Printable View
Is it just me, my playstyle, or does the AI in EB seem drastically more docile and not so hellbent on war? I´ve played numerous campaigns with most of the factions and I´ve been attacked a couple of times and betrayed only once!? Maybee it´s the economics of EB that incorporates this behaviour? Has anyone similar experiences?
.
What campaign difficulty setting are you playing on? EB's recommendation is "Very Hard" to experience the aggressive AI behaviour, especially with the rebels (Eleutheroi) besieging your settlements and all...
.
I play on VH/VH and I can agree on the same thing.
The AI is alot more calmer and not so aggresive.
I don't mind, it is nice to have peace for a while.
I play on VH and tha AI is very aggressive towards me.
What is strange is that some factions aren't aggressive at all beetween them, currently Aedui, Getai,Epirus and Makedon are at peace with everybody, they have huge armies and keep them wandering in their lands...This lasts from about 20 turns...
It's a little more realistic too though - but having much more dangerous eleutheroi cities is one big reason why expansion doesn't happen as quickly. And there is something in the works that hopefully will slow it down a little more in specific areas too. :grin:
I've found the AI not at all hostile in my game attempts. And personally I like that alot - of course im not ashamed to admit i only play on Medium. Personaly I always found it completely unrealistic when EVERYONE would just betray any alience, sometimes within years of signing it.
I play on Vh/m and it seems there is always somone that declares war on ME!!!!! Carthage and Iberia almost always go to war with each other. KH and Makedonia as well. Rome and Epirus, A. Seleukia and Ptomelies. And when I was playing as Baktria and Pontos....A. Seleukia always decided to pound me into submission...or try at least :sweatdrop:
As Rome I was also at war with 3 factions early into the game...Epirus, Carthage and the Adui..or was it Averni...
The Getai always seem to get big...but then get torn to pieces by Makedonia or Sweboz
The A.I does seem slower on the expansion....but that is sometimes good, 'cause then I can keep up with them....
Hi m8, nice to see you on this side on the fence ;) I´m playing on medium stratmap and on very hard on the battlefield. I´m use with this setup since the vanilla and extensive RTR playing. It just seemed to be the best (realistic) setting at the time. So you guys think I should change to VH/VH?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
On the other hand the AI DO declare war on me with theese settings it´s just seems to me that the AI is not that hysterical on VH/M. It´s really enjoyable... for once. :laugh4:
Yeah, I have played on medium as Pontos in the past in EB and just found almost every single faction unwilling to make peace (and same thing when I played as Hayasdan). Once the Seleukids broke their treaties with me, I never could get them or anyone else near me to ally or even be peaceful with me. I had to constantly fight the Seleukids and the other nearby factions. But I could occasionlly get a smaller faction more distant to ally if I was lucky. So this just is to say that sometimes it works both ways.
On the other hand, I have never ever seen bactria or parthia go to war with the seleucids (or each other, really). Bactria just scoop up the provinces that rebel from the seleucids, and eventually go after the Yuezhi and India. The germans are far enough away from everyone and with enough rebels that they hardly ever seem to need to attack any other faction.
Yes, it's the economics that results in this behavior.
It's good.
I sort of think that some of the factions expand too much. The Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires have both expanded a lot in the campaigns that I've played. I would think that those two factions should pretty much fall apart when controlled by the computer. AI Carthage shouldn't exactly fall apart, but something should keep them from expanding so much in North Africa. There are some factions, though, that don't do nearly enough. Rome and Parthia don't seem expand enough. It would be nice if it was scripted for Rome and Carthage to go to war and for Parthia and the Seleucid Empire to go to war. I don't know if it is possible, but it would also be nice if it could be scripted somehow for the computer-controlled factions to go after the settlements that are part of their victory conditions instead of expanding whichever way.
Yes. Rome and pahlav need to expand more than they do now.Quote:
Originally Posted by tk-421
I've seen both Rome and Parthia expanding, and in a Casse game Baktria and the Seleukids ended up at war, while in a KH game the Seleukids ended up practically annihilated by, well, most everyone. I like the way the same thing doesn't happen every time. In my new Carthage game, Epiros paid me to attack Rome about 262 when the Romans besieged Taras, that was quite cool.
As far as Rome and Carthage fighting, shouldn't there be a script linking an attack on Messana by either faction to a declaration of war between the two?
That's a great idea, like the war that's started with KH and Pontos or with whoever takes that middle Greek city.Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
I'm finding my Rome campaign tough going as the AI seems hellbent on defeating me. Its very aggressive with huge Ptolemaic armies keeping me pinned in Libya so that I can never quite finish off the Carthaginians in West Africa, nor the Iberians.
The Germans have expanded massively but are at peace with all factions bordering them including me. They have a couple more rebel regions to get and when they do I pray they take on the Makedonians and not us as I have almost my entire army in North Africa and Iberia.
Makedonia has stalled in its conquest of Asia Minor as the Pontics are putting up an impressive fight.
Bizzarrely the Seleucid/Ptolemaic war ended near the beginning of the game. Ptolemy gained the Seleucids as a Protectorate in about 250 BC and that stopped the Baktrians from taking them apart as they were doing. Baktria owns all of the Eastern parts of Seleucia and the Ptolemies control the Near East.
I could be mistaken, but wasn't the reason Rome and Carthage fought over Sicily more tied to the desire of both to control the region? There weren't any Roman or Carthaginian citizens who would cry for help, just some mercenaries who had taken over the town and didn't want to lose it to Syracuse, or anybody else.
If this is the case, this type of situation is well-represented by RTW without scripting a war.
Also, we've relied on input from our historical advisors as to what cities should be triggers for war. If the situation I described isn't the case, then maybe our Rome guys can let us know we want some scripting tied to Messana.
Do script Messana (like Thermon). It´s historical and very realistic. It´s a pity though that the Greeks are not present as they were in the original three-part-conflict of Messana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malrubius
Just because Messana was controlled by the Mamertines doesn't mean that delegations couldn't (and didn't) go to both the Carthaginians and Romans seeking intervention on their behalf.
And to better reflect the Mamertine presence, should more of the soldiers in Messana be merc troops? I think there's only a unit of hippeis and iphikrates hoplitai at the moment, in addition to the pantodapoi, akontistai, and militia hoplitai.