Re: More than a weak tendency?
Ok, back to more tests with the original background script. I just have to get some grip on how often the Ptolies manage to do what Germaan just showed, even though it's quite tedious and boring sitting on those islands as Casse just testing. As I mentioned before I had two straight campaigns with unstoppable Seleucids. Here are three more tests, and finally I got one where the Ptolies are doing great (test2 below). I will continue with more tests, but from what I've seen so far there are a few similarities between the campaigns. Ptolies too weak in four out of five, Macedon were doing Ok in one out of five against the Epeiros/KH alliance. Arverni did Ok in the last test, but usually they seem to be far less powerful than the Aedui.
[IMG]https://img340.imageshack.us/img340/...t1jpug8.th.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://img91.imageshack.us/img91/77...t2jpps6.th.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://img158.imageshack.us/img158/...t3jpxs8.th.jpg[/IMG]
Maybe I will use the results, when I have done at least ten test campaigns, to adjust the "step functions", i.e. individual step functions for each faction as MarcusAureliusAntoninus suggested. Btw, thanks for the positive response Marcus and Numahr.
Re: More than a weak tendency?
Nice thourough test there. It looks like the money still needs to be turned down though. Not much deminishing expansion for the large empires. Good to see you doing so much testing though. I tested for a couple decades and got bored. I hope you can find some sort of balance in your dynamic money injections. Do share your future finds. I, for one am interested.
Re: More than a weak tendency?
The Ptols seem to be doing well in two of those 3 campaigns, in the 3rd they routed the SE, and in the first they're holding their own pretty well and seem to be kicking some ass towards the later years there.
Re: More than a weak tendency?
Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
The Ptols seem to be doing well in two of those 3 campaigns, in the 3rd they routed the SE, and in the first they're holding their own pretty well and seem to be kicking some ass towards the later years there.
Hi. Well these pictures don't tell the full story. It was only in the second test that the Ptolies were doing great, almost too well. In test 1 they were definitely going down, even though it seems as they are expanding a little on these pictures. Ok, they had a chance in this one to bounce back thanks to the Baktrians in the other end of the AS empire. That I can't tell, but the AS were mighty and the overall impression was that the Baktrian expansion was soon to be stopped. Well maybe not since the AI is quite stupid when it comes to determining priorities. In test 3 it is quite obvious that the Ptolies will be eliminated soon, taking the map and graphs into account. In this test I saw some hope once again in the form of Baktrians, but this time they were stopped quite early. On top of that, as I said, I had two campaigns before these that were the reason for me even starting to think of a "balance problem". In those two it looked as in test 3. The Ptolies sucked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Nice thourough test there. It looks like the money still needs to be turned down though. Not much deminishing expansion for the large empires. Good to see you doing so much testing though. I tested for a couple decades and got bored. I hope you can find some sort of balance in your dynamic money injections. Do share your future finds. I, for one am interested.
I'll have to stress that all these tests were done with the original background script, i.e. with 1200 Mnai for every settlement every turn (no step function). I felt that I had to go back and get some more weight behind the "feeling" that AS will crush the Ptolies maybe 8 to 10 times out of ten if you use the standard script. In my test campaign with the "step function approach" I can give you the example below. I don't know yet if it will work as I wanted it to if I do another test and another and ...., but I think it looks promising so far. Then comes the tedious work of fine tuning a suitable step function for every faction, or maybe a little less elaborate, every faction group as you suggested.
[IMG]https://img180.imageshack.us/img180/...pfcnbm4.th.jpg[/IMG]
AW: Re: More than a weak tendency?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminos64
What is far more concerning than the steamroller attitudes of AS are these of Epeiros. The Maks are in all three cases complete under-achievers. What I also hate is that the Hay are always going for northern Russia and the Romans first to Poland. The Ptolly-issue is not that bad...
Re: More than a weak tendency?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminos64
I'll have to stress that all these tests were done with the original background script, i.e. with 1200 Mnai for every settlement every turn (no step function).
Oops, sorry. My quick reading gets me again.
Re: More than a weak tendency?
they should have a script that gives more money to whatever faction that the player is enemies
with. This will make the game more challenging. ie. If the player is Roman, give +3000 denrii per turn
to Carthage for every one of their cities. When the 1st punic war starts, give Carthage +20,000 denrii, etc
