Win Conditions

[konny]

I plan to make Carthage have first priority against Rome and second against Iberia. Likewise, Rome will have first priority against Rome and second against Iberia. If Konny's testing rings true, this should lead to a Punic war in Sicily and after some time, a proxy war in Spain.

You should give Rome the highest priority against >>thrace<< (=Epeiros) and you should either use very extreme values, like thrace = 600 and slave = 100, or make Taras a target for the Romans. I have seen that with "thrace=500" and "slave=400" and without asigned targets they went for Bononia as usual.

There is some (hardcoded) reason why the Roman AI regards the North as essential for its faction. Any moddable means to convince them from the opposite should be used.

I would also suggest to cancel the alliance between Rome and Carthage and set Carthage and Epeiros to "neutral". I belive that their state of war is responsible for some of the odd Carthagian movements in Southern Italy. On the other hand, the player as well as the AI will always have no problems to arrange a peace between both factions very early in the game.

The state of war between Carthage and Rome is scripted as soon as the Romans attack Messana. On the other hand, the Carthagian AI has severe problems in sending reinforcements from the mainland to Sicily (the same's with Epeiros and Kalabria). I would therefore raise the initial Carthagian army on Sicily and delete the Xanthippos script in return, or leave the Carthagians as they are and delete the date trigger from the Xanthippos script.

I would also make Messena and Syracusae targets for both factions. I think with these settings you'll have a real first Punic war in the 250s in most of the games, when both factions are run by the AI.

I'll give Epeiros a priority against the city of Kyrene to see if they make the attempt to cross the sea.

Running the RTW.exe, I doubt that you'll get good testing results because of the bugged naval invasion feature. And even with BI.exe you will have to run your test very long because it is unlikely that the Epeirote AI will build new ships and start this operation early in the game.

I'll give Pontos a priority towards Trapezeus and then Cheronesos to, again, see if they cross the sea.

The same is for this one. I would give Pontos a target that they can reach on land route but usually don't attack, like Pella or Kalatis. In these cases you should give them a high priority against the Makedonians and Getai too.

[Callicles]

There is some (hardcoded) reason why the Roman AI regards the North as essential for its faction. Any moddable means to convince them from the opposite should be used.

You're right, especially using RTW.exe. But I have been using the bi.exe for the past few months, and I have been pleasantly surprised with the results. It seems that the Romans take Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearic Islands by naval invasion. My test, therefore, will be to see if, through win-conditions and diplomacy priorities, it is possible to get the Romans to cross the sea and navally invade Iberia.

If we can get the Romans to focus on the South West, then we'll start seeing a whole different kind of AI game.

Speaking of executables, which do you use: bi.exe or rtw.exe?

There is a secondary question that we need to answer: if we give the Seleukids only one target priority (Alexandreia) and the Ptolemy's only one target priority (Babylon) will the AI behavior of the two factions be any different. I could forsee two alternative:

(1) Both factions launch thrusts into enemy land, bypassing certain settlements to the rear, in an effort to quickly reach the enemy captial

or

(2) Both factions behave as they do now, only acting on their priority when the target settlement is within one region away from faction territory (i.e., the Ptolemy's have already reached Mesopotamia by taking over all of Syria and Asia Minor).

In my view, the first alternative is ideal.

[konny]

I use both exes. The test were all done with the RTW.exe because it is somehow the official exe for EB. I play useing the BI.exe

The AI will not go immediatly for VC towns if those are not in reach, I think. It might even ignore a VC (for some time?), may be because of other states of war and priorities. I had seen the Romans going once for Segesta and twice for Rhegion instead of Taras.

-------------------------------------------------------

Further Testing

I had now made a complete set of victory conditions for all factions. That are basicly the starting provinces plus the homeland/expansion zones, with minor adjustements to influence AI behaviour (for example no Roman targets north of Arretium).

First: The provinces are recognized as legal victory conditions by RTW and are listed on the faction overview screen below the map. Any required number of provinces to controll is not displayed there, so I doubt that RTW will recognize that as a VC (BI might do so, it was a feature there).

On the modding forum there was stated that only 11 provinces can be listed as targets. That is not correct. Even lists with 40 or more towns are displayed, what BTW screws the display of that page a little.

Second: I had started a new test with settings (and altered priorities) with "follow AI movements", so it will take some time to get notable results. The first impression is that the AI is leaving more garrisons in the starting towns (what are all VCs).

- The Romans are again massing troops in the South but didn't attack anything so far, their first 10 turns are different than those of the previous test.

- Aedui and Arverni have so far not attacked any Eleutheroi settlements, what they usually do in the first three turns, but are attacking each other's armies.

- The same is for Makedonia and Epeiros who have not marched to the Balkans so far but are fighting each other in the Thessalian highlands. I had observed the same when only changing the priorities, so that might make an important difference.

- Still these very odd first turns by Epeiros and Makedonia. That need to be fixed by descr_strat. May be placing Antigonos next to Pella will give us a nice epic battle at the start of each Mak or Epeiros campaign?

- Armenia isn't still doing anything even with priority for the rebell set to 600 and all towns around asigned as targets. May be there are pathfinding problems and some of their armies need to moved too?

- No movements by AS and Ptolemaians. But on the other hand, they have no real armies at hand that could something in the first turns.


Third: The option "short campaign" is missing. If we can have it back we can create a whole new set of EB campaigns. For example, short campaign for Epeiros: Outlive the Romans and Makedonia. Does someone know how we can get it in again?

[Callicles]

My testing thus far hasn't produced any results to write home about. I'm starting again, but I've changed Taras into a Rebel settlement. I know this departs quite a bit from the EB vision, but I want to see how the Romans behave (as well as the Epirots).

[konny]

What about this: Make all factions that are at war with another faction at the start of the game (or that are not expected to go for the rebells in the early game) at peace or even allied with the rebells. That is the same what is now with the Casse - one of the few faction where it doesn't make any sense, IMHO.

That would be Rome, Epeiros, Makedonia, Greece, Aedui, Arverni, Seleucia and Ptolemeia. They will go for the rebells in any case at some point in the game, the Casse do so too, but might prevent it in the start.


------------------------------------------------

In my test the Aedui are doing what I want of them, ignore the rebell towns and go for the Arverni. They have allready conquered one of their towns. The Arverni are not doing anything at all.

The stupid Romans have attacked Taras three or four times and failed. When I reloaded the game they withdrew one of their two stacks in the south and marched it to Segesta.... The other stack had remained in the South but so far did not do anything against the Epeirote.

The Epeirote show no interesset in Arpi, once the Roman attacks have stopped, but are moving an army into Brettia. The Carthagians are marching in the same direction with a smaller army (4 or 5 units).

In Greece, neither Epeiros nor Makedonia did make any moves north. There was a major battle between Pyrrhos and Antigonos that Pyrrhos had won. Since then he is standing in the Thessalian mountains and not doing any moves against Demetrias or Pella.

The Greeks are much more aggressive and have launched several attacks on Demetrias so far. On a sidenote, I had the last two test-years run the BI.exe and the Greeks have brought their army from Krete to the mainland and are constantly shipping troops from Rhodos to Athens.

The others behave as usual.


The tendency is that the AI is acting much more defensive and keeps much more forces in reserve.

[Callicles]

Well I've had a very unproductive (in the rest of my life) day of playing EB and doing nothing more than clicking "end turn."

Here are my observations.

The win conditions file definitely has an impact, but it is not the sole determinant of where and when a faction attacks a settlement. Case in point: Taras.

I did some testing with Taras, removed the wall, took away the garrison, and gave it to the Rebels. Still, the Romans wouldn't get around to taking the city 4th or 5th year of the game... that's 16-20 turns! Then, they would stop and go North. Most of the time, before taking Rhegion, they would take Bononia. This observation makes me think that not only the win conditions, but also the "faction capital" determines AI behavior, at least for the Romans. It appears like the Romans are reluctant to advance too far away from Rome in any one direction.

But that's Rome. Some of the most intriguing results were in Baktria. I for one have been frustrated with the Baktrian powerhouse. But with a properly defined win-conditions file, the Baktrian machine is much slower and spends less time against the Rebels, Saka, and Parthians, and more time preparing to invade the eastern edge of the Arche Seleukeia (which is what I programmed it to do). But by going slower, Baktria doesn't steamroll and became too big for the Seleukids to deal with. Somewhat coincidentally, by trying to get the Baktrians to focus on the Seleukids, I have given the eastern Seleukids a chance at repelling them.

The Getai are behaving very interestingly. Instead of sitting around like they often do, they spread out in a circle, first taking the Carpathians, then the coast of the Black Sea, then the inner Dacian regions around the Danube, and then to the North and into south-western Skythia. In my view, this is ideal. It creates a buffer against the Epirots, but also keeps the Sweboz from taking too much of Central Europe.

The Ptolemaioi are also behaving rather well and, as you noted, not being too aggressive. It seems that they maintain garrisons more, thus limiting their ability to expand. Morever, this means that when the take the southern Ethiopian regions, there is less likely a chance of revolt, which in turn prevents an odd looking Sabyn empire.

Your observations about the Arverni and Aedui are the same as my own. They spend all their time on each other and neglect the rebels.

Apart from the Romans, the only other disappointment has been the Carthaginians (which is ironic, because my whole motivation has been to get the AI controlled Romans to fight a punic war with the AI controlled Carthaginians). Even with the BI.exe, it seems like those two factions just do not care about Messena or Syracuse. Romans will invade Corsica, and the Carthaginians besiege Capua, but it seems like each turn ends with a ceasefire and renewed hostilities in the next turn. Thus, property never changes hands.

For now, I've decided to stop testing and to instead just play through a campaign (perhaps late game behavior is different?).

But, a couple final observations. As you suggested, I moved Areus and his army from Krete and into Laconia. It functions much better there. I also moved Pyrrhos to the Peloponnesos right about where Argos would be on the map (because historically, that's where he was in 272). This means that usually Antigonos does not return north to Pella with his army, but instead crosses the Corinthian Isthmus and engages in a pitched battle. Antigonos tends to win more often than not, but this keeps the Garrison of Korinth in Korinth... in the past, as you remarked, the Garrison under Krateros is merged with Antigonos before going North. The result is that it takes much longer for the Greeks to liberate Korinth, sometimes they even lose Athens. Moving Pyrrhos into the Peloponnesos makes the AI game in Hellas much more interesting as the KH, Epeiros, and Makedonia all slug it out and trade cities back and forth.

I think the next thing I will try is to give Rome Rhegion and Taras at the start of the game (ahistoric, I know), but maybe that will force them into a southern war with Carthage.

[konny]

Good to hear that your tests came up with the same results as mine. I think, we can now consider the impact of the victory conditions on the AI behaviour as proofed.

I did some testing with Taras, removed the wall, took away the garrison, and gave it to the Rebels. Still, the Romans wouldn't get around to taking the city 4th or 5th year of the game... that's 16-20 turns! Then, they would stop and go North. Most of the time, before taking Rhegion, they would take Bononia. This observation makes me think that not only the win conditions, but also the "faction capital" determines AI behavior, at least for the Romans. It appears like the Romans are reluctant to advance too far away from Rome in any one direction.

Speaking of the factional capital, I have noticed that Bononia is the capital of the Eleutheroi when the game starts. They move it to Illyria later.

I have thought it over with the Romans, and it might be that they are regarding the three heavily guarded rebell towns as a threat, not as a prey, and therefore attack them. I will make a new test with making the Romans allied to the rebells. May be that might change their behaviour.

The Getai are behaving very interestingly. Instead of sitting around like they often do, they spread out in a circle, first taking the Carpathians, then the coast of the Black Sea, then the inner Dacian regions around the Danube, and then to the North and into south-western Skythia.

That is something we have without VCs too. Have you noticed that the army you start as Getai next to your capital with, is "beamed" next to the northern Eleutheroi settlement on game start when Getai is controlled by the AI?

Apart from the Romans, the only other disappointment has been the Carthaginians

Karthage has always a poor conduct in the first 20 or so years. I don't what their problem is. May be they need a larger army in Sicily or Spain when the game starts.

Romans will invade Corsica, and the Carthaginians besiege Capua, but it seems like each turn ends with a ceasefire and renewed hostilities in the next turn. Thus, property never changes hands.

That is bugged. We have the same issue with Rhodos: factions (most of the time Ptolemaia) landing there, sieging the town but make peace the very next turn; only to start the siege anew the following turn. I have the same in my KH campaign - bad idea by the Ptolees BTW, because I am planing to burn down Alexandria in return.

I also moved Pyrrhos to the Peloponnesos right about where Argos would be on the map (because historically, that's where he was in 272).

Yes, that's fantastic! All three faction with their major armies around Attike and Peleponnes will ensure a lot of action in the early game. These Hoplitai Haploi levy armies should be replaced with better mercenary units. That would make some fine battle in the early game.

I think the next thing I will try is to give Rome Rhegion and Taras at the start of the game (ahistoric, I know), but maybe that will force them into a southern war with Carthage.

That would be not more ahistoric than a Baktria faction with three provinces in 272. You can also combine the Roman forces and place them next to Taras. But that is not a guarantee for the AI attacking it, like we have seen with Athens and Pella.

[Callicles]

I just realized that I've been doing all my testing with your money script. I'm switching to the original money script from EB 1.0.

I've noticed that in 1.0 (and maybe you've seen this too) your script functions differently than it did the previous version of EB. The rebels don't seem to be as productive.

[konny]

Yes, I am using my script too. The poorer factions with large armies, like Epeiros, get more money running my script. The rebells never train any units because they don't have the required MICs.


I had moved Pyrrhos to Agros, the Greek army from Krete to Elis and replaced the levies of all three armies with better mercenaries (doesn't make any difference for the auto resolved battles of the AI, but when I am playing one of these factions).

The movements were not as expected, the outcome was: Pyrrhos was trying to reach his homelands by land, caused a war with KH when approaching Thermon and was crushed by the KH main army. Other Epeirote armies have so far made two (failed) assaults on Pella.

Antigonos didn't do anything but repulsing an attack of Athens' garrison. After the battle of Thermon he went after the KH survivors of that engagement and crushed them. So, there was a "last man standing" between the three armies, but no battle between Pyrrhos and Antigonos in the first turn.

[Callicles]

I'm surprised by your results regarding Pyrrhos. Maybe move him closer to Korinth so that he can't escape from the Peloponnese on the first turn? Also, what coordinates do you use? I put him at 140,105.

----------

I think you are right that we've proven the general impact of the win_conditions.txt on the game AI. Of course, more testing is necessary, but here the slowness of the game works against us -- it takes several hours to get to 252, and it is only around 232 that we can see the real impact of the changed files (in my view).

There are still two more things I would like to test regarding the file: (1) whether the order of the regions listed in the file factors into the selection of the targets - that is, if Brettia is listed before Kalabria, will the Romans attack Brettia first? And (2) whether not listing regions held by a faction at the beginning of the game has an impact on their garrisoning of those regions (e.g., if the Parthians have as their first and second priorities Parthaiya and Hyrkania but their starting regions are not listed, will they migrate into Seleukid territory like they did historically?).

Any input or thoughts you have on these is appreciated.

---------

Once we figure out how to get the Romans and Carthaginians to behave like we want them to (if possible, and I hope it is), I suggest we work on the Armenians, Sarmatians, Parthians, Saka, and Bactrians. The northeast corner of the map is a mess that frustrates me in every game.

I think what is the most frustrating about current ai progression in that reagion is that the ai doesn't seem to care about economics. Instead of targeting the wealthy settlements, it targets the hapless ones. Example: Armenia should focus on driving for Mesopotamia, not conquering the barren steppes. I can accept all sorts of ahistoric "what-ifs," and not tie my happiness to turning EB into a historical reenactment game. But still, I wish we could make the ai into a rational actor.

[konny]

I'm surprised by your results regarding Pyrrhos. Maybe move him closer to Korinth so that he can't escape from the Peloponnese on the first turn? Also, what coordinates do you use? I put him at 140,105.

I think it was 141 106 (or that was the new position for the fleet?). In any case about the same position you have him. It took him several years to get around Korinth and Sparta, always moving one tile per turn next to enemy armies.

----------

Of course, more testing is necessary, but here the slowness of the game works against us -- it takes several hours to get to 252, and it is only around 232 that we can see the real impact of the changed files (in my view).

For me even slower, because I am watching the AI moves too. I want to know, what the AI is trying to conquer and how it is moving its armies. It seems to be important to reduce the rebell spawning to about 0%.

Before creating VCs, I had the impression that the AI was igonring these pathetic little rebells armies on its lands. Now, it is very concerned on them and I have seen that an "army" of some Velites and one unit of Equites was able to keep the Romans occupied for years, because the AI always tried to defeat them with even weaker forces.

-------------------------------------------

Our main problem, the Romans: In my test they had tried to take Taras several times, but when all failed they moved to other targets: Rhegion (failed), Bononia (success), Venetia (ongoing). At least, when the Epeirote made an attack on Arpi, the Romans withdraw their forces from the North and repulsed them - something that I haven't seen always in previous games.

I think we should not only encourage them to attack Taras but also help them to take it. For example, by moving all Roman forces South, enlargen their army or reducing the garrison.

-----------------------------------------------------

I am also disappointed by the Selucids and Ptolemaians. They are not doing anything in particular. AS has by far the largest army, but these are all Pantodapoi and the like that are used as garrisons (on a good note: no rebellions so far in AS provinces), while Egypt is spending all her troops with spawning rebells (the same is for Karthago, BTW).

I think both should start with a strong mercenary army in Syria to "keep the fire burning".

There are still two more things I would like to test regarding the file: (1) whether the order of the regions listed in the file factors into the selection of the targets - that is, if Brettia is listed before Kalabria, will the Romans attack Brettia first?

I don't think so, but that must be tested.

And (2) whether not listing regions held by a faction at the beginning of the game has an impact on their garrisoning of those regions

I am very sure that will do, because that's the situation we had before: towns more or less unguarded while the army is on safari elsewhere.

Once we figure out how to get the Romans and Carthaginians to behave like we want them to (if possible, and I hope it is), I suggest we work on the Armenians, Sarmatians, Parthians, Saka, and Bactrians. The northeast corner of the map is a mess that frustrates me in every game.

I have given Saka the same VCs as Sauromate. Saka is doing very well, the Sauromate not anything at all. Parthia is fighting Saka, while Baktria had made several attempts on the rebell towns around. Armenia is in fact a major problem.

I think what is the most frustrating about current ai progression in that reagion is that the ai doesn't seem to care about economics. Instead of targeting the wealthy settlements, it targets the hapless ones. Example: Armenia should focus on driving for Mesopotamia, not conquering the barren steppes.

Oh, I would be happy if they were going at least for the Steppe. In my test they have 2 1/2 full stacks doing absolutly nothing.

[MiniMe]

2Konny&Callicles:
Guys, your victory conditions and money script treads are very intresting. Me thinks that both of you are digging in the right direction and will one fine day hit the gold.
If you need additional testers, count me on, I have powerful computer, plenty of free time in next month and am willing to help you on this one.
(Besides, I'm really bored of my current KH campaign where I have to defend from 4 Grey and Yellow uberstacks every freakin turn in Eastern Turkey).
Best regards
MiniMe.

[konny]

Yes, everyone is invited to take part. Sometimes you are just imaging effects of things you have made yourself, so it is important that other players run tests as well. I am going to make a workaround of descr_strat.txt next (re-positioning of several armies, changes in priorities etc) and will upload the hole bunch on the weekend for testing purpose. May be Callicles will upload his files too?


-----------------------------

I think the money script has to be reviewed under these conditions, that goes for both mine and the EB script. Without VCs we have the situation that the AI is useing all its forces to move around and conquer not careing what is going on in its provinces.

With victory conditions, we have the situation that the AI is keeping larger forces as garrisons in the towns, what might lead to situations in which we have a hughe empire with only a small army and the AI is not leaving the towns to prevent them roiting, regardless what happens around. That is it what I have seen with AS in my longer test: 11 years and not a single AS army outside a settlement. But also not a single rebellion in any of their settlements.

To prevent this, we should either raise the garrisons in the towns (may be scripted, only when controlled by the AI) or raise the money help at the start of the game (the exact opposite to the current EB script) or link the money help to specific VC-towns not owned by that faction (what I had suggested earlyer).

[MiniMe]

I am going to make a workaround of descr_strat.txt next (re-positioning of several armies, changes in priorities etc) and will upload the hole bunch on the weekend for testing purpose.

great, I will test it as one of the successor factions

With victory conditions, we have the situation that the AI is keeping larger forces as garrisons in the towns, what might lead to situations in which we have a hughe empire with only a small army and the AI is not leaving the towns to prevent them roiting, regardless what happens around.

Is this happening only to the big old greys with their overstretched empire? Or small and hungry for expansion factions also behave in the same way?

[konny]

I give it up with the Romans @Taras. The problem is, they always wait so long with their first attack that the Epeirote have build their barracks and are able to repulse the Roman attacks. After some years the Romans give up the operation in general and search for new targets (úsually according to the old scheme in the North).

I have tried about everything:

Combine the two Roman armies and move them to Kalabria short behind the border - they move them away in turn #1.

Combine the two Roman armies and place them in Arpi - they move them away in turn #1.

Combine the two Roman armies and place them next to Taras - they move them away in turn #1.

Enlargen the garrisons in the other towns that there is no reason to move away the armies from the front - they move them away in turn #1.


I think the only chance to have an AI Rome expanding south is either make Taras rebell or give it to the Romans....

----------------------------------------------------

Pyrrhos in Argos didn't do for me either. The AI (Makedonia) does not attack him with the major army next to Athens, but sometimes with a little army from Demetrias. While the other AI (Epeiros) always tries to reach Ambrakia on the landroute, even though I have placed the ships next to his starting position.

I have now moved Pyrrhos on his old position and placed Antigonos next to him. That did much better: Because Makedonia makes its turn first, there is no way for the Epeirote to run away and we (should) always have a major battle. In my tests Antigonos always won (may be not,if we move the Taras garrison to the main army?), what gave him some breathing space against the Greeks. That makes the Makedonian starting position a bit stronger when controlled by the AI.

Is this happening only to the big old greys with their overstretched empire? Or small and hungry for expansion factions also behave in the same way?

The factions in general behave more defensive. That is no problem with the Aedui or Arverni who have more full stacks than towns. Or with the Greek theatre where every province of each faction is bordering one or two enemy provinces. But it is a problem with AS and the Ptolemaians who have both hughe empires with only a few provinces bordering enemy provinces and nearly no army.

I would assume (I haven't really played with VCs, just tested) that later in a campaign it turns out that attacking a faction's homelands is much more difficult than it is now, but beeing under attack is not as dangerous, especially when the enemy is also threatened eleswhere.


---------------------------------------

I will next make the last changes that I have planned for now: Make Taras rebell, place two strong armies for both AS and Ptol. facing each other somewhere in Syria and review the Victory Conditions and then upload what I have so far.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
I believe there's a quantitative value determining the relation between factions at the beginning right? If so, can't you just make them loving rebels and hating each other to death? Also neutral w. rebels (like Casse) but at war with each other?

Anyway, it boils down to RTW being made to share the spoils of Gladiator and HBO Rome and not for historical reenactment.
.

[Callicles]

I give it up with the Romans @Taras.

I did too. I gave Taras to the rebels, but still it took Rome a long time to get them. I've come to terms with the fact that in my game, both Taras and Rhegion are beginning in Roman hands (unless I play them).

----------------------------------------------------

Pyrrhos in Argos didn't do for me either.

I haven't been able to conduct more testing over the past few days, but I'll try moving Antigonos and Pyrrhos outside of Pella like you've done to compare.

If this can prevent the Makedonians being turned into the Mytlenians by 250BC, then I accept it.

I would assume (I haven't really played with VCs, just tested) that later in a campaign it turns out that attacking a faction's homelands is much more difficult than it is now, but beeing under attack is not as dangerous, especially when the enemy is also threatened eleswhere.

This comports with the one game I played through with the VC's and other changes. I played as Pontos and got well into the 230's before being attacked by the Seleukids. In fact, they never attacked me. Instead, my first battle was when the Greeks invaded by sea with an army of Spartans under Agis II. It was quite the pleasant surprise (especially since I hadn't even taken Sinope or Trapezous yet).

I will next make the last changes that I have planned for now: Make Taras rebell, place two strong armies for both AS and Ptol. facing each other somewhere in Syria and review the Victory Conditions and then upload what I have so far.

I'm interested on how your testing in Syria goes. I'm going to keep working on the Baktria, Parthia, Saka mess... there has got to be a way to allow for the Pahlavans to survive until their reforms where they actually become the Parthians.


----------------------------------------------------

Anyway, it boils down to RTW being made to share the spoils of Gladiator and HBO Rome and not for historical reenactment.

I think you are right concerning the Gladiator (just look at all the lorica segmentata and lines like "Unleash Hell!") But BBC's Rome came out after RTW was already out and popular. But your sentiment is right. And as I see you are a member, former or otherwise, of the L.I.B. you know well the plight of games losing out when the producers sell out to the movies. Still, that Xebec you made was nice.

----------------------------------------------------

On Saturday or Sunday I'll upload my version of the WC along with my version of the Descr_strat. I've also got some other goodies buried in my descr_strat. I'll include explanation and disclosure of them all, of course.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

I think you are right concerning the Gladiator (just look at all the lorica segmentata and lines like "Unleash Hell!") But BBC's Rome came out after RTW was already out and popular.

I can't resist the temptation of making a fool of myself now and then.

But your sentiment is right. And as I see you are a member, former or otherwise, of the L.I.B. you know well the plight of games losing out when the producers sell out to the movies. Still, that Xebec you made was nice.

Hey, great to see an old timer! (Do I know you sir? ) It was Duke Surak'nar (also an infrequent ORGah) who made the Xebec, IIRC. I just made the Armed Tartana for Sea Dogs. (I lost the skins I had modified with a gunport so it's remained a function-only mod.) We both are active LIB members, in the sense of visiting our forum regularly.

PotC was such a great disappointment indeed. I never played it can you believe? Don't know about AOP but haven't heard good things about it either.
.

[konny]

.
I believe there's a quantitative value determining the relation between factions at the beginning right? If so, can't you just make them loving rebels and hating each other to death? Also neutral w. rebels (like Casse) but at war with each other?

Yes. I have made it so for the Romans, Epeiros, KH, Makedonia, Ptolees and AS. It has its impact on the AI too. Of course, when removing Epeiros from Italy I have to change priorities for the Romans again, because I don't want them to cross the Adriatic in turn #2.

[konny]

OK, here we go:


http://www.2shared.com/file/2558597/...onditions.html

This contains the "Victory Conditions", a changed descr_strat and a changed "campaign script". The last one is not to be confused with the EB-Script. All files go in the ...\imperial_campaign folder. Please back up your orignial files before.

- The Victory Conditions are a set of (conceptual) VCs for every faction. Their main purpose is to influence the AI behaviour, therefore for example do the Romans don't have any VCs North of the Alps.

- The descr_start has several changes that should make the start for some AI-factions easyer. For example: Taras had been made rebell, the Makedonian army is moved North, field armies had been placed for AS and the Ptolemaioi, priorities changed for several factions, the rebell spawn value has been drasticly raised to a level where random rebell armies should no longer appear etc.

- The "Campaign Script" is needed because it places additional Epeirote forces in Taras when the human player is Romani. That wouldn't really work with Taras beeing rebell (the forces are of the correct faction, but not all Epeirote units can be rebell). Depending on testing, it can also be used to place additional units for factions that now the humand player starts against with a decisive battle (Epeiros, Makedonia, Arche Seleuka and Ptolemaia)


---------------------------------------

I have played with these files now until 265 BC.

- The Romans attacked Taras in Winter 272 and took it Summer 271 (there is no rebell leader who prevents moving of the garrison).

- Makedonia is reduced to Pella, Mytilene and Chalkis. At least there are better in defending their homelands now.

- There is a little more movement in Syria than in previour tests. The Ptolemaioi survivors of the opening battle were able to take Antiochia.

- Revolutions are very rare in AI lands. I had so far seen one against Pontos in Sinope.

---------------------------------------

This is still beta so, please test it excessivly and report your impressions back, that these files can be further improved.

[MiniMe]

What about your money script alterations?
And what were your reasons of removing KH stack from Crete?

And: WOW! I've started a Ptolemaic campaign and discovered my sirian stack. cool

And: when quiting the game, a message pops up:
Generic Error
Regons_DB:: Region name(Abdurbadegan) does not exist in this region db

later: solved that for myself. You need to correct "Abdurbadegan" to "Adurbadegan" in descr_win_conditions.txt

[Callicles]

The reason for moving the KH army from Krete is that the AI just left it there and never attacked Krete. This way, with the navy, a player can move it back if the player wants, but the AI can make use of it as intended.

[konny]

The money script will be changed later. I will play this campaign a little more now (I am at 258) and see who is in need of further help. I am much concerned about the Romans and the two Successors. BTW, the Romans managed to lose Taras in 259 by rebellion to the Epeirote, the second rebellion on AI territory at all, and all work there was in vain

The Makedons are barely holding on Pella, but Epeiros and KH (now allied) throw full stack after full stack at them. The first invasion was done by 1 1/2 full KH stacks. Later the Epeirote joined in, sometimes both were around Pella the same time. The Makedons were so far able to repulse all these attacks, but now they have about 1/2 stack left in Pella and are sieged by a full Epeirote stack (including artillery!).

And: WOW! I've started a Ptolemaic campaign and discovered my sirian stack. cool

I have played this battle with AS; a quite exciting and short run thing. Even if it does not change the AI behaviour in a significant way, it adds some fun to start a campaign with one of these two factions. I always found it strange to have the two strongest empires on the map fighting with Pantodapoi and Hippakontistai for the first decades.

And: when quiting the game, a message pops up:
Generic Error
Regons_DB:: Region name(Abdurbadegan) does not exist in this region db

later: solved that for myself. You need to correct "Abdurbadegan" to "Adurbadegan" in descr_win_conditions.txt

Ah, thank you. There is a typos in the recruitement viewer where I had copied the province names from.

[mrtwisties]

I'm totally lurking on this thread, but am following your adventures very keenly. If I ever get my year jump mod working, I'll do some testing of the victory conditions file too.

[MiniMe]

Feedback
260BC

Ptolemaic campaign, based on rome_BI.exe, settings H/M.

Intresting issues:
1. Casse gone crazy. Every turn they are landing in Normandy and then retreat to the ships;


2. Makedons are good. First thing they did they annihilated mr.Pyrhhos. They are not invading Epeiros lands, prefer to concentrate on KH instead;

3. Epeiros is broken. After Pyrhhos death most of the time they do nothing. They do not invade Taras lands. Once they took Pella, but it did not last for long;

4. KH in a series of bloody battles switched Athenai for Korinth. But in the same time they continue to launch naval invasions against Roman Taras!

5. Taras was the first town Romans were after. Now they succsessfully defend it from KH. Their second objective was Corsica. Now they are after two things - the Nothern Italy barbarian belt and Sardinia;

6. Every turn Carthage somehow manages to sigh peace treaty with Romans.

7. AS is broken. They are not attacking Ptolemai.

Konny, I'm afraid your modified files slow down game performance. Don't know what's happening but my previous 1.0. campaign wasn't so laggy. Vanilla sea pack does no help.
And I think something has to be done with wicked Casse behavior and romantic Roman/Carthage relations, cause these every turn landings and peace treaties are very strange.

Best regards
MiniMe.

[konny]

Feedback
260BC

Ptolemaic campaign, based on rome_BI.exe, settings H/M.

First thing I thought when seeing this map: "WTF did Ptolemaioi attack Kyrene!" I didn't make it a target for them and Karthage to keep them away from each other. But that's you, ok, excused ;-)

1. Casse gone crazy. Every turn they are landing in Normandy and then retreat to the ships;

Strange thing, haven't seen before. They have targets in Gaul, so may be they are trying to reach them but the AI is looped by something.

2. Makedons are good. First thing they did they annihilated mr.Pyrhhos. They are not invading Epeiros lands, prefer to concentrate on KH instead

Excellent! They are pushing south instead of going for Serdike or Tylis.

4. KH in a series of bloody battles switched Athenai for Korinth. But in the same time they continue to launch naval invasions against Roman Taras!

Southern Italy is a target for them, but I have seen that too in games without VCs. In fact sailing elsewhere while beeing under attack in its homeland is something I wanted to avoid.

6. Every turn Carthage somehow manages to sigh peace treaty with Romans.

This siege-peace-siege sequence after naval invasions is a BI bug. I have it in about every game with the BI.exe on Sardine and/or Rhodos.

7. AS is broken. They are not attacking Ptolemai.

I have the same problem in all tests. It seems that controlling to many VC-towns at the start of the game does the AI no good. They don't care on loosing Antiochia or Seleucia as long as they still hold Alexandria-the-most-remote.

The number has to be cut down to, may be, three or four vital towns while the rest of the VCs must be towns that they have to conquer.

Konny, I'm afraid your modified files slow down game performance. Don't know what's happening but my previous 1.0. campaign wasn't so laggy. Vanilla sea pack does no help.

The sea pack is placebo and doesn't help preformance. descr_start and campaign script are only read once when starting the game. So, the only lag can be by reading the VC file. What is laggy? Only the AI turn or the entire game?

[MiniMe]

First thing I thought when seeing this map: "WTF did Ptolemaioi attack Kyrene!" I didn't make it a target for them and Karthage to keep them away from each other. But that's you, ok, excused ;-)

well, for this test purposes I'm trying to act like AI myself (thus I resolve all melees through autobatlle and play on Hard difficulty in hope that AI factions would pay me less attention) but staying away from Kyrene and Charax was to much for me, I'm afraid =)

Excellent! They are pushing south instead of going for Serdike or Tylis.

indeed. Only sometimes they send a small taskforce to the north, but not too often compared to their southern borders

This siege-peace-siege sequence after naval invasions is a BI bug. I have it in about every game with the BI.exe on Sardine and/or Rhodos.

So it's a BI bug. Must admit I've seen it before in my last BI campaign. What a shame. The only reason I was using BI.exe was because of naval invasions. And as it seems, it makes no sense after all.

I have the same problem in all tests. It seems that controlling to many VC-towns at the start of the game does the AI no good. They don't care on loosing Antiochia or Seleucia as long as they still hold Alexandria-the-most-remote.

Good news: actually AS began trying (not that they are very successful) to regain their settlements from me. Seleukia, Antiocheia and Tarsos are under siege. Good lads.

What is laggy?

two things:
1. Sometimes there is a lag on AI turn while he is doing nothing, but it is very small and not annoying;
2. Scrolling slows significantly when I order somebody to move far away. Now that's very annoying, but me thinks it has nothing to do with your files. I blame EB strategic map textures, me thinks they in some kind of conflict with vanilla highlighted movement path

[konny]

So it's a BI bug. Must admit I've seen it before in my last BI campaign. What a shame. The only reason I was using BI.exe was because of naval invasions. And as it seems, it makes no sense after all.

I can't recommend the BI.exe after all because of these stupid naval operations. The one thing is the siege-peace loop, the other are those random landings:

- Rome on Korsika
- KH in Kalabria
- Karthago near Capua
- Ptolemaioi on Rhodos

They happen in about every campaign and usually don't make any sense at all. So I regard that as buggy. I am now playing the ALX.exe what doesn't have this "feature".

1. Sometimes there is a lag on AI turn while he is doing nothing, but it is very small and not annoying;

You mean when you are watching the AI turn and everything seems to be frozen for about a minute in a middle of a AI faction's turn? That's not a lag, that's a spy: The engine (usually) doesn't show you the movements of a spy, even with "toggle_fow" and "perfect spy" activated. Because spies have a hughe reach and a very slow animation, it takes nearly forever for the spy to finish its move.

2. Scrolling slows significantly when I order somebody to move far away. Now that's very annoying, but me thinks it has nothing to do with your files. I blame EB strategic map textures, me thinks they in some kind of conflict with vanilla highlighted movement path

I don't know. But that has definitly nothing to do with the changed VC files.

[burn_again]

Perhaps this doesn't really fit in here, but I suggest that if you want Rome go south first, you should make the garnisons in Bononia and Segesta stronger.

In my recent Aedui and Sweboz campaigns, I didn't want to face Rome too early, so I filled these cities with some additional Gaesatae. I know it's a bit unfair, but the Romans were still able to conquer the towns, though much later than normal. They also would usually take Rhegion and Taras first, sometimes even Sicily. Still if they lose Taras due to rebellion, they often don't take it back.

Perhaps some scripted armies in Bononia and Segesta would work even better, they are not impossible to beat, but it takes the AI quite a long time now to conquer Iuvavoaeta or Eburonum for example.

[konny]

Bononia and Segesta allready have the strongest garrisons of all rebell towns. That's not the problem. The problem is that once the Roman AI starts to attack them it becomes obsessed by the idea. I had campaigns in which the Karthagians and Epeirote were peacefully dividing Italy amongst them while the Romans were throwing army after army North.

I would rather go the other way and weaken the garrisons, that once the Romans catch that virus they might be able to come over it again by taking the towns.

But I think, the results with making the southern towns Victory Conditions for the Romans show that we are on a good way to prevent from that madness.