The Pontic Question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bovi

It is not a designer glitch. We designed EB to be played at VH/M, to be a very hard challenge on these our recommended settings. Then you choose to lay more difficulty on top of that (okay) and say that we designed it wrong (not okay). Just play it on the recommended settings and you may find that it is quite playable, very challenging and fun, rather than what you think is unplayable, impossible and frustrating.

---

I understand, thank you very much :2thumbsup:

Nah, honestly, I retract the statement about the glitch. My issue is a side effect of my own masochism and a lack of understanding of the way in which you have intended the game to be played.

Then take this as a request - for my fellow RTW masochists and I could some support be considered for harder settings? I will try by your advice, to play battle on Medium and see how I get on, many thanks :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuciusCorneliusSulla

Then take this as a request - for my fellow RTW masochists and I could some support be considered for harder settings?

---

You obviously still don't understand. EB makes what the vanilla difficulty levels should have been:
* Easy is easy with most any faction, corresponding somewhat between vanilla's H and VH (which was a joke, there's no challenge on vanilla VH).
* Medium is the normal, moderately challenging difficulty, quite a bit harder than vanilla's VH.
* Hard is hard. This can be used with some of the easier factions if you need more of a challenge.
* Very Hard is very hard indeed, even nigh impossible as we say with some factions.

All difficulty levels are adjusted heavily by the faction you choose, where Rome is easy and Pontus/Hayasdan are very hard, as we say in the faction info when you choose it.

What you're saying makes no sense. You think VH/VH for Pontus is impossible. So when you ask for "support" for harder settings, you actually mean to make the game easier. How is that helping "masochists"? So that you can boast about beating the hardest thing in the game?

Instead, simply choose the settings that gives you the most challenge that you can cope with. There's plenty to choose from, unlike any other mod I've seen except ArthurianTW. In any other mod I've played, I have had to choose VH/VH to get anything resembling a challenge.

Perfect, then my error was in thinking that changing the difficulty to Medium would result in the piss-easy, unsatisfying experience that was in Vanilla.

I'll give Medium a whirl -thanks Bovi :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

No.

The only "improvement" is that the AI is useing naval invasions. But that again is terrible bugged: the AI will use this for random landings only. You have a about 100% chance that the Karthagians will land one army near Capua, the Romans on Corsica and the Ptolemaians on Rhodos, and a about 75% chance of a KH landing near Taras (only if owned by the Romans). All this will happen regardless of the diplomatic stance or with any strategical background or even support after the landing. I consider that a bug.

The next bug is the "siege-peace-loop" that usually follows these landings: the respective town is sieged in turn#1, both factions make peace in turn#2, siege starts anew in turn#3, both factions make peace again in turn#4, siege in #5 and so forth. The only places where conquest sometimes occurs are Capua and Taras.

The other named places only seldom change ownership. More often even more weired things happen, like Makedons and Seleucids landing on Rhodos too, starting the funny "siege-peace" game. Or Karthagians landing a hughe army on Crete, leaving it there without taking the town.

That's in short on the "improved naval AI in BI". I would suggest the Alexander engine (even though it has it's own bugs too) or, if not available, the RTW engine. Better no/rare invasions than this chaos.

---

Exactly my experience too. And I also think it is not advisable to play at VH on the tactical level. The ai remains as stupid as it is, and for example gasatae are nearly invincible.:thumbsdown: I prefer Rome.exe and Hard. But I did not yet give alex.exe a try. Where is the difference? What bugs does it have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bovi

You obviously still don't understand. EB makes what the vanilla difficulty levels should have been:
* Easy is easy with most any faction, corresponding somewhat between vanilla's H and VH (which was a joke, there's no challenge on vanilla VH).
* Medium is the normal, moderately challenging difficulty, quite a bit harder than vanilla's VH.
* Hard is hard. This can be used with some of the easier factions if you need more of a challenge.
* Very Hard is very hard indeed, even nigh impossible as we say with some factions.

All difficulty levels are adjusted heavily by the faction you choose, where Rome is easy and Pontus/Hayasdan are very hard, as we say in the faction info when you choose it.

What you're saying makes no sense. You think VH/VH for Pontus is impossible. So when you ask for "support" for harder settings, you actually mean to make the game easier. How is that helping "masochists"? So that you can boast about beating the hardest thing in the game?

Instead, simply choose the settings that gives you the most challenge that you can cope with. There's plenty to choose from, unlike any other mod I've seen except ArthurianTW. In any other mod I've played, I have had to choose VH/VH to get anything resembling a challenge.

---

You are right about VH settings bovi.. I know tha now :viking:
But do you remeber when I made threads regarding the VH as VERY - Very Hard, well back the you didn't make such a nice list - I was confused back then becasue I tought that VH settings Improve AI - now I know they make it Hard just becasue AI get's +7 moral and attack against you.. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marodeur

But I did not yet give alex.exe a try. Where is the difference? What bugs does it have?

---

There are several differences: On the startegical level the AI is more merging its stacks and so more often uses one or two full stack armies instead of dozends of mini-stacks. The mini-stacks are still around but they aren't that dominant.

The AI is also able to retrain its units!

It is said, even though I can't confirm it, that the AI is less backstabbish and will stick to alliances longer.

On the tactical level the AI is better in using its units on the battlefield. It is still far from being really good, but you are flanked very often and its units seem to work together much, much better.

Bugs: I have more CTDs with the ALX.exe than with BI or RTW (that is about one per week to about one per month with the other exes). And there seems to be a problem with empty towns: the AI often leaves just one governor in a town and when he dies the town is completly unguarded. That also happens with the other exes, but with the ALX.exe it remains so sometimes for many turns and even hostile forces that pass by do recognize that the town is empty and do not occupy it. I consider that a bug.

Konny is right 99% as far as I am consirned:san_grin:

That 1 little % is aside because I had only a couple CTD's total - with RTW and BI.exe there were alot of them.. My impression is that most of people think ALex.exe is more stable:shrug:

But after some time they all get CTD, EB is so massive and good that you really need to have one sideeffect :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

There are several differences: On the startegical level the AI is more merging its stacks and so more often uses one or two full stack armies instead of dozends of mini-stacks. The mini-stacks are still around but they aren't that dominant.

The AI is also able to retrain its units!

It is said, even though I can't confirm it, that the AI is less backstabbish and will stick to alliances longer.

On the tactical level the AI is better in using its units on the battlefield. It is still far from being really good, but you are flanked very often and its units seem to work together much, much better.

Bugs: I have more CTDs with the ALX.exe than with BI or RTW (that is about one per week to about one per month with the other exes). And there seems to be a problem with empty towns: the AI often leaves just one governor in a town and when he dies the town is completly unguarded. That also happens with the other exes, but with the ALX.exe it remains so sometimes for many turns and even hostile forces that pass by do recognize that the town is empty and do not occupy it. I consider that a bug.

---

Thank you!

The AI in Alex.exe does seem less 'backstabbish' as Konny called it. I have had a few very poorly defended towns (1-3 units each) near allied cities for over 20 years as AS and no attacks yet. Allies seem very reliable in fact, quite a shock.
Can't comment on the empty towns though, haven't seen this myself, just the usual 1-2 units to guard a town at risk of major attack :wall:

CTD - unfortunately I feel it is a bit more common on Alex.exe than BI or RTW. The advantages of the AI (inc Rebels) retraining garrisons however, more than makes up for it.

All in all a far better experience than BI in which the naval foolishness drives me spare.

Edit: out of interest, as Epeiros I accepted to become a vassal of Rome, absolutely no attacks from them after until some low life (non roman) decided to break the peace hehe.

Same when I was playing as the Maks, let KH capture Korinthos and Demetrios (I was invading Asia Minor for my homeland instead). Following this they asked me to become a vassal. Once more, no attacks! I love Alex.exe.