Addressing my EB 1 issues (Maksimus)

[Maksimus]

I must say again at the start of this thread, that( I will repeat myself as always), EB 1 is the best RTW modification of today, and yet... There are so many things that can be touched and unrolled in a noble intention to target and help EB team (even in just a few suggestions).

I hope, very much, that this post will be useful, because it tends (with my impressions of EB) to target the main essence of RTW gameplay and help (if you allow;) EB team in developing work forward the future versions of EB in its wonderful form.
First of all, let me just type that my impressions are based on my current campaign (that I will quit after this post).
I play on -Very Hard- difficulty (both Campaign and Battle – please don’t blame the difficulty level for my impressions –

I understand it should be played on medium – its just me and other devoted RTW veteran-fans ) with Makedonia, I have never used cheats and I would be very glad to load a picture of my campaign but I don’t know how to do that (sorry), - so I will have to ’name’ coordinates of my Empire just by typing the names of settlements within the My Empires ’air-borders’.. Here we go – I hold:
Dalminion – Singidunim – Sarmiszegethusa – Olbia – Pantikapion – Byzantion – Ipsos – Rhodos – Salamis – Sidon – Memphis – Alexandreia – Kydonia – Sparte – Ambrakia – Dalminion its 246 BC (and let me note that for couple of years I did not activate EBsript besause I tought it is not important – stupid me) I am in constant plus of 20000 per turn and I have plus of 15000 and constant building all the time in all regions that are manly my Satrapies. I have destroyed KoinonH and Dacia.
Now, I will shortly address my impressions of EB 1 sorted by subject (it is my free-choise actually :)

AI : In Campaign Map – AI can’t be blamed for playing the way it does, I think there are some positive moves from EB 0.8 series and because proper campaign AI is very hard-coded (I think) and you can’t realy change that – do I had couple of naval invasions led by KHellenon (before I took Rhodos) and Aegypt (before I entered Salamis) – so Campaign AI is somewhat alright and good (and I don’t use BI.exe). But, Battle AI is a different storry, sorry for this one, but, I think that at some point, even vanilla RTW battle AI was better and more challenging – do one can actually see EB team made efforts in implementing their own AI formations and maybe some proper AI – but that is maybe one small (still important) part that I am sure you EBs are working on (and if you are not – you should realy consider adding Darth AI in EB 1.1 – that would be a ’clean’ solution – RTR uses it...so? untill you make your own better or just mod Darth!;)

UNITS: They are great basically – very nice (do I found some missing animations for FreedSlaves – they seem to want to kill my troops with a stone that is attached to their hand – but wont fly), still, I think the fine balance is found in EB 1, some may say it is ‘more’ barbarian world than in all other RTW mods – but that is fine, no one should question EB sources and consensus reached among the members (even if there are maybe no historians from Italy, Asian or Greece in EB team – I had to type this one;). Naturally I played with Makedonija so I have my impressions from that corner –

I have noticed that phalanx is very effective (as always), but could not resstist one impression that leads me to a conclusion that in EB – phalanx is not a popular formation. I know that EB is trying to ‘phalanx’ the phalanx in to a regular ‘not god wining’ formation as in other RTW and vanilla mods, but sometime I wonder if that is going to far, realy.

There was a number of occasions where I realy had to triple the game speed and wait for 3-4 minutes before my Silver Shield phalanx kills (in guard and phalanx mod) one unit that is directly faced with a spear wall – and that goes for ‘less-worth’ units too – including cavalry – Sometimes, I would besiege a city and I would go in where I had to wait even more in tight streets for my phalanx to kill anyone in the same manner as mentioned before – and If I would just order the phalanx attack – I would have had heavy casualties no matter whom I’m against with…So, It is kind off essential that you turn of time limit for battle and do a lot of ‘triple speed up’ during a regular battle (not to say a heavy one – like when I fought Dacia in their woods and snow).

Still you win with phalanx, but it takes some very long time to kill with it and make enemies run. Ill add this about cavalry – they are often and quite regulary usless in battle (not to mention city fights - exept when you run down enemies that are already broken by infantry or archers), even after and after a full charge – one Sucessor’s or GreekMedium or Thessalian cavalry just can’t run down one unit of some light infantry (not spearmen) even if that is down the hill or in flat terrain without losing 60-70% of all men on horse (and my experience shows that things stay the same even if that cavalry is armor-upgraded, level 6-8 exp and in full scale numbers)– that is not right, is it? – here we have nobles or minor nobles on horse that are being killed like rabbits in a hunt by some ‘native spearmen’ or ‘peltasts’ that were just standing and waiting for the cavalry-full-charge-impact.. I realy suggest that if EB team is wondering if cavalry is a bit underestimated – they should think ‘yes’ and work it out – just by lowering the costs or making cavalry a bit stronger(2hp maybe? Or + 30% melee? - my view). And to note – even my Generals can’t handle infantry and the same goes for them (do, hp2 for them would be very nice). And I have noticed that most of ‘galatian’ and ‘barb’ soldiers are far biger –

I mean taler then my soldiers – I understand that is one ‘regular’ pattern from vanilla but at least my SShields should be big as one ‘medium-size’ barbarian unit – after all, SShields passed long way and only the strongest (and the biggest) survived to be in those units – and I am not saying ‘let’s just make them ‘big’ because..’ it is a nice visual effect that would make them bigger then the rest of Macedonian or greek phalanx.

DIFFICULTY and CHALLENGE; EB 1 is hard to play (especially on VeryHard) , and one can see that devotion behind a great effort to balance EB gameplay (through EB scripts). But, cutting down money earnings and making one unit cost more than one city palace is not a very popular or ‘real’ solution either (not to say that upkeep is expensieve as hell)… this is the catch.. - I have, already, addressed this issue in CityMod thread, but that was in a wrong context.

Now, – Mostly, behind challenges of EB 1, are, some pure, simple, and interesting facts (two of things)... - First, there is EBscript that ‘makes’ money for CPU (wich is fine – I have my brain), and – Second, there are some very tempting and short construction times for prime buildings (not to say palaces) that CPU uses with his hands dirty all the time…And that! - is a big problem and one sad fact that makes questions for EB 1 gameplay…a lot of questions. .. Let me explain..
When I first entered AsiaMinor in my campaign (and not to say Aegypt) in 250 or 255 bc…, almost every town had royal or army barracks – and I only had army in Pela for example..

But when I entered Aegypt – there were more royalbarracks then units..every city had RoyalBarracks – that made my opponents way more powerfull, as a matter of a fact – I decided to write this after my Heroic victory over Aegypt (I killed 4200 and lost 700) near Side when I got CTD after… that was it for me, I won’t spend another two hours on the same battle again, and among those Aegypt losses are 2000 elite and medium phalanx.. They had that while I had to combine my cavalry, phalanx and archers from the stepes..

And because of my lack of money due to campaigning in AsiaMinor and losses due to the abnormall amount of elite and medium phalanx of Ageypt - I had to destroy all ‘no use to me’ royall barracks and made a fortune (now, I surely would have not destroyed it If I was able to use it – SEE! Even if you make one Royal Barracks for all Hellenic – you will profit less, and that is a challenge, This way you always have money just by destroying buildings – wich is not (I hope) the point.

I don’t belive that that is EB intention – to destroy all around and to exterminate population so you can keep peace (and I know that because of very negative points that my Fleader level 9 is getting – do that was not the case in history – not if you look Alexandros or Julius Caesar).

Only thing you need is a small army with one siege equipment and two ships – so you can cruse around Medditerrain and sack cities with small garnissons..then you destroy all and leave – very simple. But if you can use some of that ‘high-end ‘ barracks you surely would not destroy them att all!! That is the point of making Macedonian phalanx recruatable by unit ‘specification’ – not buildings ones (so when you have Alexandrea, you use local population to fill your ranks – local Greeks that fill the same type of unit ranks but for a different faction)…..

Puffff….. I am not finished.. I just cant type no more … I will now just finish with my general suggestions if I may..because I love EB .. realy.. don’t think that some of my comments change that, I will work by my self and post that here – Its just that I think that these suggestions are good for EB and will make EB more popular with experienced players and RTW veterans that can play RTW for money and all day long if they must ;)

So, here are suggestions: EB team should work on implementing some CITYMOD version for real, I personaly implemented such a mod in my vanilla two years ago just by editing exp_desc_buildings and decs_start txt – Making capitols and big cities big (with army barracks from the start) and prolonging construction time for 40-50 turns for some prime and army buildings – that made big cities big and small – small – that also made players fight for big cities and trade centers all the time wich was very historic and nice…

Then, please add some positive effect that Academy and schools have, they should bring more to happiness and law and not to say development in one city than all other structures. And if you can add more to siege equipement – like, more ‘pieces’ of it that should realy approve the maintaince money of 3200 minai… Like this::

;345
type generic siege 30mina
dictionary generic_siege_30mina ; Triakontaiminai Lithoboloi
category siege
class missile
voice_type General_1
soldier greek_artillery_crew, 60, 8, 0.85
officer ebofficer_hellenic_officer
officer ebofficer_hellenic_standardbearer
engine 30Mballista
attributes sea_faring
formation 1.5, 1.5, 3, 3, 3, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 8, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, knife, 0 ,0.04
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 20, 2, boulder, 300, 30, siege_missile, blade, blunt, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr ap, bp, area,
stat_pri_armour 1, 7, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 0
stat_ground 0, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 7, normal, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 15000, 3200, 30, 40, 15000
ownership thrace, greek_cities, macedon, romans_julii, numidia, egypt, spain, romans_brutii, seleucid, saba, slave, carthage

;346
type generic siege 1talent
dictionary generic_siege_1talent ; Monotalanta Lithoboloi
category siege
class missile
voice_type General_1
soldier greek_artillery_crew, 60, 4, 0.85
officer ebofficer_hellenic_officer
officer ebofficer_hellenic_standardbearer
engine 1Tballista
attributes sea_faring
formation 1.5, 1.5, 3, 3, 3, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 8, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, knife, 0 ,0.04
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 38, 2, big_boulder, 240, 30, siege_missile, blade, blunt, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr ap, bp, area, launching
stat_pri_armour 1, 7, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 0
stat_ground 0, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 7, normal, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 30000, 4500, 30, 40, 30000
ownership thrace, greek_cities, macedon, romans_julii, numidia, egypt, spain, romans_brutii, seleucid, saba, slave, carthage

so you have an officer, more soldiers and ‘pieces’ of siege equipment, but times 2 less attack – so it brings reality.. and it does realy..

Sorry if this is to much, I belive that EB team is already in a lot of work and certainly that these kind of posts don’t realy help much..

But, I told the whole truth and my deep toughts (ok, just my toughts;) that would maybe help in creating EB even better that it is.. I salute you all:yes: !

Thank you for your time!

[EdwardL]

im going into epileptic seizure

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hmm. You seem to experience quite the opposite of what many people do.

Let me rephrase:
-Battle AI:
-- Vanilla was more difficult you said?
That's odd: cause many people find Vanilla VH to be very easy compared to EB VH. Note that we aren't sure about how well Darth's AI would interact with EB.

DarthVader explicitly states that his stuff may not work without copying over his approach to stats etc. and that's something we definitely don't want to do -- it would screw up game balance beyond all recognition. (We try calculate stats by a very complicated checklist taking into account as much details as possible. To do this we need the stats the way they are; and even then not everything gets statted right. (But that's another matter altogether.))

And indeed some of our more knowledgeable members have their doubts about Darth's work + EB as a feasible combination...

-Phalanxes not strong enough head on?
Equally odd: the kill-rates are low; as they are supposed to be: 6m pike takes some time to kill an opposing person. ~;) Others have complained about the phalanx being near-impenetrable; and in any case the Phalanx is more an defesnive than an offensive weapon.

You could try to use the phalanx to push right through the opposing unit: if you make sure your phalanx doesn't get envelloped this will sky rocket your kill rates. ~;)

-Cavalry to weak?
-- IIRC anything but the most heavy of cavalry was pretty useless in infantry vs. cavalry melee. You should develop a much more combined arms approach to battle with EB than you have to with Vanilla -- otherwise things get costly very quickly.

--Artillery to few in numbers for their cost?
Yeah that's something we aren't really sure of yet. It may change! ~;)

--Army of the enemy "not fair"?
That's part of making things a challenge. Do note that you have been invading the ancient Indo-European equivalents of USA & China -- you can expect to face some army. ~;) Also note that Egypt is where the Ptolemies keep the worst of fears for controlling purposes.

--Destroying of Enemy Structures?
Well that's really what we want you to do. MIC's (akin to Vanilla barracks + stables + archery ranges) are an abstract representation of the organisation & industry you need to call upon the men of fighting age. The better the underlying organisation the better the troops you can call upon. (I.e. without royal stables you can't field considerable quantities of cavalry, because you have nothing to keep the horses.)
Same thing with governments.

The real barracks (where the garrison is) is the Phrourion. Different thing altogether. ~;)

--

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

You should try using the hammer and anvil tactic with phalanxes, they aren't very good at killing things, especially other phalanxes, on their own.

Don't leave your horses in melee, of course they'll die if you just leave them there, they aren't capible of fighing infantry in prolonged melee. Horses definately were not some sort of tank like they are in vanilla.

As Makedonia, you shouldn't have money problems, take a few cities and once you control the mines of Thrace, Makedon, and Illyria as well as the Aegean trade, you should never have money problems again. The AI money script can seem a bit unfair and isn't 100% balanced, but without it the challenge is nearly nothing.

The MIC differences are there to slow the player down, there shouldn't be elites available just a year after conquering the city. They don't just represent the military or units available but the build up of the willingness of the locals to serve you. The system was different in v0.7x and more like you would like, but hardcoding prevented that system from being carried over to RTW v1.5.

Population growths are hard to control and they are already set about as low as they can go. It is hardcoded that some cities balloon to high levels and require extermination when conquered if you want to be able to control.

As I stated in the citymod thread, the AI is hardcoded to build palace structures. If you set the build time to really high, it will cause the city to stagnate for decades as they build it. This will result in no upgrades to MICs and a swarm of cheat levies that people will complain about.

I agree with the academic buildings. I added law bonuses for my minimod. In EB, they are good though. They will increase the possitive traits and ancillaries that your governor can get and provide indirect bonuses.

About the artillery: Yeah, they are kind of worthless. We were going to redo them and add more number or ammo, but it is low on the list of priorities.

[Thaatu]

I play on -Very Hard- difficulty (both Campaign and Battle – please don’t blame the difficulty level for my impressions – I understand it should be played on medium –
I have to blame the difficulty level for the following:


There was a number of occasions where I realy had to triple the game speed and wait for 3-4 minutes before my Silver Shield phalanx kills (in guard and phalanx mod) one unit that is directly faced with a spear wall – and that goes for ‘less-worth’ units too – including cavalry – Sometimes, I would besiege a city and I would go in where I had to wait even more in tight streets for my phalanx to kill anyone in the same manner as mentioned before – and If I would just order the phalanx attack – I would have had heavy casualties no matter whom I’m against with…
AI units get +7 attack & morale on VH. No wonder they wouldn't rout. Anyway, as said, phalanx is for binding the enemy for a cavalry charge, so use it that way.


(even if there are maybe no historians from Italy, Asian or Greece in EB team – I had to type this one;)
...

Beep.



About artillery, the main issue in my mind is that if you list all the arty units, you'll notice that as the cost and upkeep go up, the number of arty pieces in the unit drops 50%, making the lower level artillery actually more effective than the upgraded one. Something like this:

3-span arrow projectors (anti-inf)
Cost & upkeep: 5,000 & 1,900
Pieces per unit: 8

3-cubit arrow projectors (anti-inf)
Cost & upkeep: 9,000 & 2,500
Pieces per unit: 4

30-mina stone projectors (AT)
Cost & upkeep: 15,000 & 3,200
Pieces per unit: 2

1-talent stone projector (AT)
Cost & upkeep: 30,000 & 4,500
Pieces per unit: 1

That would probably be okay if there was an accuracy increase along with the damage increase. But as it is, it's more probable that out of eight pieces more arrows will hit than with four, and with 3-spans already killing on impact, the higher attack of 3-cubits doesn't live up to the decrease in numbers. That plus the upkeep of one 3-cubit projector is about 2.5 times the upkeep of a 3-span one. Anyway this is the third time I've ranted about these, so I'm sure it's already noted.

[Digby Tatham Warter]

im going into epileptic seizure
:dizzy2: Same here :laugh4: .

Cav seem to work fine, use them properly and get off very hard settings. So far in V1.0 I like playing on medium battles, although I don't have many hard veterans yet.

One thing I sometimes do with pikes, is to click advance behind the enemy and after a small advance click halt, this allows the enemy to find my Sarrisa points more easily(I'm a generous type of guy).

[JMRC]

(...)One thing I sometimes do with pikes, is to click advance behind the enemy and after a small advance click halt, this allows the enemy to find my Sarrisa points more easily(I'm a generous type of guy).

I do this trick as well, but don't forget to add that all the phalanx line (even if composed by several units) must move forward and then stop simultaneously. Otherwise, those who move too forward can be enveloped, while those who stood a bit behind just watch them get killed, until they have enough space to make contact with the enemy line.

Anyway, its a good trick to use with long pikes in any TW game.

[The_Mark]

Guard mode hampers phalanx kill rates.


...

Beep.

Yup.

[Maksimus]

im going into epileptic seizure

Sorry for that :yes:

[Maksimus]

As I stated in the citymod thread, the AI is hardcoded to build palace structures. If you set the build time to really high, it will cause the city to stagnate for decades as they build it. This will result in no upgrades to MICs and a swarm of cheat levies that people will complain about.

What are those swarms of cheat levies that people will complain about?


The MIC differences are there to slow the player down, there shouldn't be elites available just a year after conquering the city. They don't just represent the military or units available but the build up of the willingness of the locals to serve you.

Why shoul anyones will be a prob in the game..As we all know, Seleucids and Aegypt 'post-Alexandors' rulers were tyrants actually (exept some).. Seleucid rulers made gods of them selfs and keept population quiet with there army and the help of locals that can't choose their rulets - so, if Makedonia came to Asia Minor or Alexandreia - things would not change - My faction leader would become new Pharaon in instance and all Aegypt would serve me -- yet, counquering Aegypt is a different thing -- that is a challenge(:wall:)


-Cavalry to weak?
-- IIRC anything but the most heavy of cavalry was pretty useless in infantry vs. cavalry melee. You should develop a much more combined arms approach to battle with EB than you have to with Vanilla -- otherwise things get costly very quickly.
That is not an issue or a problem at all, If haven't used that approach I would not type about it - the point is that even when I have level 9 general of 100 company and in full charge on the enemy phalanx back (while they fight mine) - I always get 20%losses in the first charge - and the enemy phalanx does not turn to face my general - it just stand there -- The point here is I am sure now, .. those 7+ attack and moral that CPU is getting on VH - wich is realy not a solution -- If there were some more options to 'tweak' campaign and battle AI - those 7+ would have been 2+... but that is something EBs should work on:yes:


About artillery, the main issue in my mind is that if you list all the arty units, you'll notice that as the cost and upkeep go up, the number of arty pieces in the unit drops 50%, making the lower level artillery actually more effective than the upgraded one.
Yes, .. so that is not so positive, I think it should be touched by EBs..


And just this... please make me happi by saying that EB theam is working on AI as a proprity? Please?:sweatdrop: ... I would be very happy to read about that ...

thank you all for commenting -

be well!

[bovi]

What are those swarms of cheat levies that people will complain about?

He means cheap.

If there were some more options to 'tweak' campaign and battle AI - those 7+ would have been 2+... but that is something EBs should work on:yes:

Yes, there is an option to tweak the stat bonuses to AI. This is to use the recommended difficulty level. We cannot program the AI.


And just this... please make me happi by saying that EB theam is working on AI as a proprity?
We cannot program the AI.

[Maksimus]

He means cheap.

Yes, there is an option to tweak the stat bonuses to AI. This is to use the recommended difficulty level. We cannot program the AI.

We cannot program the AI.

Ok, so, you will not consider to add one Army barrcks to capitols of successors states, if not ok..but that would solve 'cheap' unit 'thing'

And why wont you just delete the VH option in the menu? Is that possible? make two, one is easy - it could be moderate and the other is -medium- wich is recomended.. I am not to blame because I play on VH - it is an option..

And about AI - does that mean that you are not working on it at all - not in any form?... because it would be nice..

And don't get upset,, my intentions are positive for EB and the EB team - i tend to distribute EB to all my friends.:yes:

[bovi]

Ok, so, you will not consider to add one Army barrcks to capitols of successors states
I didn't comment that...? :inquisitive:


And why wont you just delete the VH option in the menu? Is that possible? make two, one is easy - it could be moderate and the other is -medium- wich is recomended.. I am not to blame because I play on VH - it is an option..
We recommend playing VH/M. Some, like you, will want to play other difficulty settings, and this is quite okay. What is not okay is to complain that weird things happen when you are not playing on the difficulty setting the stat system is created for, such as your cavalry being trounced when attacking from the rear.


And about AI - does that mean that you are not working on it at all - not in any form?... because it would be nice..
We make a mod. We do not make a game engine. The AI is part of the engine. We have no way of changing the engine. I don't know what else to say to make it any clearer to you.

[Maksimus]

Thanks Bovi! :yes:

[Dumbass]

Does this thread slightly remind anyone else of "What is "Bartix" and what faction replace armenia?".

[Tellos Athenaios]

No. For starters the opening post of the Bartix thread was so short and to the point it was of breathtaking complexity. This one doesn't suffer from the "WTF is he talking about?!"; though it does suffer from "That's a massive text: it makes my head hurt. Why don't you use the Enter key more often?!"

[Bonny]

"That's a massive text: it makes my head hurt. Why don't you use the Enter key more often?!"

exactly my thoughts :laugh4:

[Maksimus]

No. For starters the opening post of the Bartix thread was so short and to the point it was of breathtaking complexity. This one doesn't suffer from the "WTF is he talking about?!"; though it does suffer from "That's a massive text: it makes my head hurt. Why don't you use the Enter key more often?!"

Nah.. I just copy-pasted it from my word document :yes: - I'll make 'Enters' now :smash:

[Bonny]

. There was a number of occasions where I realy had to triple the game speed and wait for 3-4 minutes before my Silver Shield phalanx kills (in guard and phalanx mod) one unit that is directly faced with a spear wall – and that goes

If you want your Phanlax to push through the lie you need to deactivate guard mode. Guadr mode is good for holding a line (your soldiers are getting lesser casualtys but have lesser kill rate, too) but not good if you want to attack.

[Lysander13]

-Battle AI:
-- Vanilla was more difficult you said?
That's odd: cause many people find Vanilla VH to be very easy compared to EB VH. Note that we aren't sure about how well Darth's AI would interact with EB.

DarthVader explicitly states that his stuff may not work without copying over his approach to stats etc. and that's something we definitely don't want to do -- it would screw up game balance beyond all recognition. (We try calculate stats by a very complicated checklist taking into account as much details as possible. To do this we need the stats the way they are; and even then not everything gets statted right. (But that's another matter altogether.))

And indeed some of our more knowledgeable members have their doubts about Darth's work + EB as a feasible combination...

I certainly would not agree that the Vanilla AI is more difficult than EB's AI on VH or any other setting. Not to mention i would not agree this is the case for most other mods that i have played. That said, on the topic of how Darth's AI interacts with EB, i am of the opinion that it interacts just fine as it's relative to his formations file. I'm not debating whether he states his stuff may not work without copying over his approach to stats etc...it may be he stated just that or that for "optimal" results one should perhaps copy over his approach to stats as he saw it; as obviously when testing all of this, he was doing so for his own mod i presume. However, as it's relative to his "formations" themselves, i would say his approach to stats and how well they interact with EB is irrelevent and not necessary as far as the formations themselves perform. As far as i'm concerned, they interact just fine and the EB stat system nor his formations are a hindrance to one another. Formation files as we know, do not make the AI smarter, they just make an attempt at improving angles of attack and perhaps influence certain behavior during the course of battle.

I understand DV has made certain claims regarding stats that "improve" Battle AI such as stat_charge_dist & stat_fire_delay and not everyone agrees with his findings. I happen to be one who's skeptical about how this "improves" behavior myself but his formations on their own, i would say are compatible with any mod. Especially due to his width forcing. If one experiments and plays a battle in EB using "Darth AI" and the current EB stat system and then turns around and compares it with battles in Darth Mod they will notice differences to be sure. However, those differences in my opinion are not related to the formation file itself nor is the AI "smarter" in one instance or another. The differences one notices are perhaps speed of the units, length of battles, trajectory of missile fire, mass of the game..etc..How the formations themselves interact with EB, as it's relative to the AI usage of it's forces and how it positions and attacks or defends with them, seem to me to be no different and it that respect i would say his formation file is really compatible with any mod.