RTW Vanilla vs. BI vs. Alex

A few weeks ago in another of my posts Atraphoenix mentioned his views on the comparable stability of playing EB off of the three different executeables (RTW, BI and Alex). That seemed like a good observation so I'd like to expand the discussion to the broader community. What do you guys think, is EB more stable (i.e. less prone to in-game CTDs) when played from the BI or Alex executeable file? I've played both vanilla RTW & BI but haven't focused my attention on comparing which was more stable. I haven't yet played from ALex yet. Is there something inherently more stable in the last version of the game?
Thanks.
CJ

Since only the rtw.exe is supported by the team (the BI and alex variants are submods made other people) I am moving this to the submod forum.

Ludens,
This raises another follow-on question (in addition to the one I PM'd you with). If you're familiar with Ferromancer's Installer for BI, would that count as a sub-mod? I was thrown off by the name "installer. I haven't installed it but it looks interesting.
CJ

I haven't used it, but since it's essentially EB repackaged for use with BI.exe, it counts as a submod.

If you think from a software engineer's standpoint, successive iterations of the same game engine should be more optimized and less bugged, or more debugged. That is, there almost always is no excuse for the reverse to occur. It's what you do as an engineer, improving each iteration. Translating this to the three engine iterations, and don't take my word but play with all three and do some performance analysis, and you'll see that almost invariably the engine version 1.9 (ALX) is more optimized than versions 1.6 (BI) and 1.5 (RTW), of which the latter two tend to be quite similar in terms of performance.

EDIT: Just my take on things. I don't know if there's a definitive answer.

Ludens, Vartan,
Thanks for responding. In this case I can see Vartan's point ("don't know if there is a definitive answer"). I'll take the fact that no is is condemning any one of the executeables as exceptionally flawed and try all three.
Thanks again.
CJ

I'm currently playing my first EB 1.2+Fixes campaign as Romani M/M, Huge unit size, using the RTW.exe Mods added: Win conditions, Force Diplomacy, RS map textures, Naval Start add on (only trade ship and cart), No big trees, New quotes, MC player formations and that's about it. Hope it goes well, I was tempted to uses the minimod with alex plus other mods that work with it, but figured for the first game I should go light on the mods.

I would also like to know if BI or ALEX gives a superior game. I am leaning towards ALEX but am definitely trying to learn about BI as well.

The Alex engine was tuned for the Alexander campaign, with the AI playing the Persians. So the AI was tweaked to act 'more Persian'. The Persians raised huge armies, so Alex engine retrains its depleted units to regenerate huge armies more quickly. This is also done because Alexander campaign only had 3 factions in total, so you were mostly fighting Persia and no-one else. RTW engine doesn't retrain at all AFAIK, and the BI engine does it only rarely.

I don't like Alex because for me the AI raises too large armies as it is, Alex retraining everything would make the problem even worse - an AI army you've just defeated can retreat into a town, and if it can recruit the unit types it needs, it can, at the end of the turn retrain those units, replace nearly all its losses, completely wiping out the effects of your battlefield victory. For me that's not fun.

However, if you don't mind or actually like the AI retraining its armies, the Alex engine is the most stable of the three, the most efficient, and has the best AI.

So, do you use BI? And if so what other mods do you have integrated into BI? Some people have said the naval invasion do not work so good in BI and recommend Alex...

Yes, I use BI, along with the City Mod to reduce population growth and limit the growth of most cities (especially the barbarian ones.) I'd modded my units file also.

Naval invasions are at least present in BI, they are absent with RTW. But the BI engine generally creates lots of small invasions (the stacks are small) rather than a few big ones, so it's not very historical in that respect. Alex is probably better at it, being a later engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

The Alex engine was tuned for the Alexander campaign, with the AI playing the Persians. So the AI was tweaked to act 'more Persian'. The Persians raised huge armies, so Alex engine retrains its depleted units to regenerate huge armies more quickly. This is also done because Alexander campaign only had 3 factions in total, so you were mostly fighting Persia and no-one else. RTW engine doesn't retrain at all AFAIK, and the BI engine does it only rarely.

I don't like Alex because for me the AI raises too large armies as it is, Alex retraining everything would make the problem even worse - an AI army you've just defeated can retreat into a town, and if it can recruit the unit types it needs, it can, at the end of the turn retrain those units, replace nearly all its losses, completely wiping out the effects of your battlefield victory. For me that's not fun.

However, if you don't mind or actually like the AI retraining its armies, the Alex engine is the most stable of the three, the most efficient, and has the best AI.

---

Titus,
Thanks for the great info. I'm curious about the city mod. What benefits do you see in limiting your own cities growth?
CJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroCat

I'm currently playing my first EB 1.2+Fixes campaign as Romani M/M, Huge unit size, using the RTW.exe Mods added: Win conditions, Force Diplomacy, RS map textures, Naval Start add on (only trade ship and cart), No big trees, New quotes, MC player formations and that's about it. Hope it goes well, I was tempted to uses the minimod with alex plus other mods that work with it, but figured for the first game I should go light on the mods.

I would also like to know if BI or ALEX gives a superior game. I am leaning towards ALEX but am definitely trying to learn about BI as well.

---

Astrocat,

I'm still learning about mods to EB. Are all the mods you listed (Win conditions, Force Diplomacy, RS map textures, etc.) found in the 1.2 mini-mod pack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus Johnson

Titus,
Thanks for the great info. I'm curious about the city mod. What benefits do you see in limiting your own cities growth?
CJ

---

Have a look at the City Mod description here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...79775-City-Mod

It's historically based. Rome was historically a Huge City. Historically, Arpi was not. So in this mod, Arpi can't be a Huge City.

Basically only a minority of cities can grow to Large City size, and only a handful like Rome can grow to Huge City size.

In the 'Hellenic' version of the mod, the barbarian towns can't grow beyond Large Town size. This is so Rome, Greek, Punic or Eastern factions can make them into civilised-looking cities, instead of still looking like barbarian settlements on the map. This version disadvantages the barbarian factions, obviously - but it gives the pathetic Roman AI a fighting chance against the likes of the Aedui and Lusotanns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Have a look at the City Mod description here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...79775-City-Mod

It's historically based. Rome was historically a Huge City. Historically, Arpi was not. So in this mod, Arpi can't be a Huge City.

Basically only a minority of cities can grow to Large City size, and only a handful like Rome can grow to Huge City size.

In the 'Hellenic' version of the mod, the barbarian towns can't grow beyond Large Town size. This is so Rome, Greek, Punic or Eastern factions can make them into civilised-looking cities, instead of still looking like barbarian settlements on the map. This version disadvantages the barbarian factions, obviously - but it gives the pathetic Roman AI a fighting chance against the likes of the Aedui and Lusotanns.

---

Essentially, this. In other words, a really nice way of perpetuating the long-held prejudices against ancient non-Latin non-Greek peoples, always making certain that the Greco-Latins are in every sense above--excuse me, "above"--the competition. I mean, anything else would basically be ahistorical, right?

On a more serious note, however, I use the City Mod myself because I'm honestly tired of having to quell public unrest that arises simply due to a huge population size. If, however, you realize that the point of EB is to educate and to represent history, and not to reenact history, then you ought not to use the City Mod. That is, if you realize that the point of Total War games is to recreate history (as opposed to reenact)--and you really have no choice because you will never come too close in any case--then you would naturally want any of your towns to be able to grow to full size, unrestrained, because the whole game would be in effect what it was made to be: one huge play, starring you. (About the colors, I just parsed the post for what would be tags or keywords most pertaining to my reply to the thread; nothing more, nothing less, don't read into it please.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus Johnson

Astrocat,

I'm still learning about mods to EB. Are all the mods you listed (Win conditions, Force Diplomacy, RS map textures, etc.) found in the 1.2 mini-mod pack?

---

A couple are optional but they are listed and linked in the first post of the minimod, except for the "Get rid of big trees" mod but it can 100% be added to the minimod 1.2 with no problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Essentially, this. In other words, a really nice way of perpetuating the long-held prejudices against ancient non-Latin non-Greek peoples, always making certain that the Greco-Latins are in every sense above--excuse me, "above"--the competition. I mean, anything else would basically be ahistorical, right?

---

Vartan, I don't think even a dominant barbarian empire controlling a significant portion of Europe would build a Huge City as large as Rome.

Because barbarians generally preferred to do their own farming, rather than using slaves to do it for them like Rome - which in the process pauperised their own peasant farmers into becoming a vast, unruly and unproductive city mob. (Actually, by modern standards, the 'barbarian' method of agriculture is actually more 'civilised' and fair to its own people, so I make no moral judgements here.)

A barbarian empire might have a large population, but it would be more spread out over the countryside and into many smaller towns, instead of concentrated in a few huge cities. Rome had a population of half a million by 272 BC. It took the largest barbarian cities of London and Paris another 1,750 years to reach anywhere near that level, that's 1,000 years after the fall of Rome!

The only way I could see a barbarian city growing to one the size of Rome would be the capital of a single empire covering the entire Celtic world - Gaul, Iberia, Germany, Northern Italy, Pannonia, and Getia. But in the Medieval era, no single king ever controlled anywhere near that much territory, not even Charlemagne and his Carolingian Empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Vartan, I don't think even a dominant barbarian empire controlling a significant portion of Europe would build a Huge City as large as Rome.

Because barbarians generally preferred to do their own farming, rather than using slaves to do it for them like Rome - which in the process pauperised their own peasant farmers into becoming a vast, unruly and unproductive city mob. (Actually, by modern standards, the 'barbarian' method of agriculture is actually more 'civilised' and fair to its own people, so I make no moral judgements here.)

A barbarian empire might have a large population, but it would be more spread out over the countryside and into many smaller towns, instead of concentrated in a few huge cities. Rome had a population of half a million by 272 BC. It took the largest barbarian cities of London and Paris another 1,750 years to reach anywhere near that level, that's 1,000 years after the fall of Rome!

The only way I could see a barbarian city growing to one the size of Rome would be the capital of a single empire covering the entire Celtic world - Gaul, Iberia, Germany, Northern Italy, Pannonia, and Getia. But in the Medieval era, no single king ever controlled anywhere near that much territory, not even Charlemagne and his Carolingian Empire.

---

Actually, that is precisely what the Carolingians controlled at the height of their power, at least the northern part of the Iberian peninsula anyway. Back to the point, I know how the Celtic population were not concentrated. But even this isn't represented in the campaign engine because the only way you can build and recruit is from towns, and that's an unfortunate truth. You don't really see towns until after the end of the 10th century, when settlements expand in western Evropa. But anyway, it's a game. My point was that you could get a kick out of screwing with history, playing God, if you will. Heck, that's the whole idea behind the game, innit? ;-) By the way, is Titus Marcellus Scato a famous Roman? I don't feel like looking him up. I don't want an encyclopedic entry on him!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

My point was that you could get a kick out of screwing with history, playing God, if you will. Heck, that's the whole idea behind the game, innit? ;-)

By the way, is Titus Marcellus Scato a famous Roman? I don't feel like looking him up. I don't want an encyclopedic entry on him!

---

The point is, EB mod is meant to be realistic. That means screwing with history, but with realistic historical limitations. City Mod adds another layer of realism.

Celtic kings didn't really have the continuous manpower advantage of Rome. They could raise big armies, but had trouble keeping them in the field for long periods due to poor logistics, and many of the troops were farmers and not well trained professional soldiers.

With the barbarian factions (once the initial blitz and slugfest is over and my economy is working nicely) I actually try to have minimal garrisons, and raise big armies very quickly when I need them by hiring loads of mercenaries from my region (only the mercs which match my faction's ethnic background, I won't hire any Greek mercs.) I have spies and little guard forces on the borders so no AI general can sneak into my region and hire 'my' mercs from under my nose. So when I'm invaded, my general pops out of the nearest town and hires a full stack of mercs. That way, I get the big barbarian army I want, without reducing my town population. If necessary I can supplement the mercs with cheap slingers and levy spearmen recruited from my towns, which I use as reserves on the battlefield, then disband them when the battle is over.

Titus Marcellus Scato? He's not a famous Roman, so don't bother looking him up. It's a made-up name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Essentially, this. In other words, a really nice way of perpetuating the long-held prejudices against ancient non-Latin non-Greek peoples, always making certain that the Greco-Latins are in every sense above--excuse me, "above"--the competition. I mean, anything else would basically be ahistorical, right?

On a more serious note, however, I use the City Mod myself because I'm honestly tired of having to quell public unrest that arises simply due to a huge population size. If, however, you realize that the point of EB is to educate and to represent history, and not to reenact history, then you ought not to use the City Mod. That is, if you realize that the point of Total War games is to recreate history (as opposed to reenact)--and you really have no choice because you will never come too close in any case--then you would naturally want any of your towns to be able to grow to full size, unrestrained, because the whole game would be in effect what it was made to be: one huge play, starring you. (About the colors, I just parsed the post for what would be tags or keywords most pertaining to my reply to the thread; nothing more, nothing less, don't read into it please.)

---

I know this is a bit of an old thread to revive, but one could argue that having to play the barbarians like a Greco-Latin faction (as if, somehow, the barbarians were simply a step or two behind the 'right' ways of the Greco-Latins) is where the bias lay. As Titus Marcello Scato says, the Greco-Latin way tends toward the disenfranchisement (increased poverty) of large swathes of their own peoples, and an increasingly stratified society with entrenched aristocracies/oligarchies gobbling up the wealth and power. Indeed, one sees exactly this effect of trade/interaction with the Roman world (especially with regards to Britain, but the same could be said for such as the Aedui and their Senate - and there are hints that Vercingetorix's rebellion is as much against the aristocratic powerbase within the Arverni, and Gaul as a whole, as it is against the Romans - whose natural allies seem to be those aristocratic powerbases.)

Part of the draw of playing as barbarian factions, for me personally, is to oppose the Greco-Latin idea of Imperium - not to try and 'catch up' with them.