The Pontic Question

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

I'm a massive fan of playing Pontus - ridiculously hard gaming, I need an uphill struggle to keep me interested.

Now i played in Vanilla, and while hard I persevered and the Seleucids as expected, fragmented - giving me my opportunity.

I played in Total Realism, and spent a ridiculous amount of time pushing the Seleucids out of Anatolia (myself), while holding the Armenians at Colchis, guarding the Hellespoint from mixed greeks and keeping my Cimmerian cities free of the Thracian yoke.

Enter EB. After some shakedown campaigns I move to Pontus, impressed with the detail applied. But come off it! Its unplayable. I march and take Ancrya and Sinope in five turns and I'm STILL in deficit, with skeleton garrisons in place. Theres a line gentlemen...

[MiniMe]

Do you know that Pontus is overpowered? At least, that's what I've heard from many people here.

[Perturabo]

Sorry man, I am one who thinks that Pontus is now overpowered. The new bodyguards are partly to blame, I caputured Trapezous, and of the 900+ enemies killed something like 630 were by my bodyguard cavalry, for a massive 3 losses to that unit.

Once you capture Nikaea, possibly Byzantium, and a few of the other towns in Asia Minor you will be rolling in money (now 7+ very good goldmines, some of the best in game). By the time Seleucia attacks they will be easy to terminate.

First decade is a bit difficult and you need to be careful with money, and not to offend your neighbours, but after that it gets too easy :embarassed:

Bringing back the old bodyguards to give the faction a bit more indivduality and less power would be great! Ok, maybe fiddle their stats a bit (the old bodyguards), but imho the new ones are 'just' generic massacre monsters.

Still, a fun campaign for the first couple of decades.

edit: fought the Pontic bodyguards as KH, totally destroyed the enemy army in Pergamon while invading Asia Minor, with minimal losses, in the city sqauare ran into the bodyguards and lost half my army to them (200+ units of infantry). If that isn't overpowered then what is? Still won but sheesh....

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

What difficulty level is this being played at? Because my Kings bodyguard cant take out a f***ing band of skirmishers, never mind 600 enemy troops... :furious3:

[Perturabo]

What difficulty level is this being played at? Because my Kings bodyguard cant take out a f***ing band of skirmishers, never mind 600 enemy troops... :furious3:

Medium Battle and Hard Campaign.

Strangely enough skirmishers are, bar Phalanxes, the worst enemy you can attack with cavalry in some ways. If they are moving when you charge, minimal damage will be done and your troops for some retarded reason mill around rather than standing and fighting, very frustrating.
If this happens, pull out immediately and try to catch them standing still.

Of course the best bet is a nice long range charge and retreat sequence that will destroy even heavy spearmen with enough repeats and even better the good old Makedonian 'Hammer and Anvil' - trap the enemy with a Phalanx and then hit them from behind with your cavalry (preferably family member). This will work very nicely, on the battlefield and cities.

Good luck and enjoy!

P.S. Medium Battle is the advised setting for playing EB on. I use Hard Campaign so the enemy uses mercs without getting crazy bonuses to money. They spam enough as it is.

[Morte66]

They seem a lot easier than they were in EB 0.81. I found them easier than Carthage, though that might be because (a) I'm very familiar with Pontos and their enemies and (b) I play with BI.exe which makes the Romans use ships and makes Carthage much harder.

The Pontic bodyguard cavalry is very strong now, I hear it will be toned down in EB 1.1. [But I would sooner gouge my eyes out than go back to the old jav cav.]

A few thoughts for Pontos...

Gift the Seleucids 100 mnai every year (four turns). If you dip into debt, do it just before and just after. With any luck that'll stop them attacking you for a while.

Family members, Pantadapoi Phalangitai (to pin in the field or grind in sieges), Galatian Shortswordsmen (to flank), slingers (be adventurous, deploy them wide and use them as bait), and skirmishers (cheap non-combatant garrison duty) are worth their money at the start. Nothing else is. Disband everything else. In particular disband cavalry, it's little use in the early Siege Total War and your FMs do the job better.

2 pike phalanxes is enough to take a Greek town, if you use missles to drive the defenders away from the gates first then have them grind down main street where the walls will give them perfect flank protection. You need more troops to dissuade the garrison from coming out to fight you, or to stop the pikes having a morale failure, than you need to kill all the defenders. Don't send more troops than you need. Disband any surplus. If you cannot see a unit besieging a town by the end of turn 4, disband it on turn 1. No exceptions, no wishful thinking, be utterly pragmatic about this.

Use the spy to scout. You don't want some barely adequate siege army caught in a forest by an ambush on its way to the target.

If you get up to about 6-8 provinces and get some mines building before the big gray hammer falls, it's pretty straightforward. Pantapadoi Phalangitai are low end pike phalanxes but they're good enough to pin anything; and you can flank with a good assortment of melee infantry, cavalry, and missles.

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

Strategy and tactical tips are sound, definitely disbanded cavalry (one unit!) first off and have being using battle tactics advised.

I believe my problem is that I'm on VH/VH, but after so long playing this way I cant go back to Hard/Medium - does the game really 'work better' on these settings or is it just easier? I've lashed the Roman and Carthaginian campaigns out of it on these settings so why not Pontos?

And finally, can you point me to a thread about playing on BI? And is it worth it playing via BI, I mean in terms of AI?

Many many thanks for the tips! :laugh4:

[mrtwisties]

The game is more historically accurate on medium battle settings. On uber-l33t settings it'll present you with more of a challenge, but absurd stuff will happen and historical tactics won't work.

My preference, if I'm in the mood to match my wits against an .exe file, is to challenge myself in other ways by taking smaller armies, using general cam, denying myself the faction's most useful troops or similar.

[Pharnakes]

BI is a deffinet improvment, IDK if it is worth buying it just for that, but if you already have it, it is deffinately worth a look in the unofical mods section.

[Perturabo]

Strategy and tactical tips are sound, definitely disbanded cavalry (one unit!) first off and have being using battle tactics advised.

I believe my problem is that I'm on VH/VH, but after so long playing this way I cant go back to Hard/Medium - does the game really 'work better' on these settings or is it just easier? I've lashed the Roman and Carthaginian campaigns out of it on these settings so why not Pontos?

And finally, can you point me to a thread about playing on BI? And is it worth it playing via BI, I mean in terms of AI?

Many many thanks for the tips! :laugh4:

I object to fighting against 'cheats' (AI on Very Hard). Contrary to popular opinion it is not smarter, just has much higher morale etc. I was very :no: when I discovered that one way back. Having heavy infantry defeated by skirmishers in HTH is not my idea of amusement though.
I honestly have no idea of what difference it makes on the strategy map, probably not much against other AI factions.

As for BI, in some ways it is better, however not worth the aggravation of pointless naval invasions by Allies. The Romans will invade the Karthies by sea and that is the main bonus. Unfortunately the majority of the naval action is very, very poorly implemented. As an example Karthadast will regularly land (or march) troops near Capua, stand there for a few years and then march back to Sicily. They declare war, and the next year a ceasfire. Repeat ad infinitum. The Ptolies do the same on Rhodes. If you are unfortunate enough to take some of the more remote islands, particularly Crete, expect to have allies land armies of 1-2 troops and siege you. All in all not worth the frustration.

Trialling Alex.exe at present. The Naval stupidity has been toned down and battlefield AI seems a little better, mostly for skirmisher armies though.
The main bonus is that sometimes the AI will actually retrain its troops in barracks, making AI expansion much slower (the agressive nations have a harder time against other AI factions, particularly at the capitals). The Selucid/Ptolemaic issue is still unbalanced, however this time in favour of the Ptolies. The Selucids seem incapable of defending against them for some reason. No garrisons at all :juggle2:

Edit: There is a section on BI in the unofficial mods forum, sorry, don't have time to look for it at present though.

[Foot]

If you want to make playing battles harder then do not use the difficulty settings given by CA. Load of rubbish. Use the general cam, which makes the whole experience really really difficult.

Foot

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

You're talking about keeping the camera at the general for the entire battle?

[Strategos Alexandros]

He means to select camera options and change the view to general camera.

[konny]

And is it worth it playing via BI, I mean in terms of AI?

No.

The only "improvement" is that the AI is useing naval invasions. But that again is terrible bugged: the AI will use this for random landings only. You have a about 100% chance that the Karthagians will land one army near Capua, the Romans on Corsica and the Ptolemaians on Rhodos, and a about 75% chance of a KH landing near Taras (only if owned by the Romans). All this will happen regardless of the diplomatic stance or with any strategical background or even support after the landing. I consider that a bug.

The next bug is the "siege-peace-loop" that usually follows these landings: the respective town is sieged in turn#1, both factions make peace in turn#2, siege starts anew in turn#3, both factions make peace again in turn#4, siege in #5 and so forth. The only places where conquest sometimes occurs are Capua and Taras.

The other named places only seldom change ownership. More often even more weired things happen, like Makedons and Seleucids landing on Rhodos too, starting the funny "siege-peace" game. Or Karthagians landing a hughe army on Crete, leaving it there without taking the town.

That's in short on the "improved naval AI in BI". I would suggest the Alexander engine (even though it has it's own bugs too) or, if not available, the RTW engine. Better no/rare invasions than this chaos.

[Sarkiss]

The next bug is the "siege-peace-loop" that usually follows these landings: the respective town is sieged in turn#1, both factions make peace in turn#2, siege starts anew in turn#3, both factions make peace again in turn#4, siege in #5 and so forth. The only places where conquest sometimes occurs are Capua and Taras.

it was all true in my game for a while, but then Carthage started fighting in earnest and now they have all of Southern Italy, Epiros took from them Siracuse and trying to acquire Taras. Rhodes changed hand three times. AS took Cyprus!
Rome is a worthless push over.
on the battlefield i noticed a significant improvement in AI using skirmishers. they are damn smart showering me with javelins causing real panic on my side. i was kind of shocked.
i just cant go back to 1.5 when you know there is only 1% out of 100% AI will ever challenge by sea.

[Ancient Briton]

I was just wondering how common naval invasions were in our period anyway. The Romans went to Carthage I guess, and Julius Caeser invaded Britain. What other examples are there?

Was thinking of using BI.exe but got worried that the AI would be constantly landing armies in an annoying and perhaps unhistorical manner.

[Zarax]

The "prefer naval invasions" setting seems to work to some extent though...

[Sarkiss]

I was just wondering how common naval invasions were in our period anyway. The Romans went to Carthage I guess, and Julius Caeser invaded Britain. What other examples are there?

Was thinking of using BI.exe but got worried that the AI would be constantly landing armies in an annoying and perhaps unhistorical manner.
pretty common.
Mithridates almost made Black sea his personla pool.
Romans took islands, landed in Africa, Iberia numerous times. plus all the misfortunes they had due to storms.
Carthage, beside other things raided Southern Italy a few times...

[Morte66]

BI.exe seems somewhat better at withdrawing from a battle when it's losing. It'll often pull 25% percent of its army out when regular RTW would leave it on the foeld to be annihilated. This was very obvious when I switched exe whilst playing Pontos against the AS/Ptolies -- if uncommitted Klereuchoi Phalangitai decide to jog off the field whilst your army is busy, there's not a heck of a lot you can do.

Having the Romans invade Corsica/Sardinia by sea instead of attacking Sicily by land made life more interesting for the Carthies. No more leaving one unit on each island and assuming nothing will happen...

[Shylence]

Im playing as pontus right now, After 2 tries, first i was attacked by the silver death and gave up. the second i got a few things wrong in my city mangaement. im on my 3rd go it is 249BC it was a mission for me i took sinope and ankyra and started to build my towns to a point where they could support an army to take trapezous. I took my usaul strat which was to take sinope then ankrya. Then build up enough to support and army to take trapezous. i got a message saying those in the Crimea would support me if i landed that was a lie! :furious3: im guessing that only works if the sarmatians are controlling the place. it was still rebel.

anyway i took that city and the grey death appeared after a plague wreaked havoc on ankyra killing the guv'nor and it rebelled to averni. I fought one battle with the selucids. lost but destoryed half the army with my FM, maybe they are right about the stats, i dunno ive never played a none western barbarian faction before. So i deceid to raise all the stuff in anatolia leaving my pontic tomb behind. built a boat and shipped my whole family north across the sea.

It was challege i took chersonoss (sp) disbanded the army. and was losing major cash. i went into minus again!. in a deseprate ditch i went to pantipkanion(sp) with my family members leaving one behind in a 70% happy city. it all hinged on this battle. It was imense my FM just rode down each unit one by one. as i charged them from all angles watched as the spearmen broke then mowed down the archers and skirmishers like grass. Took the city and finally after a bit of razing greek buildings. im back on my feet.

Im ready to go now got ++ cash flow, got happy pontic towns. the sarmatians are not attacking yet but they are a serious threat they have powerful armies. im not sure to move across too Tyde. or take them on at tanais and olbia.

I can only have HA armie with cheap spearmen the sarmatian army i observed was mainly aorsi nobles quite a threat indeed. but heading over to Tyde by sea will drain cash and risk me being under attack from the getae. decesions decesions.

forgive grammar and punctuation i always fail at it.

[pezhetairoi]

I believe my problem is that I'm on VH/VH,

Gah, you're making things difficult for yourself, then telling people Pontos is underpowered? Ye gods, man. There's a difference between a fair challenge that you create yourself and one that's just plain unfair. You do not tie your own arm behind your back, take a pistol with three bullets and confront a battalion of very annoyed infantrymen with M16s and say you're giving yourself a challenge.

Someone should sticky that if you play on VH/VH you do so at your own risk and should not complain about it.

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

Gah, you're making things difficult for yourself, then telling people Pontos is underpowered? Ye gods, man. There's a difference between a fair challenge that you create yourself and one that's just plain unfair. You do not tie your own arm behind your back, take a pistol with three bullets and confront a battalion of very annoyed infantrymen with M16s and say you're giving yourself a challenge.

Someone should sticky that if you play on VH/VH you do so at your own risk and should not complain about it.

I strongly disagree, with anyone who slates using VH/VH (unless it effects scripting or normal gameplay). Computer AI is not strong enough to take on a human mind, the only way to compensate is by so called 'cheating' on the part of the AI factions. Simple logic has to be applied here, if the AI cannot compensate for human ingenuity then it needs other boosts.

This forces me and anyone else on VH/VH to work harder, be more strategic etc. Frustrating, maybe, but there comes a point on Medium difficulty where you're just shooting fish in a barrel. I dont know about anyone else, but my favourite part of any campaign is the uphill struggle. Too many enemy armies, too many battle losses, too many dead generals and then suddenly you adapt, use some sneaky tricks (fabian tactics great with EB, I also use a nice little misdirection manoevre some of you probably also know, where when I'm besieging an enemy town and a large army comes on top, I throw out lots of minor little units to slow their advance, they waste their movement points chasing around small cavalry units and it gives my infantry the time to storm the settlement :) and BAM! Taking one important settlement feels like your birthday, Heroic victories are 'realistically' rare, one general shines through and you find yourself desperately moving him from one front to another.

Call me a masochist, but if you arent being challenged whats the fookin point? You might as well just use cheats and slog through the game without a hint of adversity.

It is from the greatest dangers that the greatest glory is to be won. -Thucydides.

[bovi]

You are of course aware that EB gives assistance to the AI players, making that challenge you seek? You say it's unplayable with the added difficulty you choose to lay on top of it. Why not try the recommended settings and see whether they make it playable?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Although EB is recommended on VH/M, some factions cannot be played on that level...or it's nigh impossible. For those, such as Hayasdan, Pontos and maybe Pahlava, one should prefer H/M or even M/M. A team member (Lord Bula) said that playing Hayasdan on VH wasn't feasible...

Increasing difficulty level has nothing to do with AI's tactical abilities. It just adds up stats, that's all. You make yourself Gaesatae enemies all around the map.

:eeeek:
.

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

Gah, you're making things difficult for yourself, then telling people Pontos is underpowered? Ye gods, man. There's a difference between a fair challenge that you create yourself and one that's just plain unfair. You do not tie your own arm behind your back, take a pistol with three bullets and confront a battalion of very annoyed infantrymen with M16s and say you're giving yourself a challenge.

Someone should sticky that if you play on VH/VH you do so at your own risk and should not complain about it.

I strongly disagree, with anyone who slates using VH/VH (unless it effects scripting or normal gameplay). Computer AI is not strong enough to take on a human mind, the only way to compensate is by so called 'cheating' on the part of the AI factions. Simple logic has to be applied here, if the AI cannot compensate for human ingenuity then it needs other boosts.

This forces me and anyone else on VH/VH to work harder, be more strategic etc. Frustrating, maybe, but there comes a point on Medium difficulty where you're just shooting fish in a barrel. I dont know about anyone else, but my favourite part of any campaign is the uphill struggle. Too many enemy armies, too many battle losses, too many dead generals and then suddenly you adapt, use some sneaky tricks (fabian tactics great with EB, I also use a nice little misdirection manoevre some of you probably also know, where when I'm besieging an enemy town and a large army comes on top, I throw out lots of minor little units to slow their advance, they waste their movement points chasing around small cavalry units and it gives my infantry the time to storm the settlement :) and BAM! Taking one important settlement feels like your birthday, Heroic victories are 'realistically' rare, one general shines through and you find yourself desperately moving him from one front to another.

Call me a masochist, but if you arent being challenged whats the fookin point? You might as well just use cheats and slog through the game without a hint of adversity.

It is from the greatest dangers that the greatest glory is to be won. -Thucydides.

[bovi]

:inquisitive: I see my time was wasted here.

[MiniMe]

The next bug is the "siege-peace-loop" that usually follows these landings: the respective town is sieged in turn#1, both factions make peace in turn#2, siege starts anew in turn#3, both factions make peace again in turn#4, siege in #5 and so forth. The only places where conquest sometimes occurs are Capua and Taras.
And it may continue that way for about 150 turns.
...Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again Rome sieges Corsica, they start war with Carthage, next turn Cathage signs truce with Rome, then again...

according to my two BI campaign experience this is how BI AI handles his naval invasions...
and my next one will be something else, not BI-based for sure

[Rodion Romanovich]

The game is more historically accurate on medium battle settings. On uber-l33t settings it'll present you with more of a challenge, but absurd stuff will happen and historical tactics won't work.

Hm not entirely. On vh you will have a more difficult time routing then enemy line of infantry, thus making for longer engagements, and as I mentioned somewhere else: it's now for a change a useful and valid tactic to disengage your infantry, pull it back to rest, and send skirmishers forward for a while until the infantry is ready for another clash. I think the tactics can get MORE historical on vh in many cases! Besides, vh compensates for the lack of coordination and high-level tactical reaction speeds of the enemy enough to make their responses seem more logical, and dangerous in the right ways.

However, I haven't tried Pontos yet. It's a tie between Pontos, Saka, Pahlava, Sauromatae and Saba for my next campaign...

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

:inquisitive: I see my time was wasted here.

Not at all, apologies, I missed your reply ! :oops:

Theres a challenge (hard battles, increased AI revenues) and then theres downright ridiculous (no opportunity to make cash, deficit from the start and deficit right on through). We begin with one settlement, already in irreparable debt, I took two cities in short succession and still no up. Skeleton garrisons, no offensive army other than the two or three generals thrust upon me. No way out. Climbing debt.

This is an EB designer glitch methinks (not to in any way appear ungrateful for this fantastic mod), take all the power from Pontic armies you like, weaken the royal cavalry, but give us a chance to make some money!!! A secondary settlement on the Euxine coast might help, in Pontic territory. Not to offend by naming a rival, but RTR have some cities in the same area which could lend ideas...

[bovi]

It is not a designer glitch. We designed EB to be played at VH/M, to be a very hard challenge on these our recommended settings. Then you choose to lay more difficulty on top of that (okay) and say that we designed it wrong (not okay). Just play it on the recommended settings and you may find that it is quite playable, very challenging and fun, rather than what you think is unplayable, impossible and frustrating.

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

It is not a designer glitch. We designed EB to be played at VH/M, to be a very hard challenge on these our recommended settings. Then you choose to lay more difficulty on top of that (okay) and say that we designed it wrong (not okay). Just play it on the recommended settings and you may find that it is quite playable, very challenging and fun, rather than what you think is unplayable, impossible and frustrating.

I understand, thank you very much :2thumbsup:

Nah, honestly, I retract the statement about the glitch. My issue is a side effect of my own masochism and a lack of understanding of the way in which you have intended the game to be played.

Then take this as a request - for my fellow RTW masochists and I could some support be considered for harder settings? I will try by your advice, to play battle on Medium and see how I get on, many thanks :2thumbsup:

[bovi]

Then take this as a request - for my fellow RTW masochists and I could some support be considered for harder settings?
You obviously still don't understand. EB makes what the vanilla difficulty levels should have been:
* Easy is easy with most any faction, corresponding somewhat between vanilla's H and VH (which was a joke, there's no challenge on vanilla VH).
* Medium is the normal, moderately challenging difficulty, quite a bit harder than vanilla's VH.
* Hard is hard. This can be used with some of the easier factions if you need more of a challenge.
* Very Hard is very hard indeed, even nigh impossible as we say with some factions.

All difficulty levels are adjusted heavily by the faction you choose, where Rome is easy and Pontus/Hayasdan are very hard, as we say in the faction info when you choose it.

What you're saying makes no sense. You think VH/VH for Pontus is impossible. So when you ask for "support" for harder settings, you actually mean to make the game easier. How is that helping "masochists"? So that you can boast about beating the hardest thing in the game?

Instead, simply choose the settings that gives you the most challenge that you can cope with. There's plenty to choose from, unlike any other mod I've seen except ArthurianTW. In any other mod I've played, I have had to choose VH/VH to get anything resembling a challenge.

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

Perfect, then my error was in thinking that changing the difficulty to Medium would result in the piss-easy, unsatisfying experience that was in Vanilla.

I'll give Medium a whirl -thanks Bovi :balloon2:

[marodeur]

No.

The only "improvement" is that the AI is useing naval invasions. But that again is terrible bugged: the AI will use this for random landings only. You have a about 100% chance that the Karthagians will land one army near Capua, the Romans on Corsica and the Ptolemaians on Rhodos, and a about 75% chance of a KH landing near Taras (only if owned by the Romans). All this will happen regardless of the diplomatic stance or with any strategical background or even support after the landing. I consider that a bug.

The next bug is the "siege-peace-loop" that usually follows these landings: the respective town is sieged in turn#1, both factions make peace in turn#2, siege starts anew in turn#3, both factions make peace again in turn#4, siege in #5 and so forth. The only places where conquest sometimes occurs are Capua and Taras.

The other named places only seldom change ownership. More often even more weired things happen, like Makedons and Seleucids landing on Rhodos too, starting the funny "siege-peace" game. Or Karthagians landing a hughe army on Crete, leaving it there without taking the town.

That's in short on the "improved naval AI in BI". I would suggest the Alexander engine (even though it has it's own bugs too) or, if not available, the RTW engine. Better no/rare invasions than this chaos.

Exactly my experience too. And I also think it is not advisable to play at VH on the tactical level. The ai remains as stupid as it is, and for example gasatae are nearly invincible.:thumbsdown: I prefer Rome.exe and Hard. But I did not yet give alex.exe a try. Where is the difference? What bugs does it have?

[Maksimus]

You obviously still don't understand. EB makes what the vanilla difficulty levels should have been:
* Easy is easy with most any faction, corresponding somewhat between vanilla's H and VH (which was a joke, there's no challenge on vanilla VH).
* Medium is the normal, moderately challenging difficulty, quite a bit harder than vanilla's VH.
* Hard is hard. This can be used with some of the easier factions if you need more of a challenge.
* Very Hard is very hard indeed, even nigh impossible as we say with some factions.

All difficulty levels are adjusted heavily by the faction you choose, where Rome is easy and Pontus/Hayasdan are very hard, as we say in the faction info when you choose it.

What you're saying makes no sense. You think VH/VH for Pontus is impossible. So when you ask for "support" for harder settings, you actually mean to make the game easier. How is that helping "masochists"? So that you can boast about beating the hardest thing in the game?

Instead, simply choose the settings that gives you the most challenge that you can cope with. There's plenty to choose from, unlike any other mod I've seen except ArthurianTW. In any other mod I've played, I have had to choose VH/VH to get anything resembling a challenge.

You are right about VH settings bovi.. I know tha now :viking:
But do you remeber when I made threads regarding the VH as VERY - Very Hard, well back the you didn't make such a nice list - I was confused back then becasue I tought that VH settings Improve AI - now I know they make it Hard just becasue AI get's +7 moral and attack against you.. :wall:

[konny]

But I did not yet give alex.exe a try. Where is the difference? What bugs does it have?

There are several differences: On the startegical level the AI is more merging its stacks and so more often uses one or two full stack armies instead of dozends of mini-stacks. The mini-stacks are still around but they aren't that dominant.

The AI is also able to retrain its units!

It is said, even though I can't confirm it, that the AI is less backstabbish and will stick to alliances longer.

On the tactical level the AI is better in using its units on the battlefield. It is still far from being really good, but you are flanked very often and its units seem to work together much, much better.

Bugs: I have more CTDs with the ALX.exe than with BI or RTW (that is about one per week to about one per month with the other exes). And there seems to be a problem with empty towns: the AI often leaves just one governor in a town and when he dies the town is completly unguarded. That also happens with the other exes, but with the ALX.exe it remains so sometimes for many turns and even hostile forces that pass by do recognize that the town is empty and do not occupy it. I consider that a bug.

[Maksimus]

Konny is right 99% as far as I am consirned:san_grin:

That 1 little % is aside because I had only a couple CTD's total - with RTW and BI.exe there were alot of them.. My impression is that most of people think ALex.exe is more stable:shrug:

But after some time they all get CTD, EB is so massive and good that you really need to have one sideeffect :whip:

[marodeur]

There are several differences: On the startegical level the AI is more merging its stacks and so more often uses one or two full stack armies instead of dozends of mini-stacks. The mini-stacks are still around but they aren't that dominant.

The AI is also able to retrain its units!

It is said, even though I can't confirm it, that the AI is less backstabbish and will stick to alliances longer.

On the tactical level the AI is better in using its units on the battlefield. It is still far from being really good, but you are flanked very often and its units seem to work together much, much better.

Bugs: I have more CTDs with the ALX.exe than with BI or RTW (that is about one per week to about one per month with the other exes). And there seems to be a problem with empty towns: the AI often leaves just one governor in a town and when he dies the town is completly unguarded. That also happens with the other exes, but with the ALX.exe it remains so sometimes for many turns and even hostile forces that pass by do recognize that the town is empty and do not occupy it. I consider that a bug.

Thank you!

[Perturabo]

The AI in Alex.exe does seem less 'backstabbish' as Konny called it. I have had a few very poorly defended towns (1-3 units each) near allied cities for over 20 years as AS and no attacks yet. Allies seem very reliable in fact, quite a shock.
Can't comment on the empty towns though, haven't seen this myself, just the usual 1-2 units to guard a town at risk of major attack :wall:

CTD - unfortunately I feel it is a bit more common on Alex.exe than BI or RTW. The advantages of the AI (inc Rebels) retraining garrisons however, more than makes up for it.

All in all a far better experience than BI in which the naval foolishness drives me spare.

Edit: out of interest, as Epeiros I accepted to become a vassal of Rome, absolutely no attacks from them after until some low life (non roman) decided to break the peace hehe.

Same when I was playing as the Maks, let KH capture Korinthos and Demetrios (I was invading Asia Minor for my homeland instead). Following this they asked me to become a vassal. Once more, no attacks! I love Alex.exe.