Aggressive factions are unrealistic

[DECEBALVS]

Hello! In normal level game, the AI factions are attacking in all directions where they see a vulnerable city [sometimes even if that means they are fighting with too many factions and are dissipating their military power]. That indicates a lack in the strategy made for AI: the human [historical] faction is more wary, it keeps troops at every borders or have a campaign based attack on another faction. My dissatisfaction concerning the naturally-born aggressive AI faction is that the map becomes too quickly owned only by a superpower and me. That's unrealistic for Antiquity. Maybe a campaign-attacking AI could be more aggresive [winner] than a random-attacking AI, but it makes sense and it could be possible for the defender or his allies to predict the foe's attacks or to know who really must be attacked. Maybe if the EB team will create a community of factions who cannot attack themselves for a long time without massive internal rebellion, this will be equivalent with the balancing role of the pope in Medieval TW. Examples: the gauls factions, the germanic factions etc. This could indicate to the AI faction who is the real [historically] ennemy. What do you think?

[Drunk Clown]

Aren't the Gaul factions supposed to attack eachother?

[DECEBALVS]

Yes, they were fighting for a long time, but they dissapeared only with the "help" of Rome. So, in game, they must fight for short time [without winner and looser], but have no interdiction to attack Rome. That's historically correct.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Acrually, in MedII AI factions honour their alliances better then before. So it will be less likely that you will get a superfaction early on.

[Drunk Clown]

Acrually, in MedII AI factions honour their alliances better then before. So it will be less likely that you will get a superfaction early on.

Superpowers occur just as much in Medieval II as in Rome.

[QuintusSertorius]

I'm kind of more concerned about how unrealistic siege warfare is (thanks to the R:TW engine). In antiquity, most sieges went one of four ways: surrender before the first parallel was even dug or engine sited; treachery leading to the garrison being betrayed (and a large sum of silver changing hands); surrender because of starvation after a long blockade; or an accomdation reached between besiegers and defenders, with the former moving on and leaving the place unmolested. The number of sieges won by assault were extremely rare, because a properly sited fortification was just too costly to attack.

[Drunk Clown]

I'm kind of more concerned about how unrealistic siege warfare is (thanks to the R:TW engine). In antiquity, most sieges went one of four ways: surrender before the first parallel was even dug or engine sited; treachery leading to the garrison being betrayed (and a large sum of silver changing hands); surrender because of starvation after a long blockade; or an accomdation reached between besiegers and defenders, with the former moving on and leaving the place unmolested. The number of sieges won by assault were extremely rare, because a properly sited fortification was just too costly to attack.

Well, most of the time you'll want to starve them, because siege battles aren't the most enjoyable ones. This only goes for the human player of course, the AI factions will always attack you; they'll never starve you out. But you can't change that. Luckily I don't get besieged very often.

[Ca Putt]

sadly, due to the turn based nature of EB the siege does not take a week up to half a year, but rather 1- 2 years which is quite annoying.

on agressiveness: the AI faction really are a bit too agressive but the imho the main problem is that all of them are constantly fighting a TOTAL WAR which in reality was rather seldom outside the roman republic/empire. none of the other factions in EB were as devoted to war as they are ingame. most of the time there were only minor skirmishes, meduim sized raids and maybe an overly ambituous warlord/king/general who hired a bunch of mercenaries and ran amok/went on campaign.
most of the time they did not have the whole factions support(hannibal is a good example). or internal struggles paralyzed the faction. rivality between satrapries/tribes/poleis/nobles meant that it was not possible to just pump out troops from every corner of the empire and conquer a neighboring faction.
RTW is made to represent a never ending total war between all included factions. the EB team has made the game a whole lot more complex and realisic but this is a barrier they will never overcome compleately. same goes for EB 2 just that the chances for a less stupid and trecherous AI are much better, it'll still be total war, just not all the time against you ;)

[Horatius Flaccus]

Superpowers occur just as much in Medieval II as in Rome.

I don't agree. In my current campaign as England in SS6.4, after 250+ turns there is only one faction that has been destroyed (the HRE, ghe ghe ghe) and there is only one faction close to 'superpower' status: The Mongols (which is historical). Especially Europe is completely divided.

[DECEBALVS]

Really, the siege time must be limited to 1 or 2 turns of new EB [max half a year]. And the costs must be really expensive if you want to build siege weapons; maybe is not a bad idea to offer the option to build a counter-wall to be not attacked by the attacked. [Or to build a ramp, as romans did at Masada]

[WinsingtonIII]

Superpowers occur just as much in Medieval II as in Rome.

This may be true, but the diplomacy does seem to be somewhat better in that I've had allies in M2TW games (including modded games) that I have kept without them backstabbing me for the whole game (well... at least as long as I played). I don't think I've ever had that happen in EB1.

[Foot]

Really, the siege time must be limited to 1 or 2 turns of new EB [max half a year]. And the costs must be really expensive if you want to build siege weapons; maybe is not a bad idea to offer the option to build a counter-wall to be not attacked by the attacked. [Or to build a ramp, as romans did at Masada]

If only this was another game. Unfortunately we can only work with what we have, and those suggestions are not something we can really do.

Foot

[DECEBALVS]

If it is too hard to invent for game a counter-wall or ramp, surelly the siege time can be minimised, the price and number of siege equipment [built per turn] increased, all these with only few modding, I guess.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Yes, but it would upset the balance of the whole game.

[Foot]

If it is too hard to invent for game a counter-wall or ramp, surelly the siege time can be minimised, the price and number of siege equipment [built per turn] increased, all these with only few modding, I guess.

What "seems" to be possible, and what actually is possible is too different things. If you think those changes are possible, you could do some research into finding out how it is possible.

Foot

[Ichon]

? Now the top siege times I've seen for upgraded Citadel with grain storage is 12 turns or about 6 years depending on tpy. Which is a bit long without a port to provide supplies. Not sure if anything can be done to make it so only ports last that long but making it so a certain level of port buildings give extra turns rather than walls might be a start. It would be really cool if the fact a port is blockaded could then affect the siege turns required but I'd guess that is way beyond the MTW2 engine.

[DECEBALVS]

What "seems" to be possible, and what actually is possible is too different things. If you think those changes are possible, you could do some research into finding out how it is possible.

Foot

I'm not a modder. What about this idea: I'm not assuming static and Rome-centered AI faction, but I'm trying to imagine a system that makes factions to have diplomatic relations closer to the historical ones. For example, if in Antiquity A was at war with B and both neutral to C and B was allied with D which was neutral to the rest of all [and all are neighbours], in the game we must have:
A will want to attack D when it sees it as a good movement
A will not attack C without a clear chance to win
C and D are really the factions were the machine may decide which will their relations be
So, that system will force the factions to action like in history. If romans aren't actually neighbours with Pontus, they can have a predilection to attack it after the year x. The historically correct game mustn't preserve only the starting diplomatic relations, but also must try to re-create [as a first to choose option for factions] the diplomacy at every turn according to the year in history. That isn't boring [to know
approximately all the factions' movements], but is a way to stop the creation of ahistorical superpowers.

[Foot]

I'm not a modder. What about this idea: I'm not assuming static and Rome-centered AI faction, but I'm trying to imagine a system that makes factions to have diplomatic relations closer to the historical ones. For example, if in Antiquity A was at war with B and both neutral to C and B was allied with D which was neutral to the rest of all [and all are neighbours], in the game we must have:
A will want to attack D when it sees it as a good movement
A will not attack C without a clear chance to win
C and D are really the factions were the machine may decide which will their relations be
So, that system will force the factions to action like in history. If romans aren't actually neighbours with Pontus, they can have a predilection to attack it after the year x. The historically correct game mustn't preserve only the starting diplomatic relations, but also must try to re-create [as a first to choose option for factions] the diplomacy at every turn according to the year in history. That isn't boring [to know
approximately all the factions' movements], but is a way to stop the creation of ahistorical superpowers.

Its probably best if you do actually learn a bit about what the engine is capable of before you start making suggestions that can easily be shown to be impossible - and that includes the one above. We cannot create specialist circumstances that will define what certain factions will do in certain scenarios based upon what we know of history. The campaign ai engine is 1) not that powerful and 2) not that moddable. All we can do is tweak settings to make certain outcomes more or less unlikely given the balancing of the campaign game.

And what you may find enjoyable, does not make it enjoyable for anyone else. What you describe I would not describe as enjoyable, because it would mean that my actions were not impacting the world as a player. If I, as Epeiros, had beaten Rome back into the Northern Alpine regions, such that the entirety of Italia was under my control, I would not expect Carthage to then declare war against Rome (or vice versa) while I was the more immediate threat to both.

To create ingenious scripts that would catapult certain factions into peace or war at certain times based on their history would be more ahistorical than what we do, because it would be forcing our realities turn of events onto a separate reality whose players are not the same.

Now, the idea of creating more thoughtful and more realistic campaign Ai's is certainly something we aim to do, but this will not script a faction's actions where such actions would be unrealistic. Furthermore, it would be dull if, every game you played, the Punic wars happened at exactly the same time; if, in every campaign, the rise of the Parni as successors of Persia happened each and every time. As Rome, I don't want to end every campaign fighting against the horsemen of the east. Perhaps I would prefer, in one game, to have a strong Greek east with phalangitai after phalangitai, and perhaps in another I would like to see the combined arms of Pontos be the superior power in the east.

Of course, thats not the say that the outcomes that we have now in EBI are perfect, and we would like to be able to balance the powers in the east out better (as we would like to balance the powers in the west out better). We hope that EBII will be better able to offer diverse campaigns.

As for the idea of Superpowers, that is exactly what eventually happened in history's case anyway, and we would expect the same to happen in the game. It would be a bit crap if all the factions largely stayed the same size except for the players faction, which grew.

Foot

[QuintusSertorius]

As for the idea of Superpowers, that is exactly what eventually happened in history's case anyway, and we would expect the same to happen in the game. It would be a bit crap if all the factions largely stayed the same size except for the players faction, which grew.

Foot

My only complaint here is the speed with which it happens in EBI. You can have a faction wiped out in under 10 years from the start of the game, and early success tends to snowball from there unless the human player intervenes somehow.

[Kocmoc]

Just a quick note from an average player.
To introduce something which keeps a certain historically correctness is almost useless. As human player, you play any faction you like and try to win the whole.
You dont sit in your country and try to keep the border as it was in history. You want to get a challenge and win with any faction, this of-course include no historically correctness.

It might be possible in the early start of the game, to keep some correctness, but with time a human player will always wipe this.
If you play Single-player, there is always a peak somewhere, at that point you just roll over anything.

[Drunk Clown]

Just a quick note from an average player.
To introduce something which keeps a certain historically correctness is almost useless. As human player, you play any faction you like and try to win the whole.
You dont sit in your country and try to keep the border as it was in history. You want to get a challenge and win with any faction, this of-course include no historically correctness.

It might be possible in the early start of the game, to keep some correctness, but with time a human player will always wipe this.
If you play Single-player, there is always a peak somewhere, at that point you just roll over anything.

Some people want to keep it as historical as possible (AAR etc.). (Not saying that I like it, I hate roleplaying )

But personally I would hate it if the outcome of every campaign would be the same. I love it when a faction surprises me.

The only thing I want is that the CAI would make less stupid moves, but you can't change that so too bad. I also have no problems with superpowers I just kill them; I even like a powerful adversary. Superpowers occurred in real history and if it happens in EB then maybe it isn't Romani but the Koinon Hellenon. The game is more about what if than to re-enacting things (dull)

[Ludens]

To introduce something which keeps a certain historically correctness is almost useless. As human player, you play any faction you like and try to win the whole.

Don't worry. EB1 is not history-on-rails, nor will EB2 be. The starting positions will be historical, but beyond that it will be up to the player, and the A.I.

Welcome to EB, by the way.

[Olaf The Great]

Is there any way to script a peace agreement that MUST last atleast 10 turns? In Civ 4 after each peace you cannot declare war on the same faction within 10 turns of the last war. This would get rid of the turn 1 betrayals.

[bobbin]

Not in a satisfactory way, we could make the two factions like each other a lot more for a short period after though.

[Populus Romanus]

As for the idea of Superpowers, that is exactly what eventually happened in history's case anyway, and we would expect the same to happen in the game. It would be a bit crap if all the factions largely stayed the same size except for the players faction, which grew.

Foot

If I am correct, I believe that the formation of superpowers such as those in EB would almost never actually occur. That is due to the fact that in real life, if a nation struck down another nation, another one would spring up to attack them. Historically, new nations were constantly not only coming out of existance, but also coming into existance. Therefore, all nations were constantly kept weak by the fact that there was a neverending stream of enemies to fight. Therefore, the formation of superpowers in real life was an unprecedented event, an must have required truly remarkable circumstances, whereas in EB the formation of superpowers is a forgone conclusion, because no new enemies are ever created, indeed the number of them can only go down. I am not advocating for emerging factions at all, I just thought I would clarify.

[Foot]

If I am correct, I believe that the formation of superpowers such as those in EB would almost never actually occur. That is due to the fact that in real life, if a nation struck down another nation, another one would spring up to attack them. Historically, new nations were constantly not only coming out of existance, but also coming into existance. Therefore, all nations were constantly kept weak by the fact that there was a neverending stream of enemies to fight. Therefore, the formation of superpowers in real life was an unprecedented event, an must have required truly remarkable circumstances, whereas in EB the formation of superpowers is a forgone conclusion, because no new enemies are ever created, indeed the number of them can only go down. I am not advocating for emerging factions at all, I just thought I would clarify.

What would you call the Roman Empire? What would you call the Parthian Empire? Superpowers of their age. Of course, they were beset by internal conflict, but new nations didn't pop into existence within their borders all that often. Once Pontos was lost to the Romans, it didn't suddenly appear again when that province got a bit too rebellious.

Foot

[Populus Romanus]

The Roman and Parthian Empires are the few exceptions to the rule. The reason they are held in such awe even to this day is because nations that huge and that powerful are extremely rare. Using such massive empires as Rome and Parthia is not fair. They were so powerful that hardly anyone could resist them for long. Instead, one should look to the average nation of this time period. The majority of them never grew. Indeed, the majority of the factions included in EB never grew (significantly), the Romani and the Pahlava are really the only two examples of ones which did so on a titanic scale. Looking for instance to the Lusotana, they were very powerful, but never grew virtually an inch because no matter how many enemy tribes they defeated, another one would spring up to fill the vacuum and continue to resist the Lusotana. Makedonia as well never grew at all during EB's timeframe because new powers sprung up to fight it. First, there were the Diadochi wars, then when they were brought to an end Pyrrhus of Epirus attacked Macedonia. When he had finally been dispatched, Aetolian League, the Achaean League, and the Chremonidian League were formed specifically to fight the Macedonians. They successfully held off the Macedonians until their defeats at the hands of the Romans. Then there is the Qarthadastim, who could never expand much (there were a few examples of Carthaginian conquests gone mad, such as Hamilcar's Iberian conquests, but even these were temporary, as they fell victim to the forces of yet another nation that rose up to challenge Carthage.). Carthage would often come under attack on one front, be it Iberia, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, or Africa. When they defeated their attackers, they often would come under attack on another front, forcing them to constantly shift their forces and never press an advantage. I could go on and on, but I am too lazy to type and research all that. However, I think I have made my point.

[moonburn]

herm i do not believe the factions are over agressive i do believe however that they react accordingly to th level of threat they perceive and prepare so if you go blitz on them the ai´s will try to harness as much power as they can to opose you if you play it slower the ai will feel less threatned (unleass it starts to catch your spies and )

[Foot]

The Roman and Parthian Empires are the few exceptions to the rule. The reason they are held in such awe even to this day is because nations that huge and that powerful are extremely rare. Using such massive empires as Rome and Parthia is not fair. They were so powerful that hardly anyone could resist them for long. Instead, one should look to the average nation of this time period. The majority of them never grew. Indeed, the majority of the factions included in EB never grew (significantly), the Romani and the Pahlava are really the only two examples of ones which did so on a titanic scale. Looking for instance to the Lusotana, they were very powerful, but never grew virtually an inch because no matter how many enemy tribes they defeated, another one would spring up to fill the vacuum and continue to resist the Lusotana. Makedonia as well never grew at all during EB's timeframe because new powers sprung up to fight it. First, there were the Diadochi wars, then when they were brought to an end Pyrrhus of Epirus attacked Macedonia. When he had finally been dispatched, Aetolian League, the Achaean League, and the Chremonidian League were formed specifically to fight the Macedonians. They successfully held off the Macedonians until their defeats at the hands of the Romans. Then there is the Qarthadastim, who could never expand much (there were a few examples of Carthaginian conquests gone mad, such as Hamilcar's Iberian conquests, but even these were temporary, as they fell victim to the forces of yet another nation that rose up to challenge Carthage.). Carthage would often come under attack on one front, be it Iberia, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, or Africa. When they defeated their attackers, they often would come under attack on another front, forcing them to constantly shift their forces and never press an advantage. I could go on and on, but I am too lazy to type and research all that. However, I think I have made my point.

Arche Seleukeia and the Ptolemaic Kingdom are both examples of Super Powers as well (although their sphere of influence was confined to a smaller area of the globe). Furthermore Achaemenid Persia was also a Super Power of the East.

Your example of Lusotanna is ridiculous (other than that they do have a tendency to go on the rampage in EBI). The Lusotannan were a people who were pastoral with very little in the way of large centralised government (and by very little I mean none). They never developed the bureacratic complexity to administer conquered lands for any length of time, and had no need to do so - they were successful enough as they were. That would be like me saying that because the Pacific Islanders havent developed into a Super Power, we should dismiss the case of the United States and Soviet Russia.

Of course Super Powers are the exception not the rule in any given time, but thats because a world stage cannot accompany more than 2 or 3 by definition (if the world was replete with super powers, they wouldn't be super powers).

I don't think you've made your point at all, and the collapse of nations and tribes to one faction was common throughout all eras until only 2 or 3 are left standing. Its an arms race, the size of the powers dictated by what is politically and socially feasible at the time.

Foot

[vollorix]

I think its more the lack of internal problems for those superpowers rather than external enemies, who were able to actually threaten their existense. The unrest implemented in many provinces seems to me beeing neglected by the additional bonuses for AI gouverneurs, and also by the immidiate placement of the gouvernment buildings for the AI. Although, i have no idea how the money script for the AI actually works, it´s still able to recruit troops + build barracks, while struggling with minor rebell parties or all too rebelios settlements. The restriction of the availiability of particular troops might be a part of solution, but the AI will still spam armies, no matter what. Since there will be no counterfactions to not waste faction slots, and there, apparently, won´t be any superfaction in game, to represent an active resistance in diverse parts of the world, i would like to know how the team supposes to stop AI from going nuts in a total war style? As QS said, it takes very short period of time for those superpowers to emerge, so a player can either play slowly and patiently, trying to maintain some kind of realism in his actions, but then be confronted with endless enemy stacks, or one can blitz, intervene, use console commands and play kind of world police force, to slow down some factions. My problem with that - it´s getting boring, and quite intensively annoying, to not only manage your own empire, growing more and more, but also to watch over the world too. I hope no offence will be taken from my words, we all know the limitatons of TW engine, but not all of us are high class modders, so it´s more curiosity about the master plan of the team :)