well i think the basques are out of the timeframe! anyway, there is enough barbarians as it is!
Printable View
well i think the basques are out of the timeframe! anyway, there is enough barbarians as it is!
Doubtfull, the Basques were already in Iberia when indo-europeans first arrived.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodidley
This biasing isn't hardcoded, is it? Hardcoded faction associations of any kind totally kill conversions to different periods or worlds. Currently the short campaigns in such mods make no sense, but otherwise they seem okay—the original RTW didn't have faction attack decisions biased on the basis of historical relationships, did it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
-Simetrical
I think the BI campaign map is wonderful, refreshing for a change. Big provinces, some historical accuracy, and hopefully, a better building AI.
Or have the
balanced
religious
trader
comfortable
bureaucrat
craftsman
sailor
fortified
remain unchanged? CA? Other campaign improvements?
i dont really understant your post, what are you trying to say?
he posted several faction attitudes. For example a faction could be comfortable napolean. That means they basically build a blanced army and buildings. If they were religious then they would build religous buildings.
He was wondering if those would be changed.
And I also fear what simetrical is saying and i think it was partly done in vanilla. Factions as a habbit dont attack rome, except they do try to retake their former lands. This can be seen in cisalpine gaul. Sometimes they crush roman invasion, but fail to strike back.
Correct . the AI is very very poor regarding invasions , btw it never ever invades from the sea (that is , never !!!) . Did any one saw a Punic invasion in to Italy ??? Damn
well i saw a pontic invasion to thrace! and a scipii invasion to carthage!and a brutii invasion to greece! and an iberian invasion to numidia! but very rarley, it is as if these factions were programmed to do that by CA.
Saw an invasion in to Italy (that is , from the sea) ?
i have, by the greek cities. the only problem was that the brutii and the greeks were not at war, so the greek armies just stood aroung italy!Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
The AI does invade by sea, although it seems that if there is an alternative route via land (even if that route is longer, more dangerous and generally less advantageous) then it prefers to march across land instead. Their neighbours might be hesitant to invade the Romans because the Romans are strong and so they would prefer to take some time to build up first. But this gives the Romans time to take the initiative and assault them first (and usually win).
i know, iv never seen any faction take a city back from the romans, but this shood chage with BI!
I'm seeing something weird in my current Brutii campaign. It's 243 BC and the Scips are doing very poorly... they're still trying to take the last Carthagenian city on Sicily and haven't expanded further. I was mousing over their home area planning on how I'd wipe them out in the pending civil war, when I noticed an Armenian ship had dropped a half-stack Armenian army at the coast, near Capua. They haven't done anything yet (I haven't advance to the next turn), and there's no official war declared between Armenia and the other factions. But that's a heck of a long way to go for an invasion, if that's what they're doing! I don't know why they picked Capua instead of more obvious targets closer to home.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
well, the armenians must be feeling adventureus, invading from armenia to sicilly!
Woops! I checked again, and I had it wrong... it was the Numidians, not the Armenians, which makes a lot more sense. I still think it's funny that they thought the Scips were weak enough to invade on their home ground.
:embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed: I have never saw anything like that , playing almost a year !!!!!!!!!!!!
Those invasions to Italy were when you are playing as the Romans ?
Back on topic......
I am happy with the campaign map and I am sure I would not want to see lots of small provinces as we did in MTW. That just became tedious
........Orda
do you not think that the BI map cood be doing with a few more provs, esprcially for greece.
I agree. I suspect fewer provinces might help the strategic AI (less options to ponder?). Plus it's less donkey work for the player micromanaging and I am not that fond of manually fighting endless petty sieges (however historical). I would like to see RTW evolve to the "fewer, more decisive" battles that we were promised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
RTR 5.4 had extra provinces and I am glad v6.0 switched it back to something close to vanilla. All it did was add tedium (and bring the 50 province victory condition to a more premature resolution). Off topic, for what it's worth, I am finding v6.0 pretty satisfying in terms of big decisive battles.
CA themselves said that most players find the Imperial Campaign too long to play.
Less provinces = less time to complete = good.
If only sieges were more enjoyable (less restricted), nobody would complain...
Size of the campaign map is all dependant on the feel of campaign play. In vanilla RTW I've switched to the Mundus Magnus map of the world. While nice in many respects, one of its drawbacks is the increase of money due to higher trade (which is based partly on distance between cities.) So hard for me to say whether I like fewer provinces or not until I see the game. (Opps, mean Expansion. ~:) )
But I think it's not necessarily good that there are fewer provinces if the cities are still going to take years to reach. Too much time is wasted just in moving armies from A to B, which makes for a dull game.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
well fewer provs=more decisive battles.