The most fun, the least fun and the most frustrating gaming experiences...

I decided to do a little review of all the countries I've played so far.

I'd say that the most fun, so far, have been Hayasdan and Bakteria in that order because at least in the earl going the game is both challenging and extremely rewarding. Yes its true, the AS is terrible at fighting cavalry armies but even they get lucky and if one of their massive armies can crushes your single army you are doomed. So every battle and every horse archer/soldier becomes a precious commodity. Not to mention that until you have mines going, and as Hayasdan even after, every penny counts! Indeed, Hayasdan's proximity to the main AS bases makes them extremely challenging and rewarding because you face hordes of silver shield phalanax almsot instantly whereas as Bakteria you "only" deal with medium phalanax...its with these two countries that I've amassed something like 30 or so heroic victories...

Epirus comes a close 2nd or 3rd because of your strategic situation. Sure the Makedonians and the Greeks basically are stuck in an never ending struggle and with Pella and its delicious mines under your belt the going is pretty easy but you still have to defeat swarms of Romans in Italy and until you DO get the mines going your economy is for crap. And actually, for this reason I'd say the early game as Epirus is even more fun since you only have levy phalanax and other low tier units with which to conquer Rome (although thanks to mercenaries in Italy it isnt so bad either) However, once, as Epirus, you control the Balkans and their rich mines then it is pretty much game over for the Ai...Rome falls easily and after that the only real threat is the AS. But with so much money being generated and with your back essentially secured there isnt really anything but frustration that can stop you...

The least fun, so far, I would have to say is Sweboz. Not because I think they are a crappy faction or anything but because you basically have to disband your whole army and it takes a while to conquer the independent cities. Sure, once yo uget rolling and the gold is coming in you can have fun wars vs the Gauls and maybe the Romans/Epirites but the first 30 or so turns are a snooze fest.

The most frustrating I would have to say are Rome and Carthage. As Rome, its basically impossible to lose. Especially once you figure out how incredible rich Greece/Balkans are. Conquering South Italy and then swining into Greece will leave you with 15K or more in income and the ability to pump out hyper elite legions that will just whipe out the Gauls in 3-4 turns....sure it sounds like fun but its also an exercise in frustration because once you get past the first battle Vs Epirutes you are never, ever, again challenged by the ai in your home provinces. Carthage, the great threat, just sits there on its side of the pond and does nothing...and sure you could invade and the first couple of battles are challenging because you face east african phalanax and hordes of carthaginian bodyguards but all in all it is still quite frustrating...probably the most frustrating civ I've played so far...

Carthage, is of course the second most frustrating civilization for two reasons. First, the pirates are an irratant. If, on the first turn, you didnt put all your ships into dock then chances are those ships are gone. Secondly, the Romans never, ever, ever bother with invading you until its too late. Especially if you leave Sicily tempirarily alone and focus on Spain then you can build up Carthage to produce the most elite infantry by the time the Romans invade Reghion. Yet at the same tie, conquering Spain is an exercise in irratation. First the Lusatanians can do disproportional damage and then, once they are exterminated just holding the place down is a pain the butt. Even exterminating a place 3-4 times in a row doesnt quell decent! BUT, once this exercise in frustration is over, you'd think that at last, I can have my elite units face the romans in a truly epic battle! But no, by the time you have 4-5 units of elite infantry and carthaginian cavalry the Romans are easy meat. Again, they never bother you and by the time a human can form an elite army they are basically doomed...

Bakteria?...Those EB rascals have modded in a faction of microorganisms now as well?...Just kidding friend. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lysander13

Bakteria?...Those EB rascals have modded in a faction of microorganisms now as well?...:

---

They do have tendency to spread fast like microorganisms though :laugh4:

Anyways , it's a decent evaluation , although faction tactics does depends alot from gamers approach.

You can go in red with Sweboz and conquer provinces till you start making money , or you can disband and rebuild, for example.

Nice post, noosh. I have a few comments, though.

As the Sweboz, you should be able to immediately attack with your starting army, first northwards, then around your capital. These cities are only lightly garrisoned and with a force of five/six units of Frameharjoz plus your king, you can get them quickly under your banner. Once you have six-seven provinces you should be back in the black and start building up things.

The Romans, I think, should be relatively easy to play once you've united Italy. The problem with toning them down stat-wise or economically is that the AI would be even worse at playing them than they already are, and that's quite bad. Probably one of the worst AI factions. Same with Qart-Hadast I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noosh

First the Lusatanians can do disproportional damage and then, once they are exterminated just holding the place down is a pain the butt. Even exterminating a place 3-4 times in a row doesnt quell decent!

---

You do know that Phoenicians had reached Iberia by the 10th century BC, and that the Carthaginians took over those colonies by the 7th or 6th century, both never really being able to expand beyond the coast (except during the 2nd Punic in which they had some more "allied" tribes, but never came even close controling places like Celtiberia and Lusitania)?

You do know that it took the Romans 200 years of battles, skirmishes, raping, pillaging, deportation and outright genocide, suffering casualties that make the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest look almost pale in comparison, to pacify the entire Iberian peninsula, right?

Just checking.

I agree with you 100% Sarcasm. The Iberians and Lusitannians where a pain in the ass :oops: for the Romans. It was Augustus who finally pacified the region.

Cheers

Try play Rome with the Barbarian Invasion in EB then

you will have invasions on you homeland and on the

islands you just conquered

really playing Rome with EB + BI is a huge difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

You do know that Phoenicians had reached Iberia by the 10th century BC, and that the Carthaginians took over those colonies by the 7th or 6th century, both never really being able to expand beyond the coast (except during the 2nd Punic in which they had some more "allied" tribes, but never came even close controling places like Celtiberia and Lusitania)?

You do know that it took the Romans 200 years of battles, skirmishes, raping, pillaging, deportation and outright genocide, suffering casualties that make the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest look almost pale in comparison, to pacify the entire Iberian peninsula, right?

Just checking.

---

well, no obviously I dont as I was commenting on a game.

I didnt realize, however that I would be also checked on my historical knowledge today and so perhaps I could have boned up on my history of obscure periods in Spain's history.... Perhaps, then we should then discuss the realism of Rome conquering the Gauls in 2 years in the game or AS whipping out all ai controlled civilization in the middle east in 50...or a billion of other things that happen in the game that didnt happen historically..I am not, unfortunately, a professory of antiquities nor hold an advanced degree in it but I do seem to remember that the Selucids distinctly did not conquer Mecca...or Alexandria...but perhaps I could be wrong. :egypt:

My point was that from the point of view of a game, conquering Iberia as Carthage is irritating. Inicidentally, as Rome conquering it is quite easy because you can afford to have hordes of mercanries in every tiny village but thats besides the point...


Yah, re Sweboz, I did realize that I could do that. And as Geitei I'm doing something similar and thats fine. Its just that it is a bit slow going because as Sweboz if you dont disband those armies you are something like -15k after the first 3 turns. Of course I, in the end, just united all my general units and just used those and that works more than fine but still...a bit...pedantic I guess...


Hmmm, I didnt know you could also use BI...I think I'll go pick it up from the cheapo bin one of these days then...thanks!

Since you act like such a charming fellow, let me clear up a few things for you since you obviously aren't neither a professor of antiquity, nor can you use simple things like, I don't know, a coherent argumentation.

Now that you mention it perhaps you should have brushed a bit on Iberian history, before actually complaining about something that's meant to be like that, in a mod that strives to be as historically accurate as the RTW engine allows. Figured you would have caught up on that by now.

I must say, that I've never seen Rome conquer Gaul in 2 years (8 turns? somehow I find that hard to believe - winters alone should slow you down). What I've regularly seen is probably more accurate, namely Rome taking control of southern Italy, and then going north to conquer Gaul. And they take much more than 7 years to do that. That's roughly how long the final Gallic wars lasted, btw.

Not even the AS consume all the factions you mentioned in 50 years. And to your information, they did come close to taking Egypt a few times, and on at least one occasion the Ptolemies reached Mesopotamia.

Why you complain about something that's accurate, and then go on to argue that certain things are widely inaccurate (things I don't agree entirely, especially on a non-final version), is completely beyond me.

On mercs: the village you see on the map does not represent the entire population of the area. And to think that is just plain stupid. In the future they're bound to receive an overhaul (in fact I know they are, since I gave some input on them a few weeks ago) however, availability is the same to Rome and Carthage. And both have about the same economic ability to get them.

Wow

Alright. Last post from me on this.

Quote:

---

I must say, that I've never seen Rome conquer Gaul in 2 years (8 turns? somehow I find that hard to believe - winters alone should slow you down). What I've regularly seen is probably more accurate, namely Rome taking control of southern Italy, and then going north to conquer Gaul. And they take much more than 7 years to do that. That's roughly how long the final Gallic wars lasted, btw.

---

Are we talking about Ai or humans? I was referring to my experience as a human... This is how it went: Turn one. 2 Armies arrive outside of two biggest Gaul cities. Turn 2, 2 more armies arrive at that big Gaul city by Germany. Turn 3, first big Gaul cities done. Turn 4, the distant Gault city is done. Turn 5, walking towards the west coast of France and the two northern big gaul cities. Turn 6 still walking. Turn seven, siege. Turn 8. All goth cities are dead. Its true, the rebels in what is belgium and in what is southern france are also technically in Gaul but I was reffering to the Gaul empires...and this example is here to, of course, point out that in the wider sense certain nations are able to easily break historical reality of this game and others, like my experience as Carthage in Spain, only do so with an investment of 20 turns or more...which I think is both frustrating and flawed.

Quote:

---

Not even the AS consume all the factions you mentioned in 50 years.

---

Lets see. Game as Geitei, turn 58 AS is occupying all of Middle East till the Suez straights and only Baktria is still somewhat independent. Game as Rome, while I conquer Greece/Gaul/Balkans the AS controls everything in the middle east - the Arabs who control Saudi Arabia plus Lebanon. Turn is bout 54.

Quote:

---

And to your information, they did come close to taking Egypt a few times, and on at least one occasion the Ptolemies reached Mesopotamia.

---

Right. Good to know.

Quote:

---

Why you complain about something that's accurate, and then go on to argue that certain things are widely inaccurate (things I don't agree entirely, especially on a non-final version), is completely beyond me.

---

My compliant was that conquering the Lustatanians is frustrating. Your response is that "Lusatanians were conquered only after 200 years of Roman occupation and therefor complaining about the difficulty of conquering as Carthage is bad because of this fact." My response is, not everything is 100% accurate in the game because decisions were made between historical accuracy and enjoyment of the game and I felt that creating unconquerable Spain, only for Carthage by the way because the Romans can afford to throw legions after legions in there while the Gaul capitals are near by so they dont get a crazy rebellion penalty based on capital distance, seems to embrace the orthodoxy of historical accuracy so strongly that it makes game play suffer because of it. Indeed, since as Carthage the only alternative to conquering Spain and making the game somewhat enjoyable is a quick rush into Italy which means that the Romans are done and gone and after that, as Carthage anyway, it seems kind of pointless to play on...

Further proof that this game embraces "playability" over historical accuracy could be found in the countries I named. Thus, certain nations, like the Romans or the Germans (who in 2 out of very 3 games seem to conquer almost all of the rebels/slaves if you dont attack them) are acting the way they are acting because of game balance rather than strict adherence to historical accuracy and for the most part its viewed as a "good" move.

Conversely, AS, gifted with its historical provinces and its historical troops is a mighty superpower that matches only the Mongols or the Turks in the size of its middle eastern conquests and although conquering such a titanic power is most rewarding, purely because the other Ais dont have the reserves to recover from the 3-4 defeats a human can inflict on them within a 10 turn period also leads to widely a-historical results like the end of the Pahlavi, Armenians, Pontos, Baktria and Egypt at the hands of AS...

Quote:

---

On mercs: the village you see on the map does not represent the entire population of the area. And to think that is just plain stupid.

---

well I agree. However this game doesnt have the option of slaughtering everyone in the province. And with the way cities respond after rebelling, by being filled with 10 or so units of various troops, including heavy infantry, it makes cities that are highly rebellious, like those of Spain, kind of stupid. Surely, when a village of a couple thousand Portuguese's rebelled against the Romans and drove of the local garrison they didnt immediately find and dove heavy armor hidden about and march forth to whippe out every other roman legion in the province. Or maybe they did indeed do that, as I am not an expert on this subject.

All in all I'm still somewhat confused by your heavy sarcasm and use of personal insults but I guess since you seem so deeply involved with the Lustatanians I must have a struck a nerve. Or maybe you were just having a bad day. Either way, cheerio.

Well, EB team never said that they are after historical accuracy of the factions expansions or demises.If they were, we would have only one winner , Romani.What they said and they are keep saying is that are trying to recreate world at beggining of the game , in 272. After that it's all open.

As for Carthage having problems in Iberia, i played Carthage several times and didn't have more than what you would expect for unrest.You do need time to kill cultural penalty by building your factions structures.In the end i had 1-3 units per province garrisoning it.

After all, that's what EB is about.Playing it for lenghty time.

And i must add conquering and stabilizing Iberia as Carthage was one of my most enjoying times in EB.It took me close to 60+ years .Took me less then 10 years to do the same with Italy.

If you think that's hard, try conquering and stabilizing India with Sauromatae.

Regarding conquering Gauls in 2 years, if you plan for it and have money and enough army , you can conquer anything fast. That's why alot of people have their own "house rules" to compensate for AI dumbness.One of them being "no blitzing".

If you don't like AS being too powerfull(not saying that i like it) , there are plenty of sub-mods that you can use and that helps with that:beam:

I agree that Sweboz overexpands , but that's something that you can blame CA for.Their limiting number of factions leaves huge open space in some areas.If it wasn't Sweboz , would be someone else.

Again , there are sub-mods that deal with that somewhat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noosh

Are we talking about Ai or humans? I was referring to my experience as a human... This is how it went: Turn one. 2 Armies arrive outside of two biggest Gaul cities. Turn 2, 2 more armies arrive at that big Gaul city by Germany. Turn 3, first big Gaul cities done. Turn 4, the distant Gault city is done. Turn 5, walking towards the west coast of France and the two northern big gaul cities. Turn 6 still walking. Turn seven, siege. Turn 8. All goth cities are dead. Its true, the rebels in what is belgium and in what is southern france are also technically in Gaul but I was reffering to the Gaul empires...and this example is here to, of course, point out that in the wider sense certain nations are able to easily break historical reality of this game and others, like my experience as Carthage in Spain, only do so with an investment of 20 turns or more...which I think is both frustrating and flawed.

Lets see. Game as Geitei, turn 58 AS is occupying all of Middle East till the Suez straights and only Baktria is still somewhat independent. Game as Rome, while I conquer Greece/Gaul/Balkans the AS controls everything in the middle east - the Arabs who control Saudi Arabia plus Lebanon. Turn is bout 54.

---

We are talking about RTW AI, I mean what the hell do you expect from us. We are trying to balance the factions as best we can. Rome taking Gaul by turn 8 seems a tad implausible, but we can't stop everything from happening. Personally I've never seen anything like this in any of my campaigns.

Also, firstly, what you find as frustrating others will find interesting. What you find flawed, others will find accurate. Iberia should be difficult to take, regardless of who you play. If you want to throw stacks and stacks at it, then be my guest but that isn't necessarily the best way to go about it

Quote:

---

My compliant was that conquering the Lustatanians is frustrating. Your response is that "Lusatanians were conquered only after 200 years of Roman occupation and therefor complaining about the difficulty of conquering as Carthage is bad because of this fact." My response is, not everything is 100% accurate in the game because decisions were made between historical accuracy and enjoyment of the game and I felt that creating unconquerable Spain, only for Carthage by the way because the Romans can afford to throw legions after legions in there while the Gaul capitals are near by so they dont get a crazy rebellion penalty based on capital distance, seems to embrace the orthodoxy of historical accuracy so strongly that it makes game play suffer because of it. Indeed, since as Carthage the only alternative to conquering Spain and making the game somewhat enjoyable is a quick rush into Italy which means that the Romans are done and gone and after that, as Carthage anyway, it seems kind of pointless to play on...

---

Wrong game, I'm afraid. We are all about the historical accuracy, as far as we can get it. But we are dealing with a game, whose AI has a hard time saying "no" to war, whose AI can't manage an economy, and whose AI thinks that the player is Public Enemy No.1. It is our philosophy that, just as history is not improved by fantasy (the real world is far more interesting than a fake one, there is just less escapism), a gameplay defined by history beats a history defined by gameplay. Whats more interesting, having to historically go out and find cavalry for your post-marian roman armies, or get ahistorical roman cav in the penisular after the marian reforms. Whats more interesting, having trouble with the unruly natives of the iberian penisular, or having a flat unresponsive map on which to carve out a digital empire. We ain't a game, we're a history.

Quote:

---

Further proof that this game embraces "playability" over historical accuracy could be found in the countries I named. Thus, certain nations, like the Romans or the Germans (who in 2 out of very 3 games seem to conquer almost all of the rebels/slaves if you dont attack them) are acting the way they are acting because of game balance rather than strict adherence to historical accuracy and for the most part its viewed as a "good" move.

Conversely, AS, gifted with its historical provinces and its historical troops is a mighty superpower that matches only the Mongols or the Turks in the size of its middle eastern conquests and although conquering such a titanic power is most rewarding, purely because the other Ais dont have the reserves to recover from the 3-4 defeats a human can inflict on them within a 10 turn period also leads to widely a-historical results like the end of the Pahlavi, Armenians, Pontos, Baktria and Egypt at the hands of AS...

---

We are constantly balancing the game to make the above things not happen. We have never wanted the game to run on historical rails, without deviation from the past, but we certainly don't cheer when AS conquers the west with a strong east, or when the sweboz unite the tribes without even a proper fight, or when the romans head north instead of south. No, we don't cheer, we get back to work and find ways of making that not happen. We want the east provinces of AS to rebel, to be difficult to hold, for both the player and the AI. We want the romans to have a tough time against carthage and to have trouble making headway through gaul. We want iberia to be a tough nut to crack. But to do that we need help from you guys. How you yourself play is incredibly important. If you steamroller everyone, then no matter what we do it won't change a thing. But if you take your time, role-play your progress and focus on playing the game not as a game but as a piece of historical theatre then EB can truly appear, as how we have always wished it to.

If that isn't the type of game you want to play, we have no problem. Many EB fans like racking up the difficulty level and try to take on the AI head-to-head. Fair enough, but never ever say that we embrace gameplay over historical accuracy, its not fair, its not true ... and the EB ninja deathsquad with get you.

Quote:

---

well I agree. However this game doesnt have the option of slaughtering everyone in the province. And with the way cities respond after rebelling, by being filled with 10 or so units of various troops, including heavy infantry, it makes cities that are highly rebellious, like those of Spain, kind of stupid. Surely, when a village of a couple thousand Portuguese's rebelled against the Romans and drove of the local garrison they didnt immediately find and dove heavy armor hidden about and march forth to whippe out every other roman legion in the province. Or maybe they did indeed do that, as I am not an expert on this subject.

---

We can't affect what units appear in a rebellion. I mean, I've seen cities in vanilla rebel with a load of elephants or with nothing but onagers. Its stupid, but its RTW. Secondly, as Sarcasm has already said, the village of a thousand people, does not represent the entire population of a province. Carthage had a pop. of 250,000 around our time, and that is just the city, but you could never get the population that high. So, yeah, they did rebel and they could get heavy infantry, or do you think that every revolution is made by a bunch of plebs with no army, peasant armies a myth. You want a revolution you get militia, backed with a professional wing, or you die.

Foot

Im playing as the Lusitanians now and the first part of getting Iberia under my Firm grip was fun a nice challenge fighting the Carthaginians but now. rome has southern gaul just the southern bits...The field stack after stack of mercenaries against me so far ive fought them away but i only have one army to defend my border on the Ebro (the river just south of the pyrennese) so the keep siegeing numantia velika and mastia turn after turn while i fight them back...I can this turning inot a never ending struggle as a try to keep my cites cash flow up but my govenors are starting to get old..

Now then you need to think of your stengths as a faction. Very simple really: just about all troops you can recruit are most adept at hiding, so what would be the natural thing to do?

OH i do that, ive been utilising my armies ambushing skills but i only have ONE army to defend the ebro river if i take it north to Emporion and capture that they will have one go round from the atlantic side and take velika then i would have to go back and sacrifice the gains i have.


its like this



R. A 1 R.A 2 R.A 3



My single army


I can only get rid of one stack at a time and then the other too will siege either numantia or Velika so then i have to relive that because the town defender wont survive against the hardcore roman troops and mecenaries. so i relive that and all and then a new set of armies appears so i get time to retrain (spenidn extra cash) and then the process repeats itself.

Im at work at the mo so when im at home tonight i will spend what will pribaly be all night making a small step forward....I hate games like this yet i love it im so gonna love destroying Rome

I play for Romans on Hard/Hard. Now is the game in year 220 BC. I have made invasions till 240 BC. I had my holdings in whole Italy, Sicilia, Sardinia, Corsica, whole coast of Iliria and Epirus. I was in war with Karthadst, Makedonia and Aeudi. Everythig is gone well, but since 240 BC I have my bols in meat-mincer. Till 240 BC was everything perfect. But than Swebos made aliance with Aeudi, in 230 BC Arverni made aliance with Aeudi, Gethai made aliance with Swebos. Now I am every turn under very heavy attacks of Swebos in north Iliria, heavy attacks of Aeudi in north Italia - behind Padus, medium attacks of Karthadasm on Sardinia and Makedonia in north of Greek and several attacks of Getai in central Iliria! This situation is for me very flustrating, chaps, because for the first time I have to use cheating to get enough mnai for training of new armies! Do you mean that is better to play EB on Hard (battles) and Medium (strategy map)?

no medium on battle map and VERY hard on world map. its a demanding game but maybe you miss the point maybe you will have to lose and regroup maybe you wont win the game but you can always try again.

@Pius Curus:

Congratulations, a challenge. Make some decisions, leave some provinces, lose some battles. Enjoy it!

In my Mak campaign I own everything up to Danube, Getai lands, plus the Alpine regions. Sweboz and Romans betrayed me simultaneously bringing me under hard pressure. Sweboz took Ak-Ink and Iuvavoaeta, Veldideno was twice besieged by Romans, once by Sweboz, I finally decided to leave it, what caused it rebelling to the Aedui. Now my Alpine Merc-army is going south ready to harass Mediolanum. In the meanwhile the Romans took Segestica, a really hard blow to my finances. But I like it! I levied an army to respond the threat in the north, and am currently levying another army to invade Italy from the south, so my economy is under hard pressure at the moment. But I will take everything back from those bast**ds!

Well fellas.... here is what I have found that makes campains fun, not fun, plain frustrating.


I think it comes down to the difficulty in which you play the game:
For example:

My most enjoyble campain to date was a KH campain VH/VH on EB .74. Yes thats right. There was no rulz, no fair fights, no waiting around, no wasting $$, and my Elites Vs AI non-elites= AI wins.... So I was forced to get REALLY creative and improvise a lot in the strategy game and the battles.

My not fun campains was my last Aedui campain in .81, VH/M (the "recommended" settings). I just could not do it. Too easy, AI was a cake walk.... Even with rulz and "role Playing", and "taking it slow" I just could not do it. At all... I got tired of it.

My darm frustrating campain was a VH/VH Aedui campain in . 74, by 268BC while still having -$ the Romans came after me hard. Too many romans. Tried it 3 more times, but I could not kill the Arverni and get +$ fast enough.


So.... for each of us, it comes down to finding the balance between fun and frustrating.
1-For some it means easy, waiting around a lot, reducing the money script for the AI.
2-For other it means to Role Play a faction, limited troop numbers, not expading into area X until the year of the actual historical expansion took place.
3-And for creasy mofo's like me it means "no rulz fight or die", because the AI's non-Elites can beat your Elites, the AI has 10X more $$ than you, and the AI is producing Elites ONLY! ~:shock:

What I have found is that making FATIGE FLASE makes battles really enjoyable, even in "M" battle difficulty.

@ Centurio Nixalsverdrus

As you wrote, maybe I will have to lose some battles, some regions. But I think that than it will be the same, I will be out of money and Swebos will rolling my again and again, because they have just about 400 000 mnai or more and I am in debet, uff...I see only one possibility, I have to stop :hmg: these bastards at Danube bridges and crossings and trample in ground nasty Aeudi. You know, I dont seek the war, I just want peace:hippie: for undisturbed harvests of my Roman peoples ~;) I could send you save of my situation or some challenged battles to try out:)

newcomers to EB should also keep in mind that EB is meant to be played slowly, and realistically. Having hoards of full-stack armies is not the way to go in EB. Players should adopt "Eb style" rules, such as not campaigning in winter, sitting out sieges instead of assaulting, not spamming armies of levies or elites, etc. EB is designed for accuracy and realism, but the player has to do his part as well. With this in mind, you will get the most enjoyment from the EB mod. If this isnt your style, EB might not be the mod for you. Maybe try RTR?

@Zaknafien

It was to me? I dont know. But I think, I can react.

I played RTR 6 Gold for mor than 1,5 year. I think I know RTR very good, I mean, and I will not return to RTR, because EB is much better and more "realistic".

But for my pleading;-) I am trying to play as "truly Roman" - praetor armies, consular armies with tribunes, no full stack armies, spend winter in castrum, etc. But I am now a little bit flustrating for example of multiple attacks of Swebos fullstack mercenary baltic armies in Ilyria turn after turn and now I see that I will have to leave some rules, because I think that Swebos are in my play to strong and my situation has only 2 solutions, to be beaten and total loose or leave rules and little bit cheat:no:

There are money scripts that hewlp to regulate speed of game and provide you with different levels of dificulty.

Some of them actually will give AI way more money then original EB scripts ,keeping AI challenging, but you will still not face "infinite" number of AI stacks .

Maybe you can try that.

Here is a link for some of them :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...65#post1621565

@mlp071

Thank you very much for your reply. I have just downloaded the Redmeth Balanced Mod 1.1. before this weekend and I am ready to install it, but I had not time to try it on the weekend. It is pity, that I will have to start a new campaign to play with this mod, to see the changes:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

newcomers to EB should also keep in mind that EB is meant to be played slowly, and realistically. Having hoards of full-stack armies is not the way to go in EB. Players should adopt "Eb style" rules, such as not campaigning in winter, sitting out sieges instead of assaulting, not spamming armies of levies or elites, etc. EB is designed for accuracy and realism, but the player has to do his part as well. With this in mind, you will get the most enjoyment from the EB mod. If this isnt your style, EB might not be the mod for you. Maybe try RTR?

---

no disrespect Zaknafien... but do you mean the AI on the subject of spamming armies?????

I think he was talking about the player having hoards of full stacks, but that's just a guess, mainly on the basis that the AI always has hoards of full stacks in most EB campaigns (and most RTR campaigns, best I can recall). And I for one like to assault cities every now and then. If I wait it out, reinforcements might arrive, or my army may start to lose too much of its morale (or get sick!), so I regularly attempt an assault. After all, there are plenty of city assaults in ancient history as well. Its also been my observation that you have little choice but not to campaign in winter--moving your generals what few movement points they may have regularly ends in getting him sick, and all for relatively meager advances.