View Full Version : Well done.
Modestus
06-18-2006, 23:58
Back again playing Europa after a long break for sanities sack. Though the game RTW is as daft as a kangaroo I have updated and having a ball playing at medium strategy and hard tactical, keep up the good work looking forward to the future.
Yes, it's as different as night and day, isn't it? You might want to try VH campaign/ M battles next time round - I think EB was designed for that difficulty setting.
True but the problem i have with VH campaign difficulty is the stupidity of naval battles. That and the endless streams of AI stacks comprised of akontistai.
When playing VH/M i have literally had 1 enemy trireme with no experience but just a weapon upgrade, defeat 5 of my triremes all with experience... For this reason i play on hard, at least it gives me a chance in naval battles.
And by god, the enemy armies on VH are endless... Endless stacks with maybe 2 decent units and the rest cheap skirmish units. I can't be doing with it.
When playing VH/M i have literally had 1 enemy trireme with no experience but just a weapon upgrade, defeat 5 of my triremes all with experience... For this reason i play on hard, at least it gives me a chance in naval battles.
That was a problem with 1.0, but I think they stopped VH campaign affecting naval battles by 1.2. I've not noticed it as a problem with EB and RTR Gold, and I've played them a fair bit.
The main problem I have with VH campaigns in EB is that the large stacks can lead to depopulated AI settlements.
Cheexsta
06-19-2006, 09:45
I think the EBBS had an "AI re-population" section in it, where cities that train troops get population re-added to them. However, I think the numbers were designed for Large unit scale, so it wouldn't be as effective for Huge unit scale users.
I may have also imagined it ~;p
AngryAngelDD
06-19-2006, 10:11
Indeed...as i play always on Huge Scale...most of Ai settlements are on the lowest level of population (<500), especially when they are near the frontiers or when the ai-faction has a longtime war to fight.
it would be nice, if this system of re-adding population would be adjusted for huge scale.
another annoying thing due to the low population is, that if i capture these settlements, they got a awesome boost in pop-growing-rate (6-9% / turn !).
i think this is caused by the partially advanced infrastructure of a once big city, which population is now depleted.
the population grows faster than i can build my factions buildings to keep them calm.
I play on large and still had a problem of depopulation. I remember the EB team saying they were going to work on a re-populating script as a result of feedback on the beta, but I was not aware that it was implemented in the present version.
The_Mark
06-19-2006, 11:15
Yes, it has a pop replenishment script, which accounts for different unit sizes, but as some units are quite a lot larger than others (e.g. phalanxes). Building those larger units still causes depopulation, and as the AI can build several of them per turn, it leads to depopulated cities. Replenishment is IIRC 200 men per inf unit, so a 240 phalanx will cause depopulation. On the contrary, a smaller 160 men unit will actually cause a population increase... We'll probably lift the replenishment to 240 in the next build and see if it doesn't cause long-term mishaps like excessive overcrowding of AI cities. With phalanx factions, it probably won't, but with others...
I assume it wouldn't be possible to adjust it on a faction to faction basis? So maybe phalanx-heavy factions can have the 240 limit while others have less. Then again, aren't there supposed to be fewer armies anyway, what with the higher costs and all?
The_Mark
06-19-2006, 13:53
Yeah, that's possible, and the same thought occurred to me while posting that..
I assume it wouldn't be possible to adjust it on a faction to faction basis? So maybe phalanx-heavy factions can have the 240 limit while others have less. Then again, aren't there supposed to be fewer armies anyway, what with the higher costs and all?
That's always been a problem with every mod... You aren't supposed to have to wade through stack after stack of enemy troops to conquer them... Instead of having to fight 40 armies with 1 or 2 good units in them and the rest cheap akontistai, i'd rather fight 2 or 3 really good armies that give me a real challenge.
In this period in history, the way war usually worked was; 2 people would go to war, there would be a period of building up and preperation... There would be a huge battle, and whoever lost would surrender land and sue for peace... You didn't have to lay siege to every single city the enemy had... Most of them surrendered once the main battle had been lost...
Unless of course you were fighting against Rome, they had stack after stack to throw at you.
the_handsome_viking
06-23-2006, 07:34
Back again playing Europa after a long break for sanities sack. Though the game RTW is as daft as a kangaroo I have updated and having a ball playing at medium strategy and hard tactical, keep up the good work looking forward to the future.
I'm a Kangaroo and I find that statement to be racist.
AntiochusIII
06-23-2006, 13:10
In this period in history, the way war usually worked was; 2 people would go to war, there would be a period of building up and preperation... There would be a huge battle, and whoever lost would surrender land and sue for peace... You didn't have to lay siege to every single city the enemy had... Most of them surrendered once the main battle had been lost...
Unless of course you were fighting against Rome, they had stack after stack to throw at you.Actually, it was quite a little more brutal than that, not to mention more complex. But the historians of old did not find the one hundredth skirmish at the twentieth village by captain Unknownicus as important to write about.
Of course, once a major battle broke up the loser often get so trounced that, should his kingdom be centralized enough, or enough manpower, enough stake, had been put into that battle, the loser got royally screwed.
I suspect the Seleucid army after Magnesia was quite perfectly capable of fighting on and might even turn the tide back against the Romans if we count off the psychological effects. And I'm sure the experienced EB historians can do an excellent job on narrating on prior conflicts and engagements between Antiochus and the Romans. Indeed, if such a defeat is inflicted upon a more decentralized political force they would resist for much longer since "The King's Prestige (and the possibilities of his vassals screwing him up once he lost it)" is at stake at such battles.
And I'm sure that after Ipsus, or whatever that battle was, the victorious alliance had to fight the remnants of the Antigonids in "unimportant engagements" for quite a long while even if we did not count the actual surviving Antigonid princes: Demetrius and his son that is.
But hey, EB is awesome; isn't this what the thread about? My only gripe is that I suck at the game so the EB difficulty-enhancers screw me up. But a little tingering with the scripts and I've personalized it with all the benefits and not the "faults." (My fault, that is ~;) )
Avicenna
06-23-2006, 18:04
I'm a Kangaroo and I find that statement to be racist.
Specie-ist, even? ~;)
Reverend Joe
06-25-2006, 22:32
I'm a Kangaroo and I find that statement to be racist.
I think you mean Familist.... or is it Orderist? Hang on...
King
Phillip
Came
Over
For
Gay
Sex
Yeah, Familist.
the_handsome_viking
06-26-2006, 03:46
I think you mean Familist.... or is it Orderist? Hang on...
King
Phillip
Came
Over
For
Gay
Sex
Yeah, Familist.
My name is Philip and I am a King and I find that statement to be racist.
Ragabash
06-26-2006, 04:46
My name is Philip and I am a King and I find that statement to be racist.
Kangaroo king named Phillip. :charge: :spider:
Reverend Joe
06-26-2006, 05:06
My name is Philip and I am a King and I find that statement to be racist.
:laugh4: What, you a homophobe?
You kings named phillip... you're all such homophobes.
Divinus Arma
06-26-2006, 09:14
Europa Barbarorum has been specifically designed by our team to be played at Medium/Medium.
I cannot tell you the hours that have been spent trying to refine the stats. These guys have really been working their coccyxes off.
Is M/M for 1.5? I thought the recommended game play was as VH/M?
Is M/M for 1.5? I thought the recommended game play was as VH/M?
VH/M As far as I can remember.
VH/M it is, since the rebels attack your cities and the ai is more aggressive.
Trithemius
06-26-2006, 15:26
:laugh4: What, you a homophobe?
You kings named phillip... you're all such homophobes.
As a homophobe I find that statement King Phillipist. Wait... :dizzy2:
Trithemius
06-26-2006, 15:27
VH/M As far as I can remember.
FAQ says:
Q: Which is the recommend difficult setting for Europa Barbarorum?
A: Europa Barbarorum is best played on Very Hard / Medium.
The AI is Aggressive (in particular the slave faction) but didn’t get stat bonuses on the Battlefield.
If you want a real challenge try vh/vh but be aware enemy units on the battlefield are getting massive bonuses (afaik: +7 attack, +7 defence, and a huge morale boost), it could happen that your fullstack army is hacked to pieces by 5 units Gesetae..
Kralizec
06-26-2006, 15:34
Personally, I think that it would be a good idea for EB or any mod to apply game challenging bonuses on the medium setting (primarily money to the AI, but I don't doubt there are others)
Essentially the "medium" setting would be modified to make the game "very hard".
The reason is that playing a game on hard or very hard campaign settings will affect autocalc battle results enormously. I think CA made a huge mistake here, it forces you to manually command even trivial battles because autocalc would result in disaster, while autocalc should IMO be a tool to avoid having to play those. And in the case of naval battles you just don't have a choice. I'm normally against retraining of veteran units but I make an exception for ships to balance things out.
Personally, I think that it would be a good idea for EB or any mod to apply game challenging bonuses on the medium setting (primarily money to the AI, but I don't doubt there are others)
Essentially the "medium" setting would be modified to make the game "very hard".
The problem here is not that the EB A.I. bonuses aren't awarded at M (they are), it is hard-coded A.I. aggresion. At M the A.I., particularly of the rebels, is far too passive. I don't like the skewed auto-calc either, but I'd rather have an aggresive A.I.
I tend to play H/M, I like the aggressive rebels, but the quantity of them just becomes a huge pain, especially when your empire is stretched out instead of in a small area like in Italy.
Trithemius
06-27-2006, 07:55
I tend to play H/M, I like the aggressive rebels, but the quantity of them just becomes a huge pain, especially when your empire is stretched out instead of in a small area like in Italy.
Ah, the perils of hegemonic aspirations!
Reverend Joe
06-27-2006, 18:35
I play M/E. Because I suxx0rz.
Anyway, I honestly am not an extremely dedicated gamer (though I am a dedicated Beta tester.) I just feel like having some fun, and occasionally building an empire out of nothing; I don't want to expend enormous amounts of time and effort on it. I have better things to spend that on; like my writing, and reading, and other things in the real world that are none of your damn business.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.