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 :laugh4:)

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.

FootIf 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.:embarassed: 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.:embarassed: 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 :)

[QuintusSertorius]

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 )

Well as someone who moves very slowly in my games, that doesn't reflect my experiences at all. The AI moves at a slightly-slower-than-blitz speed all the time if they have funds. I don't even play on VH campaign difficulty, with the bonus money, and they still move far too fast for my liking. Seriously, within 20 years of the game start, if unchecked either Koinon Hellenon or Makedonia will have destroyed the other. Parthia and Pontos will tend to have vanished. Baktria often does too. Either the Aedui or Arverni will have been wiped out. Look at virtually every map at 50 years after game-start that people post, and you have about ten super-factions left.


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).


However, the Ptolemies intentionally confined their area of influence to what was sustainable. From their very inception they weren't expansionist, it was all about keeping a very firm hold of what they had, dominating (eastern) Mediterranean trade, and preventing any other power from rising to significance.

[Atraphoenix]

If you want to create super power no matter on which mod, simply make their units with 2 hitpoints then watch the show, I never did it myself. I like the mod the way it is in..

[B-Wing]

I think the OP's concern is with preventing the creation of numerous superpowers...

[fomalhaut]

Luckily my experiences with super factions has been relegated to only a few, mine included when i play one of the big hitters like SPQR. To be honest, I really like playing as isolated, minor powers and watching the great power politics from a far. This is why Lusotan, Saby'n and Koine Hellon are my favorite. I really enjoy colonizing foreign lands and barbarianizing/arabianizing/hellenizing the lands into my own and using their unique regional auxilaries.

[Drunk Clown]

Well as someone who moves very slowly in my games, that doesn't reflect my experiences at all. The AI moves at a slightly-slower-than-blitz speed all the time if they have funds. I don't even play on VH campaign difficulty, with the bonus money, and they still move far too fast for my liking. Seriously, within 20 years of the game start, if unchecked either Koinon Hellenon or Makedonia will have destroyed the other. Parthia and Pontos will tend to have vanished. Baktria often does too. Either the Aedui or Arverni will have been wiped out. Look at virtually every map at 50 years after game-start that people post, and you have about ten super-factions left.

If there are ten factions the same, then no one is "super".




However, the Ptolemies intentionally confined their area of influence to what was sustainable. From their very inception they weren't expansionist, it was all about keeping a very firm hold of what they had, dominating (eastern) Mediterranean trade, and preventing any other power from rising to significance.

Sounds like a superpower to me.

[DECEBALVS]

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 :)

I think the creation of new factions from the aggressive rebels at normal level game can limit the expansion of superpowers. All the rebels might have the chance to conquer another settlement and to have diplomatic rellations. So the map will be stable, we can then create a Pax Romana where the commerce with others will never end to be interesting and where will make war only for peace [a good status quo of politics]. We'll no longer fight to death to become the single faction on the map [because we can be defeated by another unrealistic ultragigaempire]... isn't that?

[Drunk Clown]

I think the creation of new factions from the aggressive rebels at normal level game can limit the expansion of superpowers. All the rebels might have the chance to conquer another settlement and to have diplomatic rellations. So the map will be stable, we can then create a Pax Romana where the commerce with others will never end to be interesting and where will make war only for peace [a good status quo of politics]. We'll no longer fight to death to become the single faction on the map [because we can be defeated by another unrealistic ultragigaempire]... isn't that?

It may be just me but I can't follow you anymore. You want peace in... a war game?

[QuintusSertorius]

If there are ten factions the same, then no one is "super".

Course they are. After dealing with their local rival and absorbing the rebels nearby, you get a collection of regional superpowers, each the master of their area. They then spend the next 10-20 years duking it out til you're down to four or five.

Is EBI designed to basically be done within 200 turns? Because in reality that's what we get with the pace of AI conquest.


Sounds like a superpower to me.

But not one that behaves anything like AI Ptolemaic Egypt. Which not only tends to gobble up all the Seleukid lands, but in some games all of Qart-Hadast's territory too.

[Populus Romanus]

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
I would hardly say the Seleucids and Ptolemys are good examples, after all they never conquered any of their territory. It was all conquered for them by Alexander. Indeed, they are fragmentations of a larger empire. And they, for the most part, never expanded much. For the majority of their history their borders remained static, with the regular, but very small, fluctuations of the border either way. Mostly, however, their borders would shrink rather than grow, though this applies to the Seleucids more than the Ptolemys. The Seleucids in particular were held in check by rebellious satrapies, though I do not know what exactly was holding the Ptolemys back. Also, the elimination of nations until their are progressively fewer and fewer nations is not inevitable. If it was, why isn't the entire Earth one country? If the constant assimilation of power was inevitable, then that is what inevitably would occur. However, the entire world is officially divied up between 100 to 200 nations (I'd rather not look it up), although that is an extreme understatement given all the regions of the globe where "official" nations have no juristiction whatsoever.

[QuintusSertorius]

The Seleucids in particular were held in check by rebellious satrapies, though I do not know what exactly was holding the Ptolemys back.

The Ptolemies were held back by ascribing to their founder's notion that what they had was broadly enough. Old Ptolemy I was a canny fellow, he realised the futility of trying to seize hold of all of Alexander's conquests as one unit. Furthermore, he saw the value in sitting outside the fray and letting his rivals kill each other, just ensuring none of them were able to get so strong as to turf him out of his comfortable spot.

[Grade_A_Beef]

That, and the inbreeding.

[bobbin]

I would hardly say the Seleucids and Ptolemys are good examples, after all they never conquered any of their territory. It was all conquered for them by Alexander. Indeed, they are fragmentations of a larger empire. And they, for the most part, never expanded much. For the majority of their history their borders remained static, with the regular, but very small, fluctuations of the border either way. Mostly, however, their borders would shrink rather than grow, though this applies to the Seleucids more than the Ptolemys. The Seleucids in particular were held in check by rebellious satrapies, though I do not know what exactly was holding the Ptolemys back.

Since when was constant expansion the sole defining feature of a super power? As i understand it a super power is a nation that vastly surpasses most others in power and wealth.
Say what you like but by EB's start the Ptolemies, Seleukids and possibly the Carthaginians were the superpowers of the region and the Romans, Parthians and Baktrians would later become ones too.
So thats 6 (7 if we count the Mauryans who were just beyond our map) in the space of 300 years, as you can see they were hardly rare.



Also, the elimination of nations until their are progressively fewer and fewer nations is not inevitable. If it was, why isn't the entire Earth one country? If the constant assimilation of power was inevitable, then that is what inevitably would occur. However, the entire world is officially divied up between 100 to 200 nations (I'd rather not look it up), although that is an extreme understatement given all the regions of the globe where "official" nations have no juristiction whatsoever.

The reason there are so many countries in the world today (203) is because we don't live in an age of rampant imperialism where annexing territory is the norm, go back 100 years and things looked a lot different (~60, even less if you miss out the tiny principalites).

[Populus Romanus]

I am not denying that Carthage, the Ptolemys, and the Seleucids were superpowers. Certainly no! I can't see how you even got that impression from what I said about Carthage. About the Seleucids and Ptolemys, I am saying that they reached superpower status by inheriting the conquests of Alexander, rather than actually doing the conquering themselves.

[bobbin]

The reached that status through a long and bloody civil war you know, it wasn't the case that once Alexander died they just received those kingdoms. Seleukos especially gained his entire empire through conquest and Ptolemy gained all his holdings outside of Epypt this way too.

I should also point out that these men were part of Alexanders armies, they had already conquered the territories from the persians, under his banner.

[Hax]

The reached that status through a long and bloody civil war you know, it wasn't the case that once Alexander died they just received those kingdoms. Seleukos especially gained his entire empire through conquest and Ptolemy gained all his holdings outside of Epypt this way too.

That's right, only after defeating Antigonos I Monophtalmos (meaning "The One Eyed") Seleukos managed to establish his authority in Asia Minor. And then, a couple of years later, they killed Lysimachos, but was murdered himself not too long after (while trying to conquer Thrace, iirc).

[DECEBALVS]

It may be just me but I can't follow you anymore. You want peace in... a war game?

I only want to say that the eternal and "global" war wasn't the best description for Antiquity. All wars and peaces had peak points and we don't see that on the map.The peaces were when the states became too military stable to be conquered: so, even if there is an official war between x and y, there will be no battle [="peace", like Russia and Japan today, without peace agreement after world war 2]. An AI empire cam be made enough little/big if we'll introduce the internal rebellion able to create new factions. These new factions will make the map interesting at any moment.

>>I think the creation of new factions from the aggressive rebels at normal level game can limit the expansion of superpowers. All the rebels might have the chance to conquer another settlement and to have diplomatic rellations. So the map will be stable, we can then create a Pax Romana where the commerce with others will never end to be interesting and where will make war only for peace [a good status quo of politics]. We'll no longer fight to death to become the single faction on the map [because we can be defeated by another unrealistic ultragigaempire]... isn't that?<<

[bobbin]

I only want to say that the eternal and "global" war wasn't the best description for Antiquity. All wars and peaces had peak points and we don't see that on the map.The peaces were when the states became too military stable to be conquered: so, even if there is an official war between x and y, there will be no battle [="peace", like Russia and Japan today, without peace agreement after world war 2]. An AI empire cam be made enough little/big if we'll introduce the internal rebellion able to create new factions. These new factions will make the map interesting at any moment.

That would require using up faction slots of which there is a limited number, we are looking at the possibility of having re-emergent factions though.

Oviously we will be changing the campaign AI to make it less aggressive, although M2TW AI is already a lot less aggressive than RTW's.


That's right, only after defeating Antigonos I Monophtalmos (meaning "The One Eyed") Seleukos managed to establish his authority in Asia Minor. And then, a couple of years later, they killed Lysimachos, but was murdered himself not too long after (while trying to conquer Thrace, iirc).
He also spent about 9 years reconquering the eastern pasts of Alexander's empire after he regained control of Babylon.

[DECEBALVS]

That would require using up faction slots of which there is a limited number, we are looking at the possibility of having re-emergent factions though.

Oviously we will be changing the campaign AI to make it less aggressive, although M2TW AI is already a lot less aggressive than RTW's.


He also spent about 9 years reconquering the eastern pasts of Alexander's empire after he regained control of Babylon.

The return of re-emergent factions is an awesome idea for EBII if it will be done. ;)

[Populus Romanus]

Re emergent factions? Interesting, although that might frustrate the player occasionaly. I presume that this will not be applicable to the player? :laugh4: Will this, if it actually goes through, be used for a select few factions, or all of them?

[B-Wing]

Based on what the team has said, I don't believe they will attempt to implement re-emerging factions. If I understand the mechanics of the game correctly, the only way it is possible to have a faction re-emerge is to designate it as non-destroyable, which I think is applied to the Papacy in vanilla M2TW. I haven't actually played a campaign in which I (or another faction) attempted to eliminate the Papal States, but I've read that even after their last settlement is lost, they will reappear in a few years by requesting land from other Catholic factions. So I don't know if it could even be applied appropriately to a non-Papacy faction.

[DECEBALVS]

Based on what the team has said, I don't believe they will attempt to implement re-emerging factions. If I understand the mechanics of the game correctly, the only way it is possible to have a faction re-emerge is to designate it as non-destroyable, which I think is applied to the Papacy in vanilla M2TW. I haven't actually played a campaign in which I (or another faction) attempted to eliminate the Papal States, but I've read that even after their last settlement is lost, they will reappear in a few years by requesting land from other Catholic factions. So I don't know if it could even be applied appropriately to a non-Papacy faction.

There is nothing to be believed. EBII team said that. And re-emergent factions are as old as Rome - Total War: Barbarian Invasion [they dissapear and appear without being as pope did in MTW].

[Foot]

There is nothing to be believed. EBII team said that. And re-emergent factions are as old as Rome - Total War: Barbarian Invasion [they dissapear and appear without being as pope did in MTW].

You don't know what a re-emergent faction is. Re-emergent factions (except for the Papal Faction in M2TW) have not existed in Total War games since MTW (I don't think they exist in Empire or Napoleon, but they might do).

Foot

[vollorix]

Wasn´t the hording ability required to let a faction become re-emergent? At least that was the case with RTW BI, iirc.

[jirisys]

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.

Yes, it pretty much is. However scripting can sometimes do magic (for instance IIRC I could simply change several lines and when rome reaches the condition for the marians, it can instead vanish, conquer every single saka settlement or even move to Terrazha, trigger an event, etc.).

This is pretty good actually, the romans won't take taras by force or CTD magic if I'm Epeiros, and they themselves won't besiege Pella if I'm Makedonia.
However sometimes this can be awfully annoying. I like that Rome goes historically on their conquest, that Quart-Hadast conquers Hispania and then even goes besieging Rome. It would be so great to actually see the rise of Hasdrubal and Hannibal, the destruction of Korinthos and even the battle of Magnesia.
Now I know very well that this would make severly tedious and complicated scripts, and maybe wouldn't even be possible at all. When I play as KH I want to see that Rome goes and takes Quart-Hadast down in Africa, or that the Sakae go and weaken Baktra before the Yuezhi come and terrorize them. It would be very neat and sometimes extremely appealing.

But what I get is Rome chewing up north the Rhine in 140, the Lusotannan steamrolling Gaul, the carthaginians steamrolling Hispania, the Ptolemaioi eating up arabia, the AS... well, pretty much Arche Seleukeia-izing, Getai all like a central European thug, and Sauromatae as the norther Europe monarchic empire. I can bear that, I go around with my stuff and try to go Role Playing, or just plain eating up what I can. But in the end, I never get to interact on a more deeper level, to see them actually doing what those that they represent this in the day.

Now I do realize this is just a game and all, but it would be far more enjoyable. The fact that an image or a drawing is intangible and frankly not that important in real life, I want it to represent something, for it to mean something and look good.
I know these are engine limitations, and me wanting something that is almost impossible, but this is only my opinion, and possibly an internally contradicting one, these are not suggestions or plans I put in motion.

This are my two cents :2cents:, penny for my thoughts if you will. Even if those thoughts are unimportant, viewed down upon, or simply you did not wish to hear them; but still, I wished to spit it out.

~Jirisys ()

[Megas Methuselah]

(I don't think they exist in Empire or Napoleon, but they might do).

Yeah, they exist in Empire. Pretend you conquer France. If that province becomes rebellious and successfully casts aside your authority, rather than the rebels becoming part of the standard rebel faction, it becomes a re-emergent France. Almost all of the factions in ETW can re-emerge from rebellions in their former-capital provinces, which is one of the few reasons why I love the game.


we are looking at the possibility of having re-emergent factions though.

I hope everything works out, bro.

[Elzeda]

I remember this one AMAZING game i had, as lusitanni, where everyone balanced out everyone else. No superpowers emerged. AND no intervention from me, aside from what lusitanni would usually do. And, that was after a lot of years too.

Seleucia and ptolemies had fought to a standstill. ptolemies had lost the whole syrian coast to seleukids, but kept the whole egypt. however seleucia was crippled, cuz in the east bactrians and pahlavans had divided the kingdom pretty much half/half, as far as just south of the caspian sea i believe. as for asia minor, pontus took it, then lost to KH (who had taken the whole continental Greece, but were at peace with epirus who was confining them to greece), who then lost it to the Lesbo makedonian empire. The hai were warring up north, fighting against sauromatae and their "protectors", the (KH) bosphoran kingdom.
The aedui won the civil war and were quite dominant for a bit, but then they invaded iberia and lost a lot of troops doing that. after that, sweboz had the northeast, romans the southeast and me the southwest, aedui confined in the northwest. Romans had good drives, but always had a major thorn in their side. Carthage was actually winning the war down south. then i attacked carthage, and romans retook the south (and sicilia), but then epiros sent this one army that cut a large swath into roman territories, and i challenged them in Gaul (took the southwest from 'em). they just couldn't catch a break.

Just to say, changes dont have to be drastic. it's already possible to have that awesome game OP was talking about. Just extremely rare. a little tweaking and the new engine hopefully will make it happen more often.

[Tuuvi]

Just to say, changes dont have to be drastic. it's already possible to have that awesome game OP was talking about. Just extremely rare. a little tweaking and the new engine hopefully will make it happen more often.

Yea, I don't think factions are going to emerge as superpowers as quickly as they do in EB 1. For starters, there is going to be 10 new factions, which means AI factions will have more opposition and there won't be as many blank provinces for them to conquer. As many people have already said the diplomatic AI is a little more reasonable and honors alliances more frequently. Also the government buildings have been replaced with the authority buildings, which if I remember correctly are supposed to represent the difficulties of exerting influence over a province, so If I'm interpreting their function right I think we can expect to see more province rebellions than we did in EB 1.

[Ichon]

Hmm... I think factions which emerge are impossible to defeat completely but not sure how you can make re-emergent factions from start.

[WinsingtonIII]

The way some M2TW mods simulate reemerging factions is with the horde ability. When you destroy a faction, they will instead horde and wander off to claim a new homeland/reclaim their old one. It's a feature that works pretty well for nomadic factions, and probably works OK for "barbarian" factions, but it looks really silly to see a "Republic of Venice" horde moving down the Italian peninsula to settle a new Republic of Venice located in Bologna.

[artaxerxes]

I'm generally content with EB as it is, but since we're discussing whether EB superpowers are realistic or not, I would like to agree with the point, that in EB the AI is like - well - a person who keeps being hungry no matter how much he eats. In real life, the Ptollies might dream of taking Syria and parts of Anatolia and Macedonia. But taking both Carthage and India seems very improbable. I know the Roman Empire and Alexanders Empire were that large, but in EB these states happen a little too often. But I've always supposed it was to do with the game engine and therefore a pointless discussion. In real life, even great conquerors would still operate with a "sphere of influence" and not move outside what was possible to govern from their heartland. But in EB, great expansion is easier than in real life + even when it isn't, the AI doesnt' care. That's why Ptollies suddenly turn up in southern Russia. The reason this is annoying is because its unrealistic that a Ptolemaic King would not have shown moderation and even if his forces were large enough to conquer southern Russia, he would have gone to the point, where there were natural borders (fx Armenia) and then stopped there.
Alexander conquered a lot, but what he conquered was mostly Persian, so though a large territory, it was territory that was "used to" being together. The Roam Empire took a long time to make. In EB, the AI never has enough, so it never decides to stop a war, having gotten what it came for. It keeps driving on, whether feasible or not.
But as I said, though i agree with you who argue that this is unrealistic, I still dont think it can be changed, and its a small price for as great a game as EB. So dont know why it's been argued so vehemently as it is here. Cheers ;)

[fomalhaut]

I'm pretty sure there is a mod for that exact issue, where the AI will act in accordance to their victory conditions rather than just haphazardly conquering in a mindless fashion. I find it so weird how long it takes Rome to conquer the Italian Peninsula in my games, yet they always have the coasts west to Iberia. This leaves the very open to Barbarians and they often get crushed by Carthage as Carthage is much more consolidated. I just want to fight Marian Legions! (I have the RS Legion mod)

[B-Wing]

While I think you are right that the AI factions can be given priorities on what regions to conquer, I don't think that it actually limits their direction of expansion. It just determines where they will go for first. Still, could be very useful for certain factions, like Armenia, who really should focus on the lands south of the Caucasus instead of those north.

[QuintusSertorius]

While I think you are right that the AI factions can be given priorities on what regions to conquer, I don't think that it actually limits their direction of expansion. It just determines where they will go for first. Still, could be very useful for certain factions, like Armenia, who really should focus on the lands south of the Caucasus instead of those north.

Left untended (and without the Victory conditions mod; even then they still do), several factions are obsessed with going north: Makedonia, Hayasdan, Baktria and Romani being the worst culprits.

[fomalhaut]

thinking about it, yeah that really is so. As Makedonia i would certainly conquer Helles proper first, yet KH are almost always alive while Makedonia is up north fighting Dacia. so strange. Iberia makes this weird beeline up the northern coast while they let Carthage take coastal Iberia. this is strangely consistent for me in all games

[bobbin]

This is because the AI is programmed to take surrounding rebel settlements before faction held ones.

[antisocialmunky]

Is this true of the MII AI?

[Ca Putt]

isn't it also programmed to go north first(then east, then south...) in general?
and remember vanilla latium is located on gotland which is to the north of most factions which probably also draws some attention.

[bobbin]

I've heard about that but I'm not that convinced, it doesn't apply to M2TW anyway as the "Latium province" isn't there anymore.

[B-Wing]

This is because the AI is programmed to take surrounding rebel settlements before faction held ones.

Is this true of the MII AI?

Yes, from what I've seen, it definitely holds true as long as the faction in question is at peace with all its neighboring factions. Once they are at war, I'm not sure what the priority becomes, but I've definitely seen rebel settlements go seemingly unnoticed by factions who were at war with multiple neighbors.

A common example of a faction in M2TW avoiding war with neutral factions in favor of taking rebel settlements is Scotland sending a fleet to capture Antwerp or Bruges once all the British Isles settlements are occupied by them or England. What one would more logically expect is for Scotland to besiege York.

[Tar-Andukanaro]

Well I'm not really concern with superpowers..they can or can´t happen in game. i try to use huge numbers of spies assessins and diplomats to counter a superpower that´s threatening me directly....getting cities by peace proposals( specially far away cities, small cities) and give them to neighbouring factions as to strength them and balance the superpower.

[aristotlol]

"Aggressive factions are unrealistic"

No they aren't...

Factions are still aggressive. Competition is kind of their raison d'etre.
If you can :daisy: over 2 factions at once then you are really doing good for your faction!

Anyway, I see your point to a certain degree, but the problem is not at all in the mod but rather in the video-games fixed number of faction-slots. To have dynamically changing factions, with newcomers, rump-states and cultural expansion, the whole game would have to be coded a lot different and set in a much different stage-light.

The game is set up so that you can create an empire and directly control its troops and successful Emperors! Yes, it would be cool if it was highly-realistic; but it would also be impossible with the MIITW engine-- and I'd imagine even still impossible with a more modern engine.

but just my 2 mnai, man

[Klemens]

The development team of Stainless Steel nailed what I want in diplomacy with their Savage AI sub-mod. Alliances stick, nations band together against an aggressive force and backstabbing is extremely rare never happening if there is a high risk of failure. I'm sick of seeing factions in Europa Barbarorum hyper-focus on my territories when it would be more beneficial to not be throwing their armies away in annoying mini invasions, instead of expanding in other directions that don't give so much resistance.