View Full Version : Islands aren't worth it any more
PureFodder
12-19-2006, 11:39
Before the patch taking Islands was a grand plan, the computer never seemed interested in them so you could happily take any island you want, leave a tiny garrison in it and know it was relatively secure, reap the financial gains.
Post patch, the computer seems very determined to launch naval assaults backed up by full stack armies on island provinces. Possibly even more so than across it's land borders. This results in each island province requiring a full army just to hold onto it which costs way more than the revenue from the province.....
The only remote solution I've found it to stick minimum garrisons in them and spend as little money developing them as possible. When the inevitable armies decend upon you give the island to his popefulness.
Anyone else find this problem?
Yossarian
12-19-2006, 11:48
I wouldn't characterise it as a "problem", it only makes the game more challenging, which is always good in my book. Though I have to say I haven't experienced big naval invasions yet. I've only faced smaller armies which have been relatively easy to deal with. But should Iraklion fall to a grand invasion I wouldn't whine about it, I'd just take it back!
This results in each island province requiring a full army just to hold onto it which costs way more than the revenue from the province.....
The only remote solution I've found it to stick minimum garrisons in them and spend as little money developing them as possible. When the inevitable armies decend upon you give the island to his popefulness.
Anyone else find this problem?
well...you should prevent enemy's fleets reaching your islands in the first place. That's how they were always protected, not by maning them with uber armies
If my history isn't too shabby, I do remember a bunch of normans storming an island and calling it home.
I do also recall a turkish invasion of another island that uprooted a crusading order's home base. I think that the numbers for the invasion were well past the thousands.
Seems like there is some historical precedence for massive island invasions.
De Montfort
12-19-2006, 12:13
The Normans of Sicily and Crusader bases in Cyprus, Rhodes and other islands in the med. Their strategic importance was huge.
I'm surprised someone thinks seaborne invasions are a problem... they were painfully absent in the full release pre patch.
Lord Magus
12-19-2006, 12:13
It's completely logical that someone will send his entire army to conquer an island that is worth nothing, right?
This is good news!
I mean, you still can have naval superiority, of course AI might get off an invasion in one turn (move army to port, move ship to island, land) but you can still take troops to the island yourself to deal with the opposition if you do it fast (before assault).
For example, if you have northwest italy provinces you can respond to the island (the 2 islands that are one turn away from the coast) assaults by moving in your coastal troops.
To me it makes sense that it is costly to defend the island unless you have support close by that you can send in.
Also, I suspect that by using a lot of peasants you can make the garrison look big and maybe avoid some assaults alltogether. This is because AI tends to attack settlements that have small garrisons. On islands the AI rarely would have spies so it does not see what kind of troops you have, only the amount.
PureFodder
12-19-2006, 12:15
But that requires a huge and expensive fleet, plus islands like Sardinia and Corsica are close enough to land that you can make boats, load them up and ditch the soldiers on the island in one go....
Maybe I didn't quite explain this right;
It looks a whole lot like the computer sees islands as sharing a border with them, so they'll attack happily. A land province the same distance away that is attached to the same land mass the computer doesn't see as sharing a border so it won't attack. The computer doesn't sail an army along the coast of the mainland to assault a province further down. For Example as the English the Danes will happily sail armies to attack London and Nottingham, but they won't go after Caen.
Islands now seem to act as provinces that shares vast numbers or borders, hence making them a pain to defend and inciting more wars than you can throw a Javalin at.
It's good that islands aren't the safe havens they once were, but the change highlights another issue and that is the AI's IMHO thoughtless aggression. I liked the safe islands because they gave me the chance to focus on development in order to have more fun and varied armies later on. Now, regardless of where you start, regardless of what diplomatic measures you take, regardless how many times you absolutely slaughter the enemy, the AI factions just keep coming. It's not challenging, because they send crappy, ill-prepared armies with little to no backup, and it's tedious because you're forced to fight countless of bland battles with the same boring basic units. I want real wars, I want the AI to be able to make a semi-mongol invasion with several stacks of quality troops. I don't want to sigh when I hear of transgression, I want to shudder with fear as the enemy closes on my border provinces. The closest I can come to that now is to play muslim, take the Levant and wait for the crusader stacks.
Fixing the island thing was good. Now it's time to fix diplomacy and make the AI think twice and stop its random and futile attacks.
I take it as a positive change. It was just too easy to have islands as untouchable thresholds of weath. And defending them is more fun anyway, basically all you need, is one solid army on an island and one fortress which is upgraded military and well enough defended for enemy not to get it.
In other towns just keep the military upgrade as low as possible and whenever enemy is getting to it before your army can reach it, give a hell of a fight inflict as much casualties as possible (defended by the walls you can do quite a lot of damage to the attackers with mere peasent archers and some spear militia) and just take it back with your army. The conquerors won't have a chance to bolster their ranks with new soldiers cause the cities just won't have that ability.
hm... BIG army coming to... island... hm... got it! Protect with a navy! :idea2:
Before the patch taking Islands was a grand plan, the computer never seemed interested in them so you could happily take any island you want, leave a tiny garrison in it and know it was relatively secure, reap the financial gains.
Post patch, the computer seems very determined to launch naval assaults backed up by full stack armies on island provinces. Possibly even more so than across it's land borders. This results in each island province requiring a full army just to hold onto it which costs way more than the revenue from the province.....
The only remote solution I've found it to stick minimum garrisons in them and spend as little money developing them as possible. When the inevitable armies decend upon you give the island to his popefulness.
Anyone else find this problem?
I have'nt found it a problem.
I sink the enemy amphibious assualts before they land. It may be a good idea to build up a navy, if you have'nt done so already. My naval bases are islands.
Iraklion controls the Central and Western Mediterranean. Rhodes controls the Eastern Mediterannean. I bring fleets back to these two ports to refit. Sunk a lot of enemy troops, so much so that amphibious assaults have ceased completely.
John Johnston
12-19-2006, 13:12
To be fair, with every faction having a "conquer half the known world" objective, constant attacks are kinda necessary right through the game. The difference is that when the computer attacks the player with even odds, it will usually lose, and when the player attacks the computer, ze will usually win. The computer is only trying to do in the campaign what the player does. With the troops that the computer fields against me, I'd win most of the battles against my own troops, if the computer was controlling my troops and I was controlling the computer's.
Thinking about it, we might be able to get a rough idea of how much better the player is in a couple of ways:
Firstly we could fight a (large) series of test battles, with the player alternately taking either side, and see what proportion the player won with each side.
Secondly we could fight a series of battles, giving the computer progressively more and more and more troops, up until the point that the player won roughly half of all the battles fought.
If I find myself with a lot of time on my hands I'll give it a go for kicks...
(I'm sure a more sensible style of play from both players and computer would be had if the game used a "Glorious Achievements" style objective instead of the nonsense "conquer the world!" ones, and if control penalties for remote cities were greatly increased over their present level, preventing factions from becoming overlarge. But hey-ho, I guess a Europe where every ruler is the bastard child of Genghis Khan and Lucrezia Borgia will do... :dizzy2: )
That's a pretty good idea, except for the fact that many players (myself included) prefer to fight with certain types of armies and would probably get slaughtered with the ones the computer fields simply because we don't like using them.
I know i'd have no chance in mp/custom battles because all my armies are heavy in either cavalry, infantry or missile (and usually both the former and the latter) and the AI always picks balanced armies.
you dont need a full stack to defend a settlement - a 2/3 stack will usually be ewasily enough to defend against a full stack. plus most isalnds are reachable from mainland settlements within a turn. the ai usually lays seige for at least a turn.
seneschal.the
12-19-2006, 14:05
Patch 1.0: "AI doesnt do naval invasions, ever! You only need troops in a settlement to keep minimal order on islands!"
Patch 1.1: "AI does naval invasions! He gathers up a stack and lands it on my island so I have to have a huge stack to defend it, making it useless!"
Checking my post history should reveal I am far from a CA fanboy (far, faaar) but let's have a reality check here: This is a good thing.
I am much more annoyed with the buggy war/ceasefire triggers. AI declares war, asks for ceasefire 2 turns later. A fwe turns later he declares war again, with the same stack at the same city. Asks for ceasefire. In 30 turns I had 6 wars/ceasefires with the sicilians as venice, 1.1.
The AI should hopefully take in account the defenses on the island and your naval strength in the area when doing naval invasions. Otherwise it is broken. ("here, sail here with your full stack! I only have 20 Lanternas waiting for your 3 Dhows!")
PureFodder
12-19-2006, 15:38
Patch 1.0: "AI doesnt do naval invasions, ever! You only need troops in a settlement to keep minimal order on islands!"
Patch 1.1: "AI does naval invasions! He gathers up a stack and lands it on my island so I have to have a huge stack to defend it, making it useless!"
Checking my post history should reveal I am far from a CA fanboy (far, faaar) but let's have a reality check here: This is a good thing.
I am much more annoyed with the buggy war/ceasefire triggers. AI declares war, asks for ceasefire 2 turns later. A fwe turns later he declares war again, with the same stack at the same city. Asks for ceasefire. In 30 turns I had 6 wars/ceasefires with the sicilians as venice, 1.1.
The AI should hopefully take in account the defenses on the island and your naval strength in the area when doing naval invasions. Otherwise it is broken. ("here, sail here with your full stack! I only have 20 Lanternas waiting for your 3 Dhows!")
My problem isn't so much that the computer attacks islands per se, it's more that it attacks them with no regard for almost anything. It doesn't care what the settlement is worth, doesn't care what's defending it and doesn't care that there are closer, poorly defended, more developed provinces to attack. The computer will throw army after army at corsica, but Sicilly technically has a land route to get there so the computer won't land troops there.
On a more possitive but still stupid note, the computer will happily empty it's entire city of all but one unit to do amphibious assaults leaving themselves stupidly open to counter attacks. It acts like there's a land border between islands and the mainland.
Islands have gone from by far the safest place to be to by far the worst place to be.
If things are working right, islands ought to behave like any other province in terms of the AIs interest in them. If they are on an "active border" and lightly defended you ought to be inviting an invasion. If they are securely within the borders of your empire, a light garrison ought to suffice.
The art would lie in determining which provinces the AI considers "on the border" with an island.
TheSeated
12-19-2006, 15:46
An isolated province, secluded from the rest of your empire should be hard to keep. If you want profit expand your borders not your colonies.
I'd have to disagree with the OP on the value of the island. It is obvious that the player felt that the island was worth while taking in the first place. Just as obvious is that they think the island is worth defending even with a full stack. Therefore, the AI is being very smart to take the island from the player. This is a good thing, a very good thing.
No matter how you slice it, if you the player are there, then there is a good reason for the AI to be there. Its the exact same justification you used when you took the island plus the fact that its denying you a territory. If the island isn't worth anything then simply take the opportunity to improve your relations with the invading AI by giving him the islanf. You've lost nothing (you said it was worthless) but gained favor!
Sorry, naval invasion are good imho.
PureFodder
12-19-2006, 16:26
I'd have to disagree with the OP on the value of the island. It is obvious that the player felt that the island was worth while taking in the first place. Just as obvious is that they think the island is worth defending even with a full stack. Therefore, the AI is being very smart to take the island from the player. This is a good thing, a very good thing.
No matter how you slice it, if you the player are there, then there is a good reason for the AI to be there. Its the exact same justification you used when you took the island plus the fact that its denying you a territory. If the island isn't worth anything then simply take the opportunity to improve your relations with the invading AI by giving him the islanf. You've lost nothing (you said it was worthless) but gained favor!
Sorry, naval invasion are good imho.
They weren't worth getting, they weren't worth defending and they weren't worth attacking. If the computer had even the slightest bit of sense it would have bypassed Corsica and gone for Sardinia which had worse defences and was worth more. I think the computer should attack islands, just not like this.
If you want to take Milan, simply take Adjaccio with a half stack, wait for Milan to attack the island, now pop your entire defence force on a boat and grab Milan as it now only has one unit defending it sack it, sell all the buildings and pile into some boats and leave.
This isn't how the computer should do naval assaults.
Sorry, naval invasion are good imho.
They are, but some have maintained that the AI invades willy-nilly and almost as randomly as he will blockade an ally's port. This is true, to some extent, but no more than the AI would do stupid things on land. In my current Scottish campaign, the Danes are bound and determined to destroy our friendship by launching naval invasions (usually, they land a stack or two and just sit there, waiting), and after I crush them (on land, or, more often, at sea) they get all excited when I offer ceasefire. This is silly behaviour, and something ought to be done. But when the English invade the Isles from the mainland the AI seems very wise and the English make a good go of it. It keeps the campaign fun. Yes, there is some sillyness, but overall the patch was a great improvement.
Sorry if this post seemed to ramble...
PureFodder
12-19-2006, 17:07
Once you've abandoned an island as I've said above to go sack their main base, give the island to the pope. You gain a massive increase in standings and the faction that attacked the island (in my case Milan) looses relations for having an army on the Popes lawn and (wait for it) decides to continue their attack!?:wall: :wall: :oops: . Insta-excommunication and I get a free reign to go blitz the remaining poorly defended Milaneese settlements.....
Sicily doing a mass naval assault on Tripol? Yes I would like Fortress in Palmero with a single millitia unit guarding it, thankyou.
Ok now I've changed my mind, I love the fact that the AI now sticks armies on boats as it's as exploitable as anything I've seen on this game.
Thing is, attacking their undefended city (because they have a full stack attacking your island) really doesn't have anything to do with naval invasions. Fact is, even ignoring the islands, the AI doesn't currently defend their cities. And as far as exploiting that AI by giving the pope a city, you can do the exact same thing sans island. All that isn't related to naval invasions.
Now if you're complaining about the AI not defending their cities, then yes that is a problem. If your are complaining about AI starting wars when it really shouldn't be picking a fight, then yes thats a problem. But both those problems exists with or without naval invasions.
They weren't worth getting, they weren't worth defending and they weren't worth attacking.
Not worth getting? Not worth defending? It takes some building up, but Corsica, Sardinia and Rhodes make decent money in my experience. Rhodes isn't the economic powerhouse it was in RTW, but it still makes 1500+ a turn, and I've had both Corsica and Sardinia making 3-4K a turn. Now, the AI may be excessive in its newfound naval invasion strategy, but the fact that they didn't do it at all before was wrong. I'd routinely take the rebel islands, knowing that A) I had all the time in the world to seize them because the computer would not, and B) once I had them they were save naval bastions that I'd only have to maintain enough garrison to keep up public order. Now, if I have to work to keep them, I like that idea better. Maybe I won't be as quick to take them, and especially when I don't have another nearby province where I can launch relief forces if it gets invaded.
nameless
12-19-2006, 17:38
As the Sicilians, I found those islands to be very very wealthy because their sitting in the center of everyone so there's a huge potential for trading.
So basically I conquered all of them and established them as trading hubs and each island raked in a minimum of at least 2000-3000 dollars a turn.
So I don't see why the AI wouldn't try to take these islands because there's so much trading potential to have from them. As someone noted in the Sicilian Guide, you need fleets because your spread out all over the place on islands. Now that the AI lands fleets, your going to have to more fleets to "guard" those islands and maintain a decent sized garrison which really isn't a big deal. Cities aren't too difficult to defend if you know how and militia units are free upkeep and work well if used properly.
Besides, these other problems with the AI leaving nothing in their garrison and such is another story. Though I do recall Lusted's mod fixing that, forcing the computer to use only full stacks and defend their cities much more. Especially with the modification of the objectives the AI will defend their homelands much more effectively from what I've seen.
PureFodder
12-19-2006, 17:54
Thing is, attacking their undefended city (because they have a full stack attacking your island) really doesn't have anything to do with naval invasions. Fact is, even ignoring the islands, the AI doesn't currently defend their cities. And as far as exploiting that AI by giving the pope a city, you can do the exact same thing sans island. All that isn't related to naval invasions.
Now if you're complaining about the AI not defending their cities, then yes that is a problem. If your are complaining about AI starting wars when it really shouldn't be picking a fight, then yes thats a problem. But both those problems exists with or without naval invasions.
The reason that this is specific to naval invasion is the attacking army on land battles will stop you from passing them on your way to where they came from so swapping provinces isn't nearly as easy, in the sea they don't do that. A superior naval force loaded with troops won't take the time to demolish your pityful navy. I guess it amplifies the problem with the AI not defending it's rear cities as they're easier to get to. Also if you let the computer take the settlement on the continent, afterwards they can carry on to your poorly defended rear settlements. Once the computer takes the island it's fairly well stuck there.
By the way, I Sacked Genoa, killed Milans Heir who was one the three units there (the other two were Ballistas), sold evey building there, retreated to Marseille then sold the city to the Pope for a further 6k and got my rating with the Pope up to outstanding, not bad for an Islamic faction. Total gain about 30k, plus Milan now have no way to reinforce Ajaccio and look like taking Calgari off the Papal states, so I can waltz back in and retake both islands.
All this over 2 islands, one with a Motte and baily castle and one with a wooden castle.
Lol in my campaign (as the french, yet again), I saw the spanish eating up moor territory and crusading like devils, so they had an insane approval rating with the pope. That was until they attacked me and got themselves excommunicated. Then I watched a huge papal fleet cross the mediterranea and the pope himself started kicking some spaniard ass! Golden.
I think CA had originally nerfed the sea invasions, for fear of what would happen if they were let loose. It's like a big ugly pandora's box that they opened with this patch. Now anything can happen, anywhere....
Llluve it! :egypt:
Bob the Insane
12-19-2006, 18:43
It came as a rude shock to me when the AI full or half stacks turned up on my islands but I can't say I can complain about it... The more the the better... And if I occasionally get kicked off and Island, well it makes taking it back all the more satisfying...
You want to try RTR Platinum ed with the BI executable... Full stacks of Carthage's troops landing next to Rome!!
I don't know if this was taken into account for anyone here, but an island has much more use than just the florins per turn that it rakes in. Islands are nice little strongholds for controlling certain parts of the sea, or are even platforms for major invasions of certain territories (I'd personally want to snatch up the islands outside of Antioch if I was going to take my crusades seriously).
Zenicetus
12-19-2006, 21:49
Any province with a port is valuable to me for the potential income in sea trade. They start out crappy, but they can make a lot of money in the long run. A few have decent resources too, like that silver deposit on Cagliari.
As mentioned above, if you have a strong navy then they're easier to hold onto. I never plan for an expansion strategy that involves working in the central Med area, without a navy to back it up.
Fisherking
12-19-2006, 21:49
ROFLMAO Well Enemy factions invading in my latest "1st post patch" is no problem at all. The pirates own the seas! I counted 6 fleets lined up to take their turn blockaiding my ports! I can't build anything to confront them either. I tried a little end run from Portegal to Bordoux. Twice attacked and defeated by pirates just form one province away. It may just be this campaign or just Portugal or who knows but unless I win the lato I won't have a navy any time soon to challenge them...and I know there are more lurking about in the English channel. The med may not be as infested YET:dizzy2:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.