Diplomacy and other

Hello all!
I was wondering about the diplomacy today during my new campaign as ptolemaioi on EB BI 1.2 about my relationship with seleucid satrapies, why ami at war with baktria,pontus and hay( i think) but not with pahlava? and for that matter why are the sweboz at war with aedui and arverni? I also had an idea for future versions of eb(1 and 2) what if we put some sort of scripted impediment (like roman civil war in RTW that could only happen with enough support) to keep pahlava,hay,baktria,pontus and the seleucids from starting a war too early to be even remotly historically accurate? for example we could say that pahlava would have to take some nomad settlements to it's north and destroy the saka before it can declare war on the seles....
And another thing, i noticed that when a player uses different factions the AI has different armies than him and so do the surrounding cities, for example i know that with the getai we start out with 3 small armies all close to the capital, but the AI doen't, it has three big armies close to its capital; and while i am the getai i see sarmiszeghetusa as more than a half stack when i play ie the maks or epeiros there are only about 4-5 units in there! what's up with that? And also human player as epeiros starts with an army with pyrros and an elephant and another with his son and no elephant (of course both have other units in'em) but AI epeiros has two halfstacks with 2 elephants! why is that? is eb historycally accurate only for the player?

Because we do better than the AI? It's probably for game balance.

I can't really make out too much of that glob of words though. Try using a separate paragraph for each question.

The Pahlava are not meant to be a satrapy of the Seleukid's they are the nomads living on the borders of the Arche, apart from a brief time when Antiochos the Great subdued them i don't think they ever accepted Seleukid authority.

Also i don't see how the Pahlava having to take some nomad settlements and wipe out the Saka would be anyway more accurate as that was not the direction they expanded in historically, by 247bc they were in Asaak and by 238bc Hekatompylos, so while yes they do move a bit too fast in the game its more accurate than having them conquer the steppe first.

As for the starting armies the the factions around you are given extra units to provide a bit more of a challenge, even the rebel cities will have larger garrisons. In many cases i expect the team could not know exactly the composition and size of armies at the start date so i guess they're allowed a little leeway.

Ok but about the pahlava that was just an example.....
oh and here you go AVSM:I was wondering about the diplomacy today during my new campaign as ptolemaioi on EB BI 1.2 about my relationship with seleucid satrapies, why ami at war with baktria,pontus and hay( i think) but not with pahlava? and for that matter why are the sweboz at war with aedui and arverni?

I also had an idea for future versions of eb(1 and 2) what if we put some sort of scripted impediment (like roman civil war in RTW that could only happen with enough support) to keep pahlava,hay,baktria,pontus and the seleucids from starting a war too early to be even remotly historically accurate? for example we could say that pahlava would have to take some nomad settlements to it's north and destroy the saka before it can declare war on the seles....

And another thing, i noticed that when a player uses different factions the AI has different armies than him and so do the surrounding cities, for example i know that with the getai we start out with 3 small armies all close to the capital, but the AI doen't, it has three big armies close to its capital; and while i am the getai i see sarmiszeghetusa as more than a half stack when i play ie the maks or epeiros there are only about 4-5 units in there! what's up with that? And also human player as epeiros starts with an army with pyrros and an elephant and another with his son and no elephant (of course both have other units in'em) but AI epeiros has two halfstacks with 2 elephants! why is that? is eb historycally accurate only for the player?

Danke.

The team stated that they researched authentic diplomatic relations in 272 BC, and used them. Just a guess, but the Aedui and Arverni are celts, and the Sweboz are Germanians, so it would be reasonable that they dislike each other. Apart from that, I don't remember any of the other ones, as Pahlava was explained. Are you talking about the Maks and AS vs. the Ptolies, KH, and Epeiros? It was a historic war.

Isn't the war scripted anyways? Pahlava, Baktria, Hai, and Pontus ALWAYS declare war on the AS in my games. I do know that the AI isn't moddable, but are you proposing the script just force diplomacy continuously until the proper time is reached? In any case, I don't think making EB a rail shooter would be enjoyable.

I would think it is for balance issues. As the KH, the Maks are significantly more powerful, but it is the opposite for the Maks. Its probably to keep you from steamrolling the map in the first few turns.

Yeah, i know about that war, what i was wondering was about the hay and the pahlava, since from what yall say the pahlava never were a satrapy of the AS, why is it that they are allied,have trade and military rights with the AS?
And why would an army of the pahlava be so close to Asaak?, it really seems strange the eb team would wanna have the pahlava declare war on AS soooo early on.....
Oh and don't think this is criticism, i love this mod as much as anyone else in here, i just have many questions because i wanna learn:study:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

I would think it is for balance issues. As the KH, the Maks are significantly more powerful, but it is the opposite for the Maks. Its probably to keep you from steamrolling the map in the first few turns.

---

The A.I. isn't good at responding to a human blitz, so cities (faction and eleutheroi) near the player have their garrisons beefed-up. This does not happen with other cities, because the is not good at managing its economy either, and upkeep is expensive in EB. I don't think there are any other differences in army placement dependent on faction choice.

Does economy even matter to the AI? I have seen it build and sustain totally unrealistic and exspensive armies with a few provs, but having larger savings than me? It is much like its cities never riots and destroys things despite spies and assassins taking them to 0% happyness...

It is all good and fair, the AI is Artificial Dumb*rse, so it evens out, but it is a bit vexing to not to be able to attempt varied tactics and target their economy and make them riot or even defect to rebels.

I've seen countless rebellionswith the AI....

I'm surprised you haven;t heard of the money script. It gives the AI money whenever they start to go into the red

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

I've seen countless rebellionswith the AI....

I'm surprised you haven;t heard of the money script. It gives the AI money whenever they start to go into the red

---

Of course I have, but giving it enough to send it past all other factions on the "Power > Money" Chart? Like the second-richest has 200k Mnai, the Lusotanians with a large town and a town and after a long war of spamming the Roman Consular Army with huge stacks to slaughter has gone from 150k Mnai to 800k despite losing province after province. That is what puzzles me.

Strange with the rebellions. I have seen some as well, but never Riots in the town I infiltrate damaging buildings or pop despite 3-5 spies in it, 5 assassins sabotaging everything that can be sabotaged and 0 % happiness... and no it was not the capital and this was the most extreme cases I mentioned here, the ones striking me as totally illogical.