Too Powerful past 250B.C.

[KingBobertVII]

Ok, so I have this problem where by the Time it's 250 B.C., I become an overpowered juggernaut and end up with somewhere in the area of 2 million + Mnai.:dizzy2: (No, not cheating):clown: So, I was wondering if anyone else had that problem?:inquisitive: I mean, at 210 B.C. in a Romani game im probably going to abandon due to boredom, I have 8 million Mnai, and all of Italy/Sicily/Sardinia/Corsica has Huge Cities and all buildings built. And not just 25K Huge Cities. 40-50K Huge Cities.:beam: And I didn't even start expanding (aside from Taras and Rhegion) Until about 250 B.C. when I started the First Punic War and took Sicily/Corsica/Sardinia. Game is Medium/Medium, but that shouldn't make much of a difference really, should it?
I mean the trouble isn't that my ARMIES can steamroll everybody, it's the fact that my finances go berserk because i sit and develop my economy, starting with Public Health Buildings for maximum Population Growth. Is this a common problem, or should I try either A- Going for a Harder Campaign, B- Being more militarily focused, or at the least not disbanding my starting armies after taking a few settlements, so my income doesnt explode, or C- Is there something else I can do to prevent mega-overpoweredness? I mean, it's fun to just magically poof 25 full stacks from mercenaries and then sail them all over to Egypt just for the hell of it, but that seems a bit... less challenging than I would like :inquisitive:.:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::w all::wall::whip::whip::whip::whip::whip::whip::whip::whip::clown::clown::smash::thumbsdown::egypt::y es::beam::oops::oops::laugh4::help::furious3:

[Molinaargh]

Sounds like you're too good for this game, try something harder.

Or try a harder faction, or a harder difficulty.

[A Very Super Market]

More people would care if you stopped your senseless spam.

[Vaal]

Play Pontus.

[TKaz84]

Honestly the campaign difficulty setting really does make that much difference. Your cities make less money and the AI is more intelligent about what kind of stacks it sends out. So if you are getting bored on M/M, bump it up to H/M and see what happens.

[Vasiliyi]

Set the difficulty to H/M, pick either pontus, hayasdan or saba and then come back and tell us how ur doing.

Alternativily, you can always set up some house rules to make things harder for yourself

[KingBobertVII]

Alright, thanks guys. I'm gonna try out VH/M like it says to in the FAQ. Seemed like VH would be really obnoxious huge waves of full-stacks from what i've heard around here, but maybe it won't be. Plus waves of enemies is better than swimming in waves of golden boredom. Maybe. I think Hayasdan sounds neat. I'm gonna try them or one of the nomads. (Sauromatae/Saka Rauka). While I'm still looking at this thread I might as well ask, is the Yuezhi invasion scripted so that they DO something? From what I've heard its a bunch of armies that spawn near that settlement right south of Saka's capitol. But do they attack you and go after something or just stand there devastating the arid sand? Either way, it'd be fun to see the Yuezhi since they arent in this version of EB.

[Tuuvi]

Play Pontus.

He has a point. The funnest campaign I ever played was as pontus in 0.74. I had like three or four provinces and was at war with Epieros who controlled most of the Hellenes and more. The only thing that saved me was I had gotten the Suelekids to be my protectorate and that Byzantion had a stone wall. It was hard but it was intense and exciting :2thumbsup:

[Bumblebee]

My Roman exploits usually were driven in surges of wealth and depletion, following a pattern of conquering an area, developing it, building a warchest, conquering a new area, developing it, building a warchest, conquering a new area, etc.

I was a bit taken aback by how ludicrously rich I was when I initially started playing EB as I tend to play defensively. But if you use your resources to their full potential, you can be very successful.

[KingBobertVII]

Yeah, well i was playing EXTREMELY defensively i guess. I disbanded all my armies and only had fm's as garrisons, and I think I used a unit of Rorarii in Ariminium since i didn't have a FM. Just build economy for 20-25 years after I took Rhegion and Taras and got a ceasefire from Epeiros. At 210 B.C. I only have 2 armies, 1 in Numidia chasing Carthaginians and one in Hispania chasing Carthaginians. You know, if this game had more scripted invasions/Missions/whatnot it would really help alot. I've NEVER seen Romani have any real trouble expanding with AI either. Theyre just too damn rich. But, if they had some more resistance from Carthage, (Scripted Hannibal anyone?) then maybe they would at least not be the inevitable pre-eminent power of the Mediterranean. Carthage was on the fast track to being just as much of a power, before Rome managed to pull out of multiple crises by the skin of her teeth. We could all be speaking a derivative of Punic, were it not for the Battle of the Metaurus, or indeed even the battle of Agrigentum way back in 261.

[Aulus_Hirtius]

Not playing Bartix would help, but seriously speaking, even after my last Romani empire had become far too large to successfully role play for my level of concentration, I largely eliminated my ability to actively engage in campaigns of conquest in Europe through static defensive placements similar to those of the Antonines. Since the upkeep of my post-Marian legions was relatively high and since I habitually leave farms undeveloped from a fear from vanilla of the squalor penalties, I managed to reduce my income to a reasonable amount.

In the East, I gave all my excess money to AS so that they could challenge me. In some ways, having a developed empire was more interesting for me since I am more a student of the history and policies of the principate even if the engine doesn't really model it well at all. At any rate, I usually abandon my EB campaigns after I expand beyond the historical limits of an empire.

As mentioned earlier, Hayasdan and Pontos obviously don't have the shortcoming of being too easy though they do have interesting campaigns.

[Apázlinemjó]

Pick up the Pontos campaign, VH/VH. :P

[Macilrille]

If you have too much money as Rome, but want to play as Rome, have a houserule to keep a navy in being. Navies suck your treasury dry. And set difficulty to VH/M - VH/VH.
If you do not mind playing another faction than Rome then Sweboz is not economically easy either. In fact it is horrendous, but by Odin you get some tough, experienced and scary infantry.

As for Carthage's long-term chances of defeating Rome I would say they were small. Rome had learned in the Latium Wars to never negotiate from a position of weakness and never relent. Which meant that their allies would keep by their side mostly, if for no other reason then for fear. IE Latium and much of the peninsula was behind Rome. You can hardly say the same about Carthage which was in many ways divided upon itself. As Rome eventually became, but was not during the Punic Wars.

[Bonny]

(Scripted Hannibal anyone?)

well, they get the spartan mercenary Xanthippus by script, and the punic war is also scripted, if either SPQR or Quarthadastim is attacking Messina. A complete script for "wars" ( guiding armees of all factions in order to get correct invasions ) is a bit more tricky and imho not worth the effort.
I'm not very familiar with the RTW sripting system, but imho the following would happen:

1. It would make the game linear. Every game would play the exactly same, beacause every AI Faction would act the same.

2. It would make the game much more buggy, because of the heavy scripting work needed, there would be much more sources for bugs to creep into the game,. Only because of the pure mass of scripting text needed to get such a system working. Also it would afaik make ai turns longer again. The old puppet ruler system, which provided level 4 government cities with governouers placed by script, slowed the the AI turns extensively down.

3. It would take a lot of time, and with a lot i mean months/years more of work. First it has to be planned who attacked whom with what general and what army compostion for a time of 242 years, and for all factions. Then everything had to be coded.

If you are complaining that the romans have to much money, then you should definately try to play a different faction. The Romans and the Karthadastim are very easy compared to other factions, because of their wealth and their extensive range of good soldiers. But if you look to other regions of the map you'll find much more challenging factions.

Try playing Aedui, Averni or the sweboz. It will take you years to get out of the red, and even then you are not making much money.
Also the small Asian Kingdoms like Hayasdan or Pontus are a good choice for gettig more diffcult games, because of their geographical near to the military powerhouse Arche Seleucia. Hayasdan is also having an interesting game mechanic about restoring the persian empire, which affects both the military units and the building choices.

[bobbin]

Two things I'd suggest is don't build the maximum level of farms(i usually only build the first level) and demolish granary biuldings when you reach large city size this helps to prevent those 40000 people cities, stay clear of Lantifunda as well unless its for the reforms.

Also if your so flush with cash give it away to other factions to help along your intrests in other areas of the map.

Large garrisons can help control the cash flow as well, in a fully developed city i would usually have 6 units on garrison duty, more if it was vulnerable to attack.

[AqD]

You'd experience the same thing with all factions, all mods.... There is no way to make mid-campaign difficult...

[Macilrille]

Have a standing fleet "to combat Pirates".

[Whatever Scortamareva]

If you're having trouble with huge cities etc, maybe download a few mods, like maybe the City Mod, or just chuck in the whole mini mod pack in, which can help by making the AI a little more intelligent, or the victory conditions mod where the factions move in a more historically accurate way.

I would reccommend VH/M, the VH campaign isn't too bad, the computer generally can't deal with much even with the mnai bonuses, but it is a lot harder, give it a go, and maybe try a harder faction than Romani.

[Cambyses]

For a start play on at least VH/H, anything less isnt really challenging. Secondly, never raise your taxes above high for any reason. Lastly, dont play Romani!!!

[antisocialmunky]

Leave AI alone until 250. Otherwise they will go down easy.

[KingBobertVII]

I'm playing a VH/M Hayasdan campaign, it's going better. Still managed to take Kotais and Mtiskheta? fairly easily, but I'm going to just hunker down in those 3 cities for a bit and hope the AS doesnt break the alliance with me yet . Seems more fun than the Romans, the Sweboz, or the Arverni, who I have tried before. Sweboz WAS pretty fun though maybe I'll play them next. But they got too strong after I took Denmark Scandanavia and the surrounding settlements to the east of me. Maybe with VH/M instead of H/M like I had them on, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Plus I was still poor as hell, so yeah sounds fun too. Thanks for the Help though, Hayasdan seems pretty neat.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Use house rules, the only safe way to get very difficoult campaigns with any faction.

[Cute Wolf]

If u want to really pick a challange, go to the script, add control (insert another non Roman faction that still alive and AT WAR with you). And play the rest controlling that faction against a huge Juggernaut that you just made, pretty interesting if u can beat them back and even exterminate them...

[Apázlinemjó]

If u want to really pick a challange, go to the script, add control (insert another non Roman faction that still alive and AT WAR with you). And play the rest controlling that faction against a huge Juggernaut that you just made, pretty interesting if u can beat them back and even exterminate them...

Wow, how does this exactly work?