port and a fleet outside a port in the script. There is no way to do so, to my knowledge.

3) I'm not sure. They're used to remove pirates in lakes, but that's about all I know of.

4) I remember reading something somewhere about a 'siege capitulation' script. I can't remember what came of the discussion, however. So the best answer I can give is 'maybe'.

Finally, please keep in mind that we're modding a game, and thus our ability to implement new gameplay features is limited. Nevertheless, we appreciate your feedback.

[z3n]

Two issues I've noticed:

Firstly, CAI tends to ignore undefended settlements (major and minor). Its behaviour is much more logical if they are garrisoned.


Secondly, there's this ford that can't be used since one of its banks is mountains:

I'm not sure if it's meant to be usable or not, but I think either there shouldn't be a ford or both banks should be passable.

Yeah Sylon is right, I believe the only way around this is changing the strength 'strong' & 'weak' equations which in turn change the algorithm that controls army assignment. To explain the armies (or any unit) which gets moved into a fleet are viewed as insanely strong which is probably in effort to make the AI sink the ships.

However, when there are absolutely no armies in a town, I suspect that the town is viewed the same way because there is no assigned strength to it but yet it's an enemy objective the default value for such an up in the air target may also be insanely high. As such, the only way I've ever seen the AI regularly take such a town is a) if it's a part of their victory conditions and b) if the str limit is at 999 (effectively disabled or insanely high enough that the AI tries to take the town). The major downside with that, is that it induces chaotic behaviour in other areas, for example field battles, sieges and naval battles with all often be lopsided in your favour without the limiting factor of the highest strength army the AI can engage.

There are many other factors as well that come into play where the LTGD is involved, nevertheless changing the str limit is definitely something I don't want to do after tests and recent reports about how the AI is behaving with a new more 'astute' value which aims to have the ratio be 1:1 when engaging.

edit:
I forgot to mention in vanilla it was a value of 99, probably contributing towards the random once in awhile 'suicidal' attacks. However, it may have also played a role in AI behaviour towards empty towns fixing that bug. I however, find that in EBII towns almost always have a garrison as without one your public order will be nearing revolt or at a revolt level. Therefore changing the value isn't a necessity, unless of course you find differently... I haven't read many, if any, reports about that part of the game. (how the player garrisons their city)

[Artemisia]

Something is broken in the AI in 2.06a. The AI factions can fight each other and the player but they don't expand into rebel territory, they're almost completely unable to take rebel provinces. They may be less aggressive in general as well, but it's certain they're terrified of rebel lands.





Two different games (player Epirus, player Baktria), both on the recommended H/M settings with scripts activated etc. As far as I can tell, over the two there was only one rebel province conquered by the AI, and that was by the Ptolemies after over 10 years (it then rebelled to Saba and was recaptured by the Ptolies).