My arche seleukeia campaign

[lionhard]

Ok so iv finally got EB running nice again so i can continue with My arche seleukeia campaign, im running EB with BI and i started an AAR just over a year ago .... the reason being because so many fun things were happening .... for example ... when i invaded southern greece to assist my macedonian allies and took sparta from the greeks .... the romans sent 2 fleets with full stacks over to push me back out of greece.... their after we became allies and now both romans and seleukeia are trying to calm down the agression in greece from the epeirotes.....

My aim is to try and portray a possible alternative history in which the arche seleukeia can save enough time and use enough diplomacy to avoid a roman onslaught and buy enough time to take on the roman might.... quite fun :D

I have encountered 1 small problem and that is whilst allied with macedonia they randomly attacked me as they were hanging onto chalkis as their final settlement being harassed by epeiros... I have now got myself back to neutral with mac... but i cannot ask for an alliance with them even though... i have the same allies as them (rome and koinon hellion) and the same enemy (epeiros) so whys this? I am trying to get an alliance rolling so we can fight off common enemies and bring a lasting peace to greece whilst i deal with the east..... and i cant ally with macedonia .... :S

[eo9o]

To mantain your allies close you, you need to give some gifts to them. Your old allies attacked you because you are in their home lands, so if you can't get them close with gifts, they will try to recover their home lands by force.

[lionhard]

Thx for the reply but that wasn't the question, I know how to keep an alliance ;). I simply donnot get the option to ally with macedonia, I need a more experienced EB member to answer the question. You obv don't understand ;)

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

Maybe they (Makedonia) were allied to a faction that were at war with you and were destroyed. Sometimes dead faction's diplomatic relations continue to affect the game. This used to happen to me, back when I joined the force played EB. :book:

Probably not that very helpful, though I hope it was.


:creep:


/E

[lionhard]

That explains it..... Pontus.... It could be them. This shudnt happen :s hmmmm, yet again another problem! Grrr kinda annoying ;(

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

That IS very annoying! Diplomacy engine not understanding that a faction's been killed.

I guess what that means is, to maintain good diplomacy, the Human player should never completely wipe out an AI faction unless absolutely necessary (e.g. to achieve a victory condition.) Make sure every AI faction has at least one city left. At that point, make peace with them (using Force Diplomacy if necessary) and let another AI faction finish them off.

Maybe the human player should take action to help AI factions that are facing total extermination, and prevent it wherever possible by attacking the aggressor. Protect the weak, attack the strong kind of strategy.

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

That IS very annoying! Diplomacy engine not understanding that a faction's been killed.

I guess what that means is, to maintain good diplomacy, the Human player should never completely wipe out an AI faction unless absolutely necessary (e.g. to achieve a victory condition.) Make sure every AI faction has at least one city left. At that point, make peace with them (using Force Diplomacy if necessary) and let another AI faction finish them off.

Maybe the human player should take action to help AI factions that are facing total extermination, and prevent it wherever possible by attacking the aggressor. Protect the weak, attack the strong kind of strategy.

Yeah I agree, that is a viable strategy to counter the retardness of the RTW./BI./ALX. exe. It was a while since last time I played MTW II, but I think this problem exist there as well, i.e. probably the same problem will be in EB II. I do hope I'm wrong though... :/

[lionhard]

(...) this is probaly the most annoying thing iv encountered so far.... im trying to portray things and play a historically accurate campaign...... and cant even ally to my closest faction (in history - macedonia) because i was at war with pontus and they were allied to them ......!!!!! grrrrrrr

[eo9o]

(...) this is probaly the most annoying thing iv encountered so far.... im trying to portray things and play a historically accurate campaign...... and cant even ally to my closest faction (in history - macedonia) because i was at war with pontus and they were allied to them ......!!!!! grrrrrrr

Lionhard,

I started to play RTW-EB many years ago. I'm a expirienced EB player. My dificulty was with the english language. Now I culd understand your question ad the answer too... I thought you were allied with Macedonians and you losted their alliance.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

In EB, an ally of yours will not be impressed by you getting yourself attacked by another faction that is allied with them (your ally) too. Because your ally is allied with both you and your attacker, they will assume that you are weaker than the attacker - and keep their alliance with your attacker, and drop their alliance with you.

Strong factions attack others. Weak factions get attacked by others. That's the mentality behind diplomacy in EB.

Very unlike modern diplomacy, where the attacker is vilified - in EB, the attacker is lauded and praised for being strong and brave enough to attack someone, and the victim is despised for their weakness. No-one wants to be allied with a weakling.

So if you want to keep your allies, then make sure you are the faction doing the attacking. That will impress your allies and keep them loyal to you.

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

True story.

[eo9o]

In EB, an ally of yours will not be impressed by you getting yourself attacked by another faction that is allied with them (your ally) too. Because your ally is allied with both you and your attacker, they will assume that you are weaker than the attacker - and keep their alliance with your attacker, and drop their alliance with you.

Strong factions attack others. Weak factions get attacked by others. That's the mentality behind diplomacy in EB.

Very unlike modern diplomacy, where the attacker is vilified - in EB, the attacker is lauded and praised for being strong and brave enough to attack someone, and the victim is despised for their weakness. No-one wants to be allied with a weakling.

So if you want to keep your allies, then make sure you are the faction doing the attacking. That will impress your allies and keep them loyal to you.

The EB AI think this way??? O my lorde!!!
So, I think it explain my problem... I'm fighting against the ArcheSelukeia during 40 years!!! When i took the Macedonians and KingElenon cities in Turkey's coast they attacked me hard and the Full War was started between us! Up to this time, we are in a Full War, Romans Vs Seleukeia! After many years of greats battles and big loses to both sides, I took all "pontus" (Turkey) and my forces had burned (only burned not conquered) the follow cities: Selekeia, Babilon, Arbela and Atioquia, the ArcheSeleukeia's empire was hit hard and lose many tropas and citizens! I thought they will be pleased to recieve a peace proposal that I'm agree in give them back the cities in east of Syria and some money, but they don't want the peace!!!??? why???

[LusitanianWolf]

The EB AI think this way??? O my lorde!!!
So, I think it explain my problem... I'm fighting against the ArcheSelukeia during 40 years!!! When i took the Macedonians and KingElenon cities in Turkey's coast they attacked me hard and the Full War was started between us! Up to this time, we are in a Full War, Romans Vs Seleukeia! After many years of greats battles and big loses to both sides, I took all "pontus" (Turkey) and my forces had burned (only burned not conquered) the follow cities: Selekeia, Babilon, Arbela and Atioquia, the ArcheSeleukeia's empire was hit hard and lose many tropas and citizens! I thought they will be pleased to recieve a peace proposal that I'm agree in give them back the cities in east of Syria and some money, but they don't want the peace!!!??? why???
Because the RTW AI is like that, completely blind regarding being beaten. It will see you asking for peace as a sign of weakness and press even further.

Use Force Diplomacy (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?136850-Force-Diplomacy) to reach and agreement and if you want to keep peacecreate a buffer state, giving the frontier lands to a far away faction (also with force diplomacy) cause the AI will declare war on you as long as you share borders with them. If you dont do this it will fight to the last breath always confidend of victory even after you crushed all its forces. Hopefully this will not happen in EB2. Another way to make a peace last is giving them some money each turn but again it can be seen as a sign of weakness by the AI and if you share borders its probably only delaying war.

[ayekides]

Force diplomacy is a godsend in this game. I tend to to use it to make buffer states. For instance, in my last Epirus campaign after beating Pontos in the field and nearly taking their last city I used FD to roleplay them as independent cities that were allied to me. For instance I gave the Bosphorus city 'Chersones' (SP?) just outside of Epirus' victory condition to them. I do not make them my vassals though, but I do give myself military access and not vice versa. Also with how rich Greece is, out of kindness I would give ridiculous tributes to Pontos, so that later on in the game certain 'allied cities' had decent merc and regional armies.

After that I find that using forts helps keep allies passive. In that same Epirus campaign I was allied with the Getai for a majority of the game. What kept them in check?
Covering every possible river crossing and mountain pass that I could with a fort. I even had Ak-Ink surrounded by 3.

The Getai remained steadfast allies from early on into about 160 B.C......and lets just say they paid for breaking the 100 year alliance.

Seriously though forts have gone a long way for me. I place them everywhere along frontiers and it helps to deal with how much money you start making mid - late game.

[Ludens]

I used to do the same, but it may be something of an exploit. I suspect that the A.I. is programmed to march its armies at your cities, and when it can't reach a city (due to your fort blocking its path) it gets confused and gives up. It will only attack the fort itself when it has LOS on it. It's nice to have a docile A.I. for a change, but if my hypothesis is right, this will prevent "reasonable" wars as well as pointless ones.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I used to do the same, but it may be something of an exploit. I suspect that the A.I. is programmed to march its armies at your cities, and when it can't reach a city (due to your fort blocking its path) it gets confused and gives up. It will only attack the fort itself when it has LOS on it. It's nice to have a docile A.I. for a change, but if my hypothesis is right, this will prevent "reasonable" wars as well as pointless ones.

Ludens:

What do you mean, the AI will only attack the fort when it has LOS on it? What's 'LOS'?

[Ludens]

Line-of-sight. Basically, the A.I. seems reluctant to target forts, while often making opportunistic attacks on cities. My guess is the A.I. has to see a fort in order to be able to target it. It does not remember the location of forts, unlike cities.

[Arjos]

Yes best places for forts are near borders, where the geography covers sides, otherwise they just get bypassed...
Also if you are fabulously rich and can afford katapeltai, the AI seems to avoid those as a plague :D

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Line-of-sight. Basically, the A.I. seems reluctant to target forts, while often making opportunistic attacks on cities. My guess is the A.I. has to see a fort in order to be able to target it. It does not remember the location of forts, unlike cities.

So, maybe enemy spies and diplomats don't report the location of forts, like they do cities.

But if a fort is on the natural shortest route from an enemy city to one of your cities, and can't be bypassed, and an enemy army marches along that route, it should see the fort, and attack it, right?

Maybe enemy armies that are only 'exploring' your lands because they don't know what's there won't attack your forts, but if they're trying to get to one of your cities and the fort is in the way, they will attack?

This seems about right to me.

[ayekides]

Its honestly hard for me to say how the A.I. reacts to forts. For instance with the Getai, they had Ak-Ink and I had the territory immediatly to the west (Vindobona maybe), I had 3 forts surrounding on the side of the land that belonged to me, but is literally 2-3 tiles away from Ak-Ink. I had other forts like this at various places which would have been immediately visible from Getai cities for large periods of the game.

On the other hand I did remember seeing a few 1-3 unit stacks that wold walk from one blockaded river pass one turn and then around to another one the next and so on, Kinda like they were constantly checking the defences, but possibly just the A.I. constantly forgetting that they exsisted there and unwilling to risk attacking them with a small stack?

Either way I recommend using forts if you play like I do, I usually will not expand past my factions victory condition borders until I have captured them all, only then will I expand farther and by then I'm usually so powerful that I begin to lose interest.

But when the Getai did finally turn on me, they tried to bring the hate. I'm talking 4-5 full stacks of Getai tired of losing to those awesome respawning rebel stacks north of them.

[Ludens]

So, maybe enemy spies and diplomats don't report the location of forts, like they do cities.

But if a fort is on the natural shortest route from an enemy city to one of your cities, and can't be bypassed, and an enemy army marches along that route, it should see the fort, and attack it, right?

Maybe enemy armies that are only 'exploring' your lands because they don't know what's there won't attack your forts, but if they're trying to get to one of your cities and the fort is in the way, they will attack?

This seems about right to me.

What I meant is that the A.I. needs to have direct line-of-sight (i.e. a unit or agent standing near to it) on your fort before it will consider attacking it. Sorry for being unclear. I am pretty sure the A.I. sees the same campaign map as we do; I just think it ignores forts unless it has visibility over them. This is not entirely stupid, since forts disappear when left unoccupied.

I am speculating on how the A.I. uses armies, but I suppose it assembles a task-force with a mission in mind. If this mission is capturing a city, the army will presumably ignore other targets, such as forts. If this is correct (and that's a big if); when a fort blocks the armies path towards the target city, the A.I. will stop, reassess its route, conclude it is too long, and give up. I am pretty sure the A.I. is not so complex that it can decide to destroy the fort as a step on the way to taking a city.

Of course, once the A.I. has given up on reaching the city, it might well decide to have the army attack the fort. But I think the A.I. won't declare war for the sake of attacking a fort. For the sake of capturing a city, yes, but not a fort. And, as I wrote, I don't think the A.I. is complex enough to see taking a fort as a means towards conquering a city.


ETA: I just realised I am contradicting myself here. If the A.I. is unwilling to declare war by attacking a fort, then that would explain why a blocking fort is so effective at preventing attacks. The LOS-explanation is not required, and, going by ayekides' experiences, not sufficient to explain this.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I am speculating on how the A.I. uses armies, but I suppose it assembles a task-force with a mission in mind. If this mission is capturing a city, the army will presumably ignore other targets, such as forts. If this is correct (and that's a big if); when a fort blocks the armies path towards the target city, the A.I. will stop, reassess its route, conclude it is too long, and give up. I am pretty sure the A.I. is not so complex that it can decide to destroy the fort as a step on the way to taking a city.

Of course, once the A.I. has given up on reaching the city, it might well decide to have the army attack the fort. But I think the A.I. won't declare war for the sake of attacking a fort. For the sake of capturing a city, yes, but not a fort. And, as I wrote, I don't think the A.I. is complex enough to see taking a fort as a means towards conquering a city.

ETA: I just realised I am contradicting myself here. If the A.I. is unwilling to declare war by attacking a fort, then that would explain why a blocking fort is so effective at preventing attacks. The LOS-explanation is not required, and, going by ayekides' experiences, not sufficient to explain this.

This makes a lot of sense, Ludens, thanks very much. So forts help deter enemy invasions, that's actually quite historically accurate.