More than a weak tendency?

[Eminos]

Hi.

The year is 233 B.C. and I'm seriously thinking that maybe I should quit this one too. I'm playing as Sabyn for the second time in a row v. 0.81 H/M difficulty. The reason for these second thoughts is that the "story" from my first try seems to repeat itself. The Seleukids are all over the place, and no one can stop them. Of course two campaigns, and not played to the end, is not enough to draw an conclusions with at least some relevance. Therefore I've got two questions:

1) Am I the only one experiencing a weak Ptolemaic empire? (and a Seleukid empire that seems to have some kind of jet engine put into their economy, that wasn't there in v 0.80)

2) Is there any hope that some historic event after 233 B.C. will turn things around? I know that 241 B.C. didn't do the trick as it used to in 0.80, at least not in the two campaigns I've tried so far. The Baktrians are now more concerned about their more powerful neighbours. I really think thats great, because I agreed with those who thought that the Baktrians were a bit overpowered in v. 0.80.

I realize that at least one "line" in this post is unnecessary, a bit provocative, but hey its boring if we always must keep our spontaneity "in the closet". Apologies to the EB-team, just got to let of some steam, (frustrated I blame it on the fact that I'm a swede who is longing for https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/misc/cool.gif i.e. sunny and hot weather, but all we can do outside at present time is some of these https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/misc/snowman.gif(trying to sqeeze in some smileys as you can see). If I were a member of the EB-team I think I would go like this https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/gc/gc-wall.gif after reading this post. Those players out there simply are impossible to satisfy ;-). At the same time, hopefully, we're at least contributing by testing the mod and noticing small things and sometimes serious "issues". As I said earlier this post may be nothing, since the statistics is very bad. Two campaigns is nothing.
The fantastic EB-mod is getting better and better, but one of the hardest things to get right/optimal (whatever that may be, and I'm not the one to tell since I'm not a professional historian) is game balance. I guess that some factions really should have a hard time if you don't put in quite modest winning conditions. Now I'm beginning to slip of topic so I better stop.

[Zaknafien]

Ive played three campaigns in .81 up to circa 220 BCE or later, and have two balanced out Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires in both. I am very pleased with AI expansion in .81 right now.

Youre not playing on the recommended difficulty settings, for one thing which may affect your outcomes.

[Eminos]

OK, I was aware of that the difficulty settings wasn't the recommended ones. I will try switching to VH/M to see if it makes any difference. I doubt it. What faction did you play? I've got this bad feeling that as long as you are far away the AI balancing is better. I will test that. My guess is that there will be no problem with the balance between the Ptolemaic and Selekid empire if I play as Lusotania (wrong spelling?) e.g. or another faction far away from them. Once again not scientific at all, just a feeling based on earlier campaigns in v.0.80.

[Eminos]

What I would think be interesting to know is if someone has played as Sabyn on the right difficulty settings, and if they experienced nice balance between the two supposed giants "in the hood", Ptolies and Seleukids.

[Foot]

OK, I was aware of that the difficulty settings wasn't the recommended ones. I will try switching to VH/M to see if it makes any difference. I doubt it. What faction did you play? I've got this bad feeling that as long as you are far away the AI balancing is better. I will test that. My guess is that there will be no problem with the balance between the Ptolemaic and Selekid empire if I play as Lusotania (wrong spelling?) e.g. or another faction far away from them. Once again not scientific at all, just a feeling based on earlier campaigns in v.0.80.

You have quite literally answered your own question. Of course the game is going to be different if the player is acting in the area. Firstly the AI will zoom after the player as soon as it possibly can. Secondly, a few of the Ptolemaioi's provinces rebel to Saba control, which the player can utilise to a far better degree than the AI can. Ptolemaioi is the only faction at the beginning of the game that has any chance to subdue the Seleucid machine, and I imagine having a strong Saba doesn't aid them there.

Foot

[Dumbass]

I have also noticed a weak ptolemaioi when playing as the maks; the seleucids just steam rolled them and Pontos (R.I.P). If it wasn't for my invasion of asia minor, huge money boosts to ptolemaioi, huge money decreases from seleucids and settlements bribed from seleucids and given to ptolemaioi, I'm pretty sure they'd be dead. They're still in quite a bad situation right now. I think a way to balance this would be to make the small factions on the edge of the seleucid empire stronger, creating more resistance.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I just want to tell that my AI behaves much better in my .81 Makedonian campaign than in my .80 Roman campaign. It's 257 BC now and...

- Sweboz, Lusotannan, Getai, Pontos, Hayasdan don't just sit around, but managed to conquer at least one province (Heruskolandam & Sucum-Murgi), or even two or three (Getai with Scorcouw and Pannonia, Pontos with Galatia and another one, Hay expanded northwards mostly). The four were completely immobile in .80

- Aedui and Arverni behaving well as they did in .80, but now also going for Massalia

- Carthage didn't conquer as much as in .80, only two desert hinterland provinces

- Rome has serious problems now. They conquered Region and the Aemilia, but since I drove Epeiros into the sea, they lost both Capua and even Roma to them!

I can go and cheat a bit and look up for the rest if anyone is interested.

[Dooz]

Playing as the Romans, with no interference in Ptolly-Seleuko affairs, I've seen the same thing. AS is totally dominant, and the Ptollies are all but kicked out from that whole area north of the arabian peninsula, only 2-3 cities left and doesn't look like they'll be holding up.

[Zaknafien]

Here's a screen from my latest 81 campaign.

This shot is 212 BCE

https://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/Alhazenalrashid/Picture1-10.jpg

[Tellos Athenaios]

From my point of view: it's just a matter of tossing a coin really. In all my campaigns in which I was not the Seleukids (they're one of my favourites, together with KH) they ended up being eaten in the east by Parthians... At the moment I'm taking a different aproach playing as AS then I normally do. Instead of going on the "wipe out the Yellow" Egypt journey, I decided to make peace with all Diadochi enemies immediately and kill of all of the Eleutheroi I would be able to. Since then the Ptolemies have yet to conquer their first bit, but then again I'm only by 268 B.C. :juggle:

Currently the nasty Ptolemies keep trying to bribe Pergamon unsuccesfully from me. And they've allied with Pahlava, plus made peace with anyone else... so I'm in for a two front war I believe. I love it! :2thumbsup:

EDIT: Stupid fool I am, of course the Seleukids are way stronger than the Ptolemies are. Someone else, I believe it was Bozos, mentioned in another thread that each faction gets 1.2 K for each settlement under it's control a turn + an additional amount in the first few turns. So it's not that surprising really if others see the Seleukids beating the crap out of everyone nearby, or at least the Ptolemies.

[Sdragon]

AS are true monsters. They killed Pontus, are busy thrash the Ptolemies, took the lands around Armenia so they are nearly surrounded. Bashing the Arabians and Indians. Me taking all of Asia minor hasn't slowed them down one bit. I'm smashing a half stack every turn.

[kevinus]

Youre not playing on the recommended difficulty settings, for one thing which may affect your outcomes.

What are the recommended settings?

Thanks

K

[Krusader]

In 0.8 and before it was the Ptolemaioi who were the steamrollers. However I think the reason they might be "worse" now is that the recruitment zone for Kleruchoi Agema (their elite phalanxes) was reduced from a whopping 32 provinces to 4.

I do think though, that perhaps making the factions around AS more hostile to them might work.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Yup - the steamroller faction switched from the Ptollies to the Seleukids.

https://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8408/dieweltimjahre257vchryf0.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

The Casse are finally moving.~;)

[Tellos Athenaios]

I do think though, that perhaps making the factions around AS more hostile to them might work.

Nah, I don't think so. Parthians are now much more inclined to rebel, and that doesn't really stop AS from steamrollering on. Deviding the government cash differently might work though.

[Tellos Athenaios]

What are the recommended settings?

Thanks

K

Campaign VH
Battle M
The reason the battle part is recommended to be played on M is that neither you nor the AI receives any unfair bonuses.

[Eminos]

You have quite literally answered your own question. Of course the game is going to be different if the player is acting in the area. Firstly the AI will zoom after the player as soon as it possibly can. Secondly, a few of the Ptolemaioi's provinces rebel to Saba control, which the player can utilise to a far better degree than the AI can. Ptolemaioi is the only faction at the beginning of the game that has any chance to subdue the Seleucid machine, and I imagine having a strong Saba doesn't aid them there.

Foot


First of all I would like to thank everybody for the response. I'm glad I didn't make a total fool out of myself, since the post wasn't written in a calm mood. Secondly I find the above answer quite interesting, since I've never realized that my style of playing is dead wrong. I've always hoped that it would be possible, playing as a small faction, to "sniff around" grabbing opportunities while the "big guys" are busy killing each other. I definitely experienced that the human player seemed to be number one on their "list of hate" but I wasn't sure. Definitely time for a change in strategy. Another thing I want to say is that I don't think that Saba under my leadership, given the style I've used, can be something negative for the Ptolemaioi compared to a AI controlled Saba. I've often given the rebellious province straight back to them and allied with them, even given them some money.
Finally, I just notice that the answer to my main question need some more statistics. There are some support for "the weak tendency" but also the opposite. I started a new campaign with the recommended difficulty settings. It's too early to say anything about that really, but this time it seems to have started off a little bit better for the Ptolemaioi. One thing that may save us, i.e. me and the Ptolemaioi, is that the Baktrians declared war upon the Seleucids during my last turn for today. Hopefully the Seleucids will get a little bit busy in the far east.

[Gazius]

I usually see the two forces balance out pretty well, sometimes the seleukids get a good push, but the ptolemy eventually spring up again to fight back, usually after the AS gets stabbed in the back.

[Empty]

Campaign VH
Battle M
The reason the battle part is recommended to be played on M is that neither you nor the AI receives any unfair bonuses.
Could You please be more exact? What exactly bonuses? You see, I have always conceitedly considered myself to be a veteran of RTW-based games, besides I managed to fulfill my campaign objectives in 0.8 playing on VH/VH. So when 0.81 came out I presumptuously started a new campain for Qart Hadasht on VH/VH without any hesitation. At first everything was nice. I conquered several rebel provinces in Iberia, defeated the Lusots, subdued Sicilia. During all that time I had constant severe financial crisis but I hoped to overcome it by conquering rich Italic cities. So I invaded Italia and, OH NO!!!! Was crushed by the romans!!!:sweatdrop: :embarassed: That samnite heavy butchers just slaughtered my elephants... Now I'm having problems... But I've gone too far to quit everything and start from the beginning. So what are the bonuses? Is it morale, stamina, or else. I need to know. Perhaps I'll be able to take some counter measures next battle.

[Kugutsu]

I believe it is plus 7 attack and defence and morale
Basically it turns everything into elites... and elites into immortal monsters...

[Geoffrey S]

The only thing I'd really like to see with regards to the Seleucids (but it's an issue with all factions in the region, really) is to make the Arabian interior unconquerable. I really dislike seeing one big blot in the centre of the peninsula, and besides it'd force other factions to approach Saba along the coasts, which would be more realistic than marching across the deserts.

[CaesarAugustus]

In my campaign as the Romans so far neither the Seleukids or the Ptolemies seem to have a big advantage. Better yet, Baktria doesn't seem to be steamrolling the "Far" East. I'd say that the Succescor factions are much more balanced from a gameplay point of view than they were in v. 08.

@ Geoffrey S: If the Arabian Interior was made unconquerable, you would see a big Rebel blot in the center of the peninsula, which in my opinion is much more vexing than any faction owning it.

[Zaknafien]

well in reality no one could control the wastes of Arabia. Bedouin tribes are the only ones who dwell there, and have no masters.

[Mamba]

AS are true monsters. They killed Pontus, are busy thrash the Ptolemies, took the lands around Armenia so they are nearly surrounded. Bashing the Arabians and Indians. Me taking all of Asia minor hasn't slowed them down one bit. I'm smashing a half stack every turn.

Same deal in my Sweboz campaign, except I'm not actually fighting them.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The only thing I'd really like to see with regards to the Seleucids (but it's an issue with all factions in the region, really) is to make the Arabian interior unconquerable. I really dislike seeing one big blot in the centre of the peninsula, and besides it'd force other factions to approach Saba along the coasts, which would be more realistic than marching across the deserts.
Second.
https://img55.imageshack.us/img55/3481/scruffy2ze1.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

[Lord Gruffles]

I'm playing as Saba right now ( VH/M circa 240bc) and, while the Seleukids did start off strong, the Ptolemia have made a come back. Granted, that could be due to the fact that every time the Seleukids send an army into the desert I anhilate them. :whip:

[Geoffrey S]

@ Geoffrey S: If the Arabian Interior was made unconquerable, you would see a big Rebel blot in the center of the peninsula, which in my opinion is much more vexing than any faction owning it.
Vexing, but far more realistic.

[The Errant]

The Arabia province is dirt poor with virtually no population. If you build mines it can actually turn a hefty profit but it will never be a big recruitment ground.

As the Saba, if you control Dumatha either through conquest or rebellion there is a very high risk the AS will come south looking for a fight. The only time this does not happen is when you leave Dumatha to the AS. Even then it's only a matter of time.

The single biggest reason they're able to steamroll everyone else is the "money per held settlement script" that gives them an overwhelming advantage against practically every other faction in the game.

In the early game the Sabyn can afford to keep maybe half a stack of mediocre troops. That stack has to take the surrounding Eleutheroi settlements, who often have both a town garrison along with a roving "field army". There is no way the Sabyn can stand against recurring stacks sent down by the AS. It's not the armies themselves. It's the sheer number of them (5 stacks against 1).

The only way to keep the AS in line is to reduce the amount of money given per turn to an AI faction in the script. (Assuming the AI had half a brain to manage an economy with) :furious3:

There might be another way to solve the weak Saba problem though. Mines are still the single most profitable recourse around. It the Saba started with a more developed settlement (with mines and farming upgrades) they might have the cash to stand against the endless hordes of Seleucid phalanxes.

[Dooz]

Wonder if it's possible to keep the money per settlement script, but for AS only make it less money than the rest of the factions. Or if that can't be done, add an extra script to the AS that subtracts some amount of money, on top of what it gets because of the first script...... Who knows?

[Geoffrey S]

I tend to use a lot of spies to keep the Seleucids tied up elsewhere, which allows me to handle the odd stack sent down south. I'm also allied to the Ptolemies, who at the moment have the Seleucids held down in Judea. It's an interesting campaign, using a lot of tricks I never needed before.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Wonder if it's possible to keep the money per settlement script, but for AS only make it less money than the rest of the factions. Or if that can't be done, add an extra script to the AS that subtracts some amount of money, on top of what it gets because of the first script...... Who knows?
Each faction has its own money script so they can be varied depending on the faction. In 080 I changed it so that AS received half as much and Baktria received a tenth as much. I also quintupled the rebel money, they remained bankrupt though.

My suggestion (I stated elsewhere), would be to give a set amount of money to a faction (say 20,000 to 50,000) and then remove 1,000 per settlement owned. It would probably unbalance everything though...

[Germaan]

Wonder if it's possible to keep the money per settlement script, but for AS only make it less money than the rest of the factions. Or if that can't be done, add an extra script to the AS that subtracts some amount of money, on top of what it gets because of the first script...... Who knows?

:book:

Is there anyone who knows how to change the script for the money on settlements bonus's? I am a very great fan of EB but i would like to play the game a little easier. I do not like to fight battle after battle every turn and having to beat a enemy who gets an army after an army every turn.:no:


I am sorry, this is a stupid question and is not helping the mod. Maybe i was a little frustrated and it is more suitable if i say that for me the game becomes harder to play.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

In my Parthian campaign the year is 220 BC and the Seleucids only have Asia Minor left. The Ptolies basically have what they had at the start of the game so that is all as it should be I think except for Jerusalem. They are fighting the Arabs in Sudan.

The problem is that both the Sarmatians and the Saka have done almost nothing since the start of the game (the Sarmatians have conquered Maotis). The same goes for the Getai, Swebos and Lusitanians. Rebel armies near their starting provinces are so strong they cannot be beaten by the AI at this point.

It's really a pitty the Saka don't attack Iran from the north. In 0.74 the nomads constantly attacked my Parthian empire from the north. This really created a strategically interesting problem since I had to fight a war on two fronts.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

:book:

Is there anyone who knows how to change the script for the money on settlements bonus's? I am a very great fan of EB but i would like to play the game a little easier. I do not like to fight battle after battle every turn and having to beat a enemy who gets an army after an army every turn.:no:
Go to ...\Rome - Total War\EB\Data\scripts\show_me\EBBS_SCRIPT.txt and look for "Section 4b". There will be a section that has all of the factions (internal names listed), one at a time. Find the "romans_julii"(the internal name for AS) entry:


monitor_event SettlementTurnStart FactionType romans_julii
and not FactionIsLocal

console_command add_money romans_julii, 1200

end_monitor
Change the "1200" to the amount that you want them to get per settlement (*1* maybe :smash:).

[Germaan]

I know it was stupid off me :oops:
Like i said probably frustration.

[Eminos]

Go to ...\Rome - Total War\EB\Data\scripts\show_me\EBBS_SCRIPT.txt and look for "Section 4b". There will be a section that has all of the factions (internal names listed), one at a time. Find the "romans_julii"(the internal name for AS) entry:


monitor_event SettlementTurnStart FactionType romans_julii
and not FactionIsLocal

console_command add_money romans_julii, 1200

end_monitor
Change the "1200" to the amount that you want them to get per settlement (*1* maybe :smash:).


Thank you. I will alter the script immediately. The new campaign on VH/M made no difference, even though its only 252 B.C. and some of you tells me that the Ptolies will eventually bounce back, I simply can't stand watching this. It's ridiculous. I looked at their settlements and summed up their income. The Ptolies has 13 provinces which at the moment gives them -6451 mnai in total income (without those cheats). The Seleukids has 29 provinces and that gives them -7406 mnai. The economy graph shows a flat line at zero for the Ptolies (and it seems to have reached a constant state over time), while the corresponding graph for the Seleukids shows a linear curve which at the moment has reached about 50000 mnai. That's not plausible and just gets me irritated. I know from earlier games that that the latter curve has a tendency to oscillate, looking like a classical "sawtooth", if you just are patient enough to wait. Well, I'm not this time. Either the Ptolies has to get stronger, or I will reduce that bonus for number of settlements. I simply had it when the Seleukids started to bribe both me and the Ptolies. Another recent post, by Abou, showed that the Seleukids even got the cash to give away money to the human player, 6586 mnai to the Romani 249 B.C. In my opinion they don't need that much cheating from the scripts. It would feel better if the Seleukids had some provinces that gave them legitimate money instead. I think the Ptolies need some too. Well, the last statements may be bogus since I haven't been patient enough to see if v.0.81 will turn their "negative economies" into profitable ones, going plus instead of minus each turn.

[Foot]

Every faction gets that bonus, all Ai factions get a bonus dependent on the number of cities they have. If the seleucids get one over on the Ptolemaioi's then it will become more difficult for the ptolemaioi's to bounce back, but not impossible.

Edit: Also, as to abou's example it was the Romans (AI) giving Arche Seleukeia (Player) money, not the other way around.

Foot

[Yun Dog]

Im playing as the ptolomaic at the moment Vh/h - hurt me plenty

The Selukids are hammering me - every penny gets carefully weighed before its spent - mostly my money goes on reinforcements for Antioch and Damascus which are virtually constantly under seige by large stacks of elites, after each battle my garrison and field armys are usually decimated

I must admit when the seleks return a turn later with another stack of mercs - I thought - where are they getting the money

I mustve obliterated 100s of thousands of elite troops and still they come :furious3:

I managed to snaek attack antioch and take that and damascus which seriously mustve dented their elite production - now at least they have to come from farther away - this was a move I had to make or it wouldve been a matter of time till they ground me to dust.

I am allied with the Saba who for a little while were holding the selukids at Palmyra but have since lost it

This has goto be one of the toughest, most challenging, rewarding , frustrating and fun games of RTW I have ever played

I am loving some of the touches added in the latest patch, I just fought the Numidians for the upper nilos

there is so much to discover playing this mod

awe inspiring boys - cheers to you

[Thaatu]

Im playing as the ptolomaic at the moment Vh/h - hurt me plenty
Hard battle difficulty? Good luck, see you in afterlife.

[Dooz]

Oh that's great that it's customizable by faction. As long as the team keeps an eye on it, it can be tweeked and perfected. Very cool. Of course, I'm sure we'll see user made changes as well, which are often pretty great.

[Eminos]

Every faction gets that bonus, all Ai factions get a bonus dependent on the number of cities they have. If the seleucids get one over on the Ptolemaioi's then it will become more difficult for the ptolemaioi's to bounce back, but not impossible.

Edit: Also, as to abou's example it was the Romans (AI) giving Arche Seleukeia (Player) money, not the other way around.

Foot

Sorry about that. My mistake and really clumsy. I guess I was blinded by frustration and couldn't even read properly. Anyway, reducing that city bonus gave the result I wanted. Now its really tough between the two giants in my region, (AS and Ptolies), and the map as a whole is a beauty I think. Exceptions are Arverni, (that once again was no match for the Aedui), and the Sauromatae and Saka. The latter two are just moving around making no progress. The battle of Europe is a real drama. Romani are fully occupied with the Aedui which controls almost all of modern day France. Romani are powerful but now also got problems in the south with Karthadast invading from Sicily, plus war with the Epirotes in Illyria. The mighty Germans are in control of northern Europe and has reached as far east as Gawjam Bastarnoz (probably bad spelling). KH and the Macedonians has been really entertaining to watch. Impossible to tell which will come out as the winner. It looked as a repetition of earlier 0.81 tests (i.e. KH takes control of all of Greece) but the Macedonians refuses to give in and is slowly gaining power. There is more to tell but overall I really like it.

The problem is that the reduction of the city bonus just for AS isn't fair either. I know that. I think the best solution would be a mathematical expression for the city bonus, where factions that start off with many provinces get less money per province, something like:

C = 1200(1 - n/50) or maybe C = 1200(1 - (n/50)^2)

where C is citybonus and n number of provinces. The latter looks better I think when I study it on the calculator. Perhaps this is impossible, haven't looked close enough on how the script works.

[Foot]

The problem is that the reduction of the city bonus just for AS isn't fair either. I know that. I think the best solution would be a mathematical expression for the city bonus, where factions that start off with many provinces get less money per province, something like:

C = 1200(1 - n/50) or maybe C = 1200(1 - (n/50)^2)

where C is citybonus and n number of provinces. The latter looks better I think when I study it on the calculator. Perhaps this is impossible, haven't looked close enough on how the script works.

No thats not impossible, because we don't need to use the equation, we just plug the numbers in directly, depending on what the infomation is at the start. But I don't think our scripters will be looking at that anytime soon, they've got far more important work at the moment. Most probably we'll come back to this kind of stuff after 1.0, when we have got the main stuff into the build, and can start messing around with the specifics.

Foot

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I just had an idea that I'm going to try and test out. Adding a cut off point for the money script. A requirement for the script being 10(-15) or less settlements are need for the script to give them money. This way big empires won't get tons of money, but when they start to collapse, they won't necissarily be in a unavoidable downward spiral.

[Dooz]

That sounds good Marcus. Keep us updated, might just be what's needed.

[Eminos]

No thats not impossible, because we don't need to use the equation, we just plug the numbers in directly, depending on what the infomation is at the start. But I don't think our scripters will be looking at that anytime soon, they've got far more important work at the moment. Most probably we'll come back to this kind of stuff after 1.0, when we have got the main stuff into the build, and can start messing around with the specifics.

Foot

OK, but I don't think I understand. The point with the equation was that it's supposed to be dynamic. Just to plug in the number of provinces from start sounds like a constant citybonus per province to me. My idea was to calculate sort of a "weight factor" each turn which will give the A.I. close to 1200 mnai per province if the number of provinces are few, and then less and less money per province if the number of provinces is increasing.
Enough of this. I understand that it's not the number one priority for a while. I just hope the idea, and other ideas e.g. "cut off point" (MarcusAureliusAntoninus idea) will not be forgotten when the time comes for these sort of "fine tuning" issues.

Just a last comment about my little VH/M test with Sabyn.
I have turned off FOW since its so nice to watch what's happening out there. It's no longer a real campaign, it's more a test to see the effects of the altered background script. I can definitely say that I didn't destroy the Seleukids by lowering their citybonus. They are still number one, but have a hard time with both Ptolies and Baktrians. For a while I thought that I had destroyed them by weakening their economy. They bounced back and are "on a rise" for the moment (proper english?). The Baktrian empire looks nice. It's far from the "blue giant" I saw quite often in 0.80 yet. And if they eventually reach that state it will not have been as fast and easy as I often saw in 0.80.

[LordCurlyton]

Actually, would it be possible to make it so that the smaller am AI faction is, the more they get as a bonus per settlement? That way, the small AI factions could be kept from sinking and given a decent chance to expand whereas if they get to empire stage (or start there in AS and Ptolie's case) they get significantly less per since they *should* have a more robust economy built up by then that could better handle the rigors of war (not that I believe the AI would have built up its econ decently, but its a chance)? That way you won't have the "endless supply of large amounts of Mnai" problem? I know with mine its just silly for the Sweboz. They blitzed their relatively weak Eleutheroi settlements around them and as it stands are pullin so much cash that they vastly outdistance even the mighty AS in terms of Mnai. I believe its almost 1.1 million Mnai for the Sweboz (proud owners of 22 territories) to roughly 300-400k Mnai for the AS (next closest financially and proud owner of a whole shedload of territories). On the plus side the Gallic cities I've conquered have generally had pretty decent economy build ups, so maybe the AI isn't completely wack...

[Dooz]

i was thinking of something similar LordC, but there is a problem with that. It'll just make it so that a faction that's down to it's last settlement will have as much a chance of success as a huge empire. At that point, it doesn't seem fair. There has to be some downside to being widdled down to a single-town nation. Now for factions that start with only 1 or 2 settlements, their starting mnai could be set a lot higher than the rest to compensate and let them get a fair start. It's only unfair it it's at the end. But I think this way, even if the player starts with that faction, he'll get a lot of starting money, which isn't great. But I'm sure there are ways around that, scripts or something.

Man, this is complicated stuff.... or at least it can be if you ramble on like this. I don't even know if what I just wrote it totall coherent... I might be a little :trytofly:

In the end, my trust is in the EB team to make things great, and if that fails the fans or semi-devs will come through.

[Lysandros]

In 0.8 and before it was the Ptolemaioi who were the steamrollers. However I think the reason they might be "worse" now is that the recruitment zone for Kleruchoi Agema (their elite phalanxes) was reduced from a whopping 32 provinces to 4.


That is exactly the same I think, too. In my opinion, this reduction was too radical as it does not only affect the recruitment of the Klerouchoi Agema but other units as well.

[LordCurlyton]

i was thinking of something similar LordC, but there is a problem with that. It'll just make it so that a faction that's down to it's last settlement will have as much a chance of success as a huge empire. At that point, it doesn't seem fair. There has to be some downside to being widdled down to a single-town nation. Now for factions that start with only 1 or 2 settlements, their starting mnai could be set a lot higher than the rest to compensate and let them get a fair start. It's only unfair it it's at the end. But I think this way, even if the player starts with that faction, he'll get a lot of starting money, which isn't great. But I'm sure there are ways around that, scripts or something.

Man, this is complicated stuff.... or at least it can be if you ramble on like this. I don't even know if what I just wrote it totall coherent... I might be a little :trytofly:

In the end, my trust is in the EB team to make things great, and if that fails the fans or semi-devs will come through.
Well what I was thinking is that you have a max/min range that you give the AI, not just an ever incresing scale as you got smaller. For example, I saw it mentioned that some factions get 1200 per territory whereas others get less (sometimes significantly so). Why not just make 1200 per territory the max you can get and have that be for factions ranging fro, say, 1-5 territories in size. Then drop it to 1000 or 900 per until 10 or so. And so on, until you get to the min for "empire" sized factions. Say 200-300 per territory (or less if necessary) for factions in excess of 25 or 30 territories. You COULD describe how much they get territory by territory (1200 for 1, 1150 for 2, 1100 for 3, 1060 for 4, 1020 for 5, and so on) until you just get a flat rate for the empire sized factions, but that just seems to me to be devilishly complex and/or more work for less reward. The idea would be that it helps keep the small AIs afloat in the early when they generally have smller armies but if they get mid-to large-sized with bigger armies (relatively) and then get smacked down to only a few territories they are most likely going to go bankrupt if they haven't already. So perhaps finding a way to make the lesser amounts as it gets bigger remain permanent (ie AI gets big, is getting only small amount per turn per territory then is smacked down and STAYS at small amount per territory) could be seen as a fitting "punishment" for a faction. This would mean, though, that if the AS or Ptolies took a nosedive early they might have a hard time recovering. Unless you could make the permanency aspect faction-specific, which might let the Ptolies and AS hang around much better if they suffer a quick initial hit.

[LordCurlyton]

I just had an idea that I'm going to try and test out. Adding a cut off point for the money script. A requirement for the script being 10(-15) or less settlements are need for the script to give them money. This way big empires won't get tons of money, but when they start to collapse, they won't necissarily be in a unavoidable downward spiral.
Or that....sounds like a more elegant idea than the convoluted stuff I was spouting. :shame:

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I just got around to testing my idea (I've been busy and haven't been able to play EB). I got an end turn CTD so I had to stop. Talk about irony, I think it was caused by the Seleucids being unable to hold a territory due to the lack of funds.

[Fondor_Yards]

In my Carthage campain, at 247 bc or so, the Seleucids have taken all Ptolemaic cities *save cyprus, and the greeks took Side first* up to and including Egypt. They have take down to Diospolis-Megale. I'm surpised the Ptolemaics held them back that long thou, since about 258-264 BC the Seleucids have had all of the coast and Memphis. They were really lucky, they have like 3 heroic victory markers from failed Seleucids seiges of Alexandria, and 1 or 2 others in the general area. But I guess it was just too little too late.

But I think they might surive down in Nubia. Baktria finally woke up, which will proably save their ass. Not only does Baktria have the Saka, Parthians, and Sarmatians as protectorates, it pinned the Saka and the Parthians up the the top right corner lol. They have taken about 3-4 seleucid towns within the past few years too. Add that to them almost at Susa now and there being zero seleucid armies or major garrisons+shit load of baktrian full stacks=one saved ptolematic ass. Of course I'm rooting for the Baktrians, because the Seleucids are getting dangerously close to boardering Lepki, which means close to war. Since I'm about to invade the Iberian heartlands and finishing off the roman scum I don't need that now.

[Gask]

Was something altered with the casse also? I cant seem to produce any elite units. Its 225 bc. I own germany, gaul, all of italy and am expanding in all directions. All I can seem to recruit in my home territories are slingers, levy spearmen, shortswordsmen, those spear throwers with the funky pants :laugh4: and chariots. All of my homeland territories are very well developed and are running out of things to build in some.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

This is of topic from the beginning of this thread, but because this is where is was started and I didn't want to start a new thread... I set the script to only give money to factions with 1-10 territories. Those with 0,11+ don't get anything (except the first few years separate assistance everyone gets). The only factions that apply are the Ptolemaioi and Arche Seleukia (plus Carthage once they take one town). (I had to add my old 080 fix because of rebellions.)

I'm briton, btw. I thought I'd be someone who wouldn't add extra variables to the test.
170BC:https://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2210/test170sg9.jpg
Little has happened.
160BC:https://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4152/test160zs7.jpg
Without money bonuses, and with the loss of the Syrian coast, Arche Seleukia collapses. Parthia, as per history, takes advantage of the Seleucid weakness and grabs territory:
https://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7653/testextra1gg5.jpg
It's nice to see Seleucia collapse, and the Ptolemaioi are completely dependant on their control of the eastern Mediterranean for money. Though there is a downside: it seems to completely stall everyone over 10 settlements. I'll see if I can test another couple decades tommorrow.

[The Errant]

I mentioned this earlier on this thread, but I'd like to make a suggestion how to (possibly) improve the situation, for those weak factions bordering the AS.

Since the AS gets a cash bonus to bolster their economy the weak factions surrounding them should have more developed starting settlements, with more economic buildings like Mines and Mining Centers and higher levels of factional MICs.

This should allow them to make a profit from turn one without disbanding most of their armies. Also having better grade troops then the early Seleucids or Ptolies ought to balance out the fact that they can't field the same amount of troops as their larger neighbors.

The only other option is to either reduce the subsidies of the AI or start paying the same cash bonus to the human player. Somehow I don't quite see the latter happening.

And as MarcusAureliusAntonius pointed out. Trying to balance the cash bonus given to the larger AI factions can cause them to stagnate, since the AI isn't very adept at economics.

[Numahr]

Eminos64,

May I ask you, what value have you entered as the new per city bonus for the AS? If it gives balanced results to you, I may use it as well...

Thx,

Numahr

[Eminos]

I'm back to the forum after some testing. I must say that I couldn't imagine this thread growing so much. Maybe its because the topic has broadened a bit.

Numahr, I think the overreacting and angry Eminos put just 400 instead of 1200 for the Seleukids, and 1200 for everybody else. After I've got the idea with a more dynamic citybunus and after reading a little about how to write scripts I'm now running a test with sort of a "step function" with a cut off at 24 provinces, i.e factions reaching over 24 provinces will not get a citybonus. The "reward" per city drop off the more provinces a faction owns. I couldn't figure out how to add mathematical expressions to the script and get a smooth curve, but this is Ok, it's just a matter of many but short intervals if I really want to get a certain type of curve for the citybonus. A bit of an irony that LordCurlyton suggested exactly what I'm currently testing. I saw his post after I had altered my script. Since I'm a real novice at writing scripts for this game (didn't think I would ever do these sort of things again, did it for another game a looooong time ago) I'm not really sure that the script is doing exactly what I think it does. Therefore I've decided to append the altered lines for one faction (risking a real big lough from people who CAN do these scripting things). I know it's doing something since I removed the "not FactionIsLocal" condition in my first test, i.e. I gave me as a human player the bonus just to see if anything happened. In my test it looks the same for the other 19 factions, but that's something that I can play around with in future tests. I kept the citybonus for the slave faction, i.e. 2200 mnai and not affected by the number of settlements under their control. Ok here is an extract from the beginning of my little test section in the EBBS_SCRIPT.txt file:

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;Eminos64 testsection
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;Arverni

monitor_event SettlementTurnStart FactionType scythia
and not FactionIsLocal
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia < 4

console_command add_money scythia, 1200

end_monitor


monitor_event SettlementTurnStart FactionType scythia
and not FactionIsLocal
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia < 9
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia > 3

console_command add_money scythia, 1000

end_monitor



monitor_event SettlementTurnStart FactionType scythia
and not FactionIsLocal
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia < 16
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia > 8

console_command add_money scythia, 800

end_monitor




monitor_event SettlementTurnStart FactionType scythia
and not FactionIsLocal
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia < 25
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia > 15

console_command add_money scythia, 500

end_monitor

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the test looks really nice (it's 240 B.C. now) and the map is a beauty with incredibly interesting war zones. Romani holds back aggression from Karthadast, Epeiros, Sweboz and Aedui. Didn't think they could handle all four, but so far they can. The Seleukids are strong, but not as strong as before the change etc etc ... It's a matter of taste but I certainly like it. The sad part are those nomad factions that are quite inactive. Baktria has pinned the Saka and Parthians by a protectorate, which seems to have happened somewhere else too, (saw it in another thread). The same goes for Sauromatae that are under protectorate from Hayasdan. By the way I've never seen this shape of the Baktrian empire before, it's really looong in the vertical direction, but they are not so interested in those provinces in India. The AS thus has a hard time with war in both ends but they have no problem defending themselves so far. I'm playing as Sabyn, (should have chosen Casse as MarcusAureliusAntoninus did) so I don't interfere so much. Well I don't anyway, I'm just sitting in my corner developing infrastructure etc, defending myself occasionally.

I promise you, I will never come back writing any sort of "criticism", (even though I don't see it that way, nothing is so good that it can't be improved and thats the reason for open beta, right), if it turns out that the altered part of the script is doing nothing, or something completely different from what they are supposed to do. Maybe what I thought were an improvement caused by the change of the script was just "bogus".
Would be nice to know if the above lines in the script are "correct".

[Numahr]

Eminos,

Thx for the very complete answer. This looks very promising. I will implement this code in my own Carthaginian campaign, just started, and I will tell you about the results.

(BTW, don't excuse yourself for making constructive remarks! i am sure the EB team appreciates it, especially since you don't just suggest and stay iddle... :) )

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Here is another ten years of my test:
https://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3439/test150vo4.jpg
Parthia would be doing better if Saka and their super generals (100+ guys, 6-9 ceverons of experience) weren't beating them. Baktria is taking over some of Seleucids collapse. Good news is that this didn't completely cripple the big nations, it worked a lot like I wanted it to. Seleucia has dedicated itself to fighting Ptolemai, even retaking Antioch. They are also attacking asia minor. I think I'm done with this test, sitting around in Briton waiting for money is quite boring, plus there are better ideas than this here...

I like Eminos64's ideas, though. I have one thought on it though. Having the cut off point of 25 settlements is ok for the big guys and up and commers, but since there is a different script for each faction, maybe have each group have different range. Topping out the current and historically future big guys at 25, the rest of the civilized factions at 15/20, and the barbarians at 10/15. (All with the decreasing funds along the way.) That way groups that would have more difficulty administering large groups would have that difficulty represented by decreased funds sooner.

[Germaan]

Just find out that AS is not always the biggest growing nation on EB this is Ptotelemaioi on the move. Maybe it's more to do witth the biggest nations. Shows again fine tweaking is not so easy. Who nows with the wright guy to lead it is normal ?

https://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7116/0011dx6.th.jpg (https://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0011dx6.jpg)

I am playing as the Romans This is the rest of the map.


https://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6940/0013kp1.th.jpg (https://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0013kp1.jpg)

[Eminos]

Ok, back to more tests with the original background script. I just have to get some grip on how often the Ptolies manage to do what Germaan just showed, even though it's quite tedious and boring sitting on those islands as Casse just testing. As I mentioned before I had two straight campaigns with unstoppable Seleucids. Here are three more tests, and finally I got one where the Ptolies are doing great (test2 below). I will continue with more tests, but from what I've seen so far there are a few similarities between the campaigns. Ptolies too weak in four out of five, Macedon were doing Ok in one out of five against the Epeiros/KH alliance. Arverni did Ok in the last test, but usually they seem to be far less powerful than the Aedui.



https://img340.imageshack.us/img340/6548/ebtest1jpug8.th.jpg (https://img340.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ebtest1jpug8.jpg)

https://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7715/ebtest2jpps6.th.jpg (https://img91.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ebtest2jpps6.jpg)


https://img158.imageshack.us/img158/5952/ebtest3jpxs8.th.jpg (https://img158.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ebtest3jpxs8.jpg)

Maybe I will use the results, when I have done at least ten test campaigns, to adjust the "step functions", i.e. individual step functions for each faction as MarcusAureliusAntoninus suggested. Btw, thanks for the positive response Marcus and Numahr.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Nice thourough test there. It looks like the money still needs to be turned down though. Not much deminishing expansion for the large empires. Good to see you doing so much testing though. I tested for a couple decades and got bored. I hope you can find some sort of balance in your dynamic money injections. Do share your future finds. I, for one am interested.

[QwertyMIDX]

The Ptols seem to be doing well in two of those 3 campaigns, in the 3rd they routed the SE, and in the first they're holding their own pretty well and seem to be kicking some ass towards the later years there.

[Eminos]

The Ptols seem to be doing well in two of those 3 campaigns, in the 3rd they routed the SE, and in the first they're holding their own pretty well and seem to be kicking some ass towards the later years there.

Hi. Well these pictures don't tell the full story. It was only in the second test that the Ptolies were doing great, almost too well. In test 1 they were definitely going down, even though it seems as they are expanding a little on these pictures. Ok, they had a chance in this one to bounce back thanks to the Baktrians in the other end of the AS empire. That I can't tell, but the AS were mighty and the overall impression was that the Baktrian expansion was soon to be stopped. Well maybe not since the AI is quite stupid when it comes to determining priorities. In test 3 it is quite obvious that the Ptolies will be eliminated soon, taking the map and graphs into account. In this test I saw some hope once again in the form of Baktrians, but this time they were stopped quite early. On top of that, as I said, I had two campaigns before these that were the reason for me even starting to think of a "balance problem". In those two it looked as in test 3. The Ptolies sucked.



Nice thourough test there. It looks like the money still needs to be turned down though. Not much deminishing expansion for the large empires. Good to see you doing so much testing though. I tested for a couple decades and got bored. I hope you can find some sort of balance in your dynamic money injections. Do share your future finds. I, for one am interested.

I'll have to stress that all these tests were done with the original background script, i.e. with 1200 Mnai for every settlement every turn (no step function). I felt that I had to go back and get some more weight behind the "feeling" that AS will crush the Ptolies maybe 8 to 10 times out of ten if you use the standard script. In my test campaign with the "step function approach" I can give you the example below. I don't know yet if it will work as I wanted it to if I do another test and another and ...., but I think it looks promising so far. Then comes the tedious work of fine tuning a suitable step function for every faction, or maybe a little less elaborate, every faction group as you suggested.

https://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6528/ebteststepfcnbm4.th.jpg (https://img180.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ebteststepfcnbm4.jpg)

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

https://img340.imageshack.us/img340/6548/ebtest1jpug8.th.jpg (https://img340.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ebtest1jpug8.jpg)

https://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7715/ebtest2jpps6.th.jpg (https://img91.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ebtest2jpps6.jpg)


https://img158.imageshack.us/img158/5952/ebtest3jpxs8.th.jpg (https://img158.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ebtest3jpxs8.jpg)


What is far more concerning than the steamroller attitudes of AS are these of Epeiros. The Maks are in all three cases complete under-achievers. What I also hate is that the Hay are always going for northern Russia and the Romans first to Poland. The Ptolly-issue is not that bad...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I'll have to stress that all these tests were done with the original background script, i.e. with 1200 Mnai for every settlement every turn (no step function).
Oops, sorry. My quick reading gets me again.

[Intranetusa]

they should have a script that gives more money to whatever faction that the player is enemies
with. This will make the game more challenging. ie. If the player is Roman, give +3000 denrii per turn
to Carthage for every one of their cities. When the 1st punic war starts, give Carthage +20,000 denrii, etc