Printable View
Yep, and AI defenders use this option quite often. I haven't kept tabs per se, but I'd say roughly 50% of the time, perhaps a little more. IIRC, this was an added tweak in Patch 3. For my current Pontus campaign for I'm keeping up an AAR thread (which has turned into a bit of a Frankenstein's monster, lol), so I've AR'd far fewer battles than before. I've been a bit surprised by how frequently settlement defenders sally out, even against extremely heavy odds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
[Bramborough your earlier comments about seiges]
While I do not object to the concept of VP, both the AI and human cannot properly defend against a seige when the attacker has range units. Personally, if Rome showed up with range equipment, I would likely retreat back and behind buildings or better topography and let them exhaust their ammo, then attack segments of their army as they entered the settlement. But with VP one cannot afford to be too far away from these strategic points, even with the delayed time introduced in one of the latest patches. That or the AI still doesn't want to.
As Rome my conquests have really been too easy. I have routinely expended all my ammo from my range units before entering, and sometimes I do not even need to enter as the Victory has already been awarded to me.
I realize that if I show up with a superior force I will win. However, there has to be something better for the AI than just standing at a pre-determined spot while being slaughtered by my range units, though I do enjoy all the taunting the AI soldiers say while under fire. :)
In Shogun 2 they charged - well most of the time they just slowly walked up to my frontline (if they survived that long). I cannot remember any TW title where the AI hide itself inside their settlement, though the range for these Roman "giant" units seem excessive to me (but I use them so I can't complain). I keep going back to Empire and Napoleon where AI armies almost always fielded range equipment against me. This seems to have been lost in the programming since that time.
Regards
Patch 4 is officially out now!
Full list of changes.
Sigh, the campaign AI may be more proactive now with patch IV, but it is still hopeless as far as army coordination is concerned. In my fresh Epirus campaign, I arrived at the gates of Rome with an army filled with levy pikemen and hoplites + 1 ballista. Guess what army Rome sent to intercept me? None! Zero! Nada!... They had 3 full stacks (each of those would be able to crush my army in autoresolve) roaming around the sea, but no one in Rome... Bah!...
Gotta agree...more than once I've approached an AI capital with 2 or 3 substantial stacks nearby, and think "Cool! Get to fight some decent-sized battles next turn!". Then they promptly all run away, leaving the garrison to its fate. WTF?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Yeq, it seems some pre-patch 3 troubles came back with patch 4.
I'm sarting to wonder if those amphibious armies are not confusingg the CAI in an unfixable way. As soon as I'm at war with too much factions and every AI factions jumps in the bandwagon to declare war on me, even the one on the other extremities of the map declare war to me as well. Just because the amphibious armies and their access to the sea make them consider me as a neighbour.
It's also stupid that the fact a faction is at war with many is such a decisive factor for other factions to declare war on it. GGRRR, I love this game (and it's the only computer game I play) but god, this fixing patch stage is going to be long !
LOL, not sure what game you playing. I am playing a legendary Pontus campaign started post patch IV official release, around turn 35 now. No one has declared a thing on me. The AI's throw NAP agreements at me and pay cash for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
It's a campaign I started with patch 3. Don't know if all those war declarations are conditionned by it but they happened just 3,4 turns after I activated patch 4, that is turn 65 or something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Has anyone found out which units can now go into Loose Formation? The patch notes say it has been introduced to a few units. Curios to see which ones it will be!
I started unpatched TWRII with Rome on Hard but abandoned it at about 70 regions. Then played patch 2 with Athens (H) and Iceni (VH) to a (more-or-less) economic victory. Then Parthia (VH) on patch 3 to about 60 regions. I abandoned the latter to try out patch 4 (I have learned over the years that a new patch for a TW game is best played with a new campaign; too many potential issues even if the release notes say it is compatible).Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
In all those games I've noticed what people have mentioned here: sometimes the starting position means an anxious early few dozen turns but after that (and sometimes not even with that) it gets easy. No one DoW's you so you can just pick off regions that go rebel with no penalty and gradually gobble up small neighbours without too many allies. Treasury grows, research expands and eventually you have enough to take on anyone you wish. Civil war provides a nice challenge but it is over too soon and then nothing stands in your way. All that is still fun for me but I can see a day when I'll get bored and uninstall.
However, I found one exception to this rule. I tried patch 4 initially with Carthage on VH. Twice. First time I tried to hold on to all 4 starting provinces. Clearly a big mistake. So I restarted and tried to hold on to just Karalis and Carthage, withdrawing my Iberian troops back to Africa so I would have 2 proto-armies to concentrate on 1 theater of war. Seemed like a promising plan as I lost Qart Hadasht & Lilybaeum around turns 10-15 when I only had 3 or 4 nations at war with me. I hoped that not having a border with many others would keep me under their radar, so I could concentrate on Africa & Mauritania when the inland nations inevitably declared war on my clients, Libya & Nova Carthago.
So much for that plan. By turn 30 (IIRC), I was at war with (not in order): Gaetuli, Masaesyli, Garamantia, Nasamones, Turditani, Syracuse, Rome, Edetani, Cantabri, Knossos, Athens, Sparta, Delmetae, Veneti, Liguria. I may have forgotten a few but you get the point. And these weren't just the normal DoW-and-forget things: when a full stack of Veneti transports appeared outside my last region, Carthage, to join the Knossos, Syracuse and one other full stack in the blockaded harbour, I gave up.
Not sure if I can moan about that, having found the game too easy. Perhaps having the challenges spread a little between the factions rather than making just one almost-impossible one would be good for CA to do. Anyone else found any other faction a challenge like Carthage?
Mind you, I'll do it eventually. Next time I'll try abandoning everything except Iberia - that might work.
See I want a campaign like that ^^^
AI in all my campaigns no matter the patch have been my whipping boys.... no aggression or spunk
I've had factions DW and move on me early in the game...appears to me that AI is aggressive enough when the player's faction is equal or weaker in strength. So aggression/passivity may not be the root problem.
It doesn't take very many turns for the player to build up where neighboring AI factions are significantly weaker. Perhaps AI passivity is really a different manifestation of another fundamental problem...the AI doesn't build or expand well and quickly gets economically outstripped.
Even factions across the map from me never grow bigger. You would think that they would infight and expand with all the declarations of war I see but I only ever see 3-5 provinces owned by a single AI and if they get bigger than that they implode into several rebel holds
A number of infantry units can do it now, notably most Roman infantry units. Not sure about everyone else, though it seems as if barbarian faction units cannot go into loose formation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
Patch IV, legendary Pontus, turn 75 or so: an AI finally managed to take a town from me. I had forgotten about a pesky faction since two of my vassals were beating up on them. The faction was one of the steppe roamers: the ones from the North-East. Then, they sneaked a stack right into my rear and grabbed a settlement before I could march my armies to intercept. Of course, the very next turn I retook the town. Funny, my vassal had two stacks sitting not far from the settlement taken from me: they did not move a finger to intercept the intruders. I later checked the affairs near the steppe folks home-town: my vassals had 4 stacks there, all in raiding stance, doing nothing. Meanwhile, the town in the province they were raiding was completely empty (that's where the stack that grabbed my town [4 turns march distance] came from).
I never use vassals myself. I preffer to pain the map my colour.
Someone on the main forum suggested that CA has confirmed somewhere that the difficulty settings currently are "not working as intended" and will be fixed at some point in the future... Duh...
I did not get the exact reference yet though.
As to vassals: a habit from S2. I used vassals extensively there to have someone to trade with post RD and secure borders in areas where I did not want to expand. Here, in R2, vassals also add a bit of challenge since they tend to drag you into unintended wars ;)
Anyone else notice a new siege crash-bug that has appeared with patch IV? Usually happens when selecting several of your units and asking them to go inside a walled settlement (through a breach). The game freezes. This was not present (in my games) before patch IV, but now I've seen it already 5 times. The bug appears persistent too: a battle replay results just in another crash so have to use autoresolve to get through.
I started a new VH Parthia campaign after the release of patch 4. The Dahae are my only ally and seal off my northern border east of the Caspian Sea all the way to the edge of the map. Consequently, I've been busying myself with dealing with the Parthava-Sagartia-Arachosia confederation to the south and west. I have no troops in the north and rarely even look at that area. The Dahae have sent all of their troops down into Mesopotamia in support of my campaign.
Recently, while scrolling through my cities looking for buildings to upgrade, I noticed that a unit of Baktrian rebels had spawned in one of the Dahae provinces bordering mine in the far north. I had no troops available to deal with them, so I figured if they managed to take the province, I'd send an army to destroy them and add it to my empire. About a 5 or 6 turns later, I took a look at that province again to see if the rebels were still there or had been defeated. There were now 6 Baktrian rebel armies, each with 4 units, standing there using the same animation an army does when recruiting. On a hunch, I started checking the province every turn and counting the number of armies. Sure enough, each turn, a new Baktrian rebel army with 4 units would appear and begin the recruiting animation. None of the armies every recruited any units beyond the four they spawned with.
I decided to send an army north and destroy all of the Baktrian rebels, there were 13 four unit armies by the time I could get there, to see if they would stop spawning once the last one was gone. It took a while to chase each one of them down and destroy them all, and new ones spawned until the last one was destroyed. I realized after I did this that I should have taken screen shots. I can't seem to find any mention of a similar issue on the main forums, so I'm guessing it was just a really odd sequence of events that led to this occurring. I think I may have a save game from around that time. If so, I'll have to post a screen shot of the infinite Baktrian rebellion of 224 BC.
That's actually great f*cking news lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
I saw this happen in my last Rome campaign (Patch 3), in Libya. Paraitonion was held by Pergamon at the time, so they happened to be Hellenic rebels. Same thing...about a dozen 4-unit rebel armies in that region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacque Schtrapp
It smells like some sort of bug. What's supposed to happen (and usually does) is that one rebel army spawns, and then gains an additional 4 units each turn.
I wonder if it's terrain-related. I haven't played in the far eastern regions like Baktria. Is it open terrain? Most of the European-mainland provinces have large inaccessible mountain/forest areas, the available space to place an army can be limited. By contrast, desert/steppe provinces are wide open, an army can move or plop down pretty much anywhwere (albeit with attrition in desert).
The province in question is about 70% grassland and 30% forest. I also forgot to mention that I auto resolved all of the fights and, whenever engaging one of the Baktrian armies with reinforcements, the reinforcements would show the Roman Julii insignia behind the portrait of their general on the auto resolve screen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
Maybe I should see if I can dig up a save game and submit it to CA.
Your comment jogs my memory...saw the same thing. At first I was wondering "What are the Romans doing here....I'M the Romans, dammit!", but they were labelled Hellenic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacque Schtrapp
Just started a new campaign with Carthage patch 4 and I am getting wars declared on me by practically every faction that has even remote contact. I sent a spy and fleet around to make contact so I could make trade contacts, but nope, apparently I need 5+ Dow per turn.
Playing on normal and didn't see this with either of my prior games, one unpatched at the start and the other patch 3. Anyone else getting DOW spammed?
QUOTE]Someone on the main forum suggested that CA has confirmed somewhere that the difficulty settings currently are "not working as intended" and will be fixed at some point in the future... Duh...[/QUOTE]
Thanks CA for confirming the obvious.
The only difficulty level, was legendary and only with patch 3, not now with p4.
I started an Epirus campaign on legendary after patch 4, the same thing, very passive AI, twice i had to defend agains invasions at Apollonia, from Rome and from Syracuse, but thats all the exitement.everybody ofered NAP, many trade agreements and just picking my targets as i like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Im in second imperium, and i operate with 4/6 armies and 1 10ships navy.
Also an other thing needs fixing, Rome, Egypt, Seleucid empire have been destroyed already, Carthage is about to die and the other now powerful factions are, Blemyes, Caramandia, some iberian factions and Armenia.
I never played with Carthage. Did you have any wars right at the beginning of the campaign ? Cause I start to think those DOW spams happens when you already have more than 3,4 wars going on. With Egypt, it's automatic since you're at war with the seleucids from the beginning which means their numerous strapies are also at war with you. Then, the DOW spam starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seyavash
And yes, ths CAI is not very reactive, in general. I also wonder what Athenians, Aierdi and Dalmatians fleet are doing in between Karalis and Lyllybeum, they just stands there since 10 turns at minimum and none of those factions are at war nor allied with any of the factions around. It looks like they are just here to enjoy the view, as a war is going on in between Syracuse,Rome and Carthage. Maybe the CAI is getting bored too.
Not sure if this is bug or not, so thoughts are welcome - but either there is a way around the diplomatic reaction with client states/defensive allies to declare war if you engage their parent state or ally, or the penalty is not high enough...
I installed patch 4 and started a new VH Rome campaign, and was happy enough that trade agreements were much easier make (though, perhaps a little too easily as hardly anyone resisted in the first couple of turns, even with the Cultural Aversion penalty from being house of Junia...). Among them, I had agreements (no non-agression pacts) with Libya and Nova Carthago (Cathage's clients). Eventually I had to declare war on Carthage, so usually in this situation I find someone else who they're at war with (Syracuse in this case) and see if I can get a bit of cash from them for declaring even though I was going to anyway... After I did that, I suffered a minor (<10 negative diplo points) with Carthage's clients but they continued trading with me. I thought that was unusually fortunate, until it happened again with Sparta but this time their defensive allies (Makedon, and by this time Athens) didn't declare war on me and continued to trade (except Makedon, with whom I had no previous agreement).
Has this happened to anyone else? It appears to me that: 1) declaring war in this manner seems to by-pass the trigger whereby allies or clients can join the war as opposed to when it is a direct declaration; and 2) the penalty doesn't seem to be appropriately large enough with their allies or clients for them to join the war in their next turn(s).
Anyone else noticed anything similar? I reckon it might be scripting glitch for that diplomatic action, or something the AI is recognising (or programmed to recognise) as a trigger for war... I don't think it used to do this though...
Ive gone to the point of declaring on everyone to get a challenge. My only allies are Knossos and Pergamon. But im at war with pretty much everyone else and will be declaring on cimmera soon
Yes they start with a war against the Turdetani but this faction has no client states at the beginning. I have no issue with DOW from factions near me but when various German factions and land locked Galatians in Anatolia declare war without reason that seems a bit ridiculous. Basically there seems to be an imbalance between passive and aggressive AI that still needs to be sorted out better. Based on other posts here and on TWC it does seem Carthage is more prone to this issue but I do hope future patches improve this feature to be challenging without being silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
New patch coming out tomorrow!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I am cautiously optimistic, cant wait to see what is coming! If I had to guess the Selucids will be released tomorrow, maybe a blood pack? I would be so happy if so. We need more blood in the game. :sneaky:
Good news indeed, also optimistically anticipating.
I hope Simpson and the CA crew are picking up the general trends among the vast sea of feedback:Quote:
"A lot of the game is designed from the ground up. We develop many features in parallel, some of which work differently to how they did in previous games: we aim to create a different experience every time, and that’s very important to us. New features are added, and certain features from previous games are therefore not included as they must naturally make way for different features. What’s been interesting – and very useful for us – is listening to you telling us about which features you like and don’t like, and what you miss from previous titles. We take your views seriously, and we’ll take them with us in the future."
1) We want large epic battles against strong enemies, with loads of opportunity for tactics and maneuver. Beating up on starving remnants or restrained by geographically fixed contact points (whether "VP flag" or "city gate") gets a little old.
2) We want the campaign and battle AI to play as smart as possible. This may not mean complex strategies of which only a human player is really capable...but at least have them act rationally in a given strategic/tactical situation.
3) We want to really care about our individual characters; no such thing as "too much" background/context for these guys. We also want them to hang around for a while.
I'm not saying that they haven't started addressing these in patches (with varying degrees of success). But I think 90+% of gameplay-related complaints fall into one of these three general themes. I know I'm just stating the obvious here amongst the regulars of this and other related forums. My point is that I hope it has registered now as obvious for the CA folks, and that they understand the fundamental themes. If not, then they're mired in a reactive process, playing whack-a-mole on specific items...and potentially making some of the same conceptual mistakes again in their next title. On the other hand, if they can see the forest instead of individual trees, and can evaluate game design and features against such a framework, then the rocky start of TW:R2 will not have been in vain.
Good news - family tree perhaps or is that too optimistic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
We will see tomorrow I guess.
Seleucids as a playable faction.
I'd be interested to see how Seleucid would be implemented as playable. The current version has some pretty decent starting territory of its own, plus something like 6-8 satrapies covering from Mesopotamia to the eastern edge of the map.
This seems like a rather OP start, even for an "Easy initial challenge" like Rome or Egypt. They must have some sort of huge drawback that is not apparent to me...or one would have to be added when it goes playable. All just idle conjecture on my part...anyone out there have more insight?
If I had to guess it will be something like how it was in Rome 1: Lots of unrest, lots of enemies, not enough starting units. All three of which, combined, do not bode well.
The Seleucids are usually one of the first factions to be wiped out in my campaign experience. I've rarely come in contact with them. In my new Patch 4 Parthia campaign, most of the Seleucid satrapies declared their independence in the first few turns. In fact, the Parthia intro dialogue specifically tells you to wait before attacking Parthava as they may rebel against the Seleucids thereby alleviating any need to deal with additional foes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
This is the big one for me. As it stands now, I don't even know which of my generals/admirals are actually members of my family and which are "other families." I simply can't be bothered to keep track. They have no impact in the game beyond their individual traits and, with year long turns, they die so quickly I can never get attached to any of them. This is a stark difference between Rome II and STW II. In the latter, a single general could last 150+ turns. I took pride in reaching max level and assigning their skills just so. Now, it seems a general dies every other turn and the replacement screen doesn't even let me see who it was that perished before I have to assign their replacement. Meh.Quote:
3) We want to really care about our individual characters; no such thing as "too much" background/context for these guys. We also want them to hang around for a while.
Yep, this is pretty annoying...as is the fact that you can't look at all the various stats for the candidates. You can if replacing a live general or forming an army, but not on the "Dead General! Replace NOW!!" window.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacque Schtrapp
All the satrapies declare war eventually?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
Normaly, they must have a real hard starting, with public order problems, because of the many settlements they control, not very good relations with their satrapies and being at war in the begining with Ptolemies of Egypt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
Also many satrapies mean more potential unwanted wars, in different fronts.
It will be interesting to see, its one of my favourite factions, almost sorry if they will be playable before the AI behaviour is better ballanced.
So Supposedly three new DLC packs are coming out next week, at least according to this page, though Im not sure what from that page gives people reason to think that there will be new DLC next week.
Listed on that page are 3 new DLC: A nomadic pack, a blood pack (:2thumbsup:) and something called "veteran_group."
I hope most of these are free or priced at around 1.99 euro
The blood pack has to cost something because if so the game would lose its rating.
Patch 5 release notes
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
If they're going to release a veteran pack I hope that it's something I can acquire relatively early in game. I can't stand these packs that come out with units, and their usability is only there for 20 or so turns.
So Patch 5 is now out. Is the game worth playing yet, or should I wait for a couple of months?
My biggest gripes were the complete lack of Campaign AI, the Riverdancing Enemies and massive time-taking turns.
I think the CAI is very good. Its the BAI which needs a lot more work. Id say its worth playing, maybe wait another few weeks until the more substantial patches can be released.
So I keep crashing after the splash screen. I removed all mods, nothing is working. Darn.
EDIT: If you delete your Roaming/CA/Rome 2 folder in your &appdata& folder things will be fixed. Now everything works for me.
Really liking the expanded tooltip percentages for agent actions. If these previously invisible numbers were the same before (and presumably they were), then I was picking the wrong action...a lot.
Also apparently the siege AI is a lot better, according to reports from Reddit.
EDIT: I also found out how apparently now when besieging a provincial settlement you automatically get some ladders off the bat. Which is good I guess because torches are pretty dumb.Quote:
In my current seleucid campaign one of my newly conquered and poorly defended cities was besieged.
After sitting there for a few turns, the AI finally decided to attack (I guess waiting one more turn wasn't honorable) and I figured it was worth a try to defend since I had boiling oil and a hoplite general.
That plan didn't work out since the AI decided it would be much more fun to use 12 siege ladders instead.
While my slingers did some damage before they reached the walls they were quickly overwhelmed. My eastern spearmen managed to hold them off at some places but my entire right flank collapsed.
Then the enemy decided to start burning down the gate as well, most likely to get his cavalry inside.
In the end my general was running around killing spearmen on the wall while my levy pikemen sat in the gate and repelled all the horses since the rest of my forces where dead, gone or just generally useless.
9/10, would have desperate last stand again.
These are really great :)Quote:
Added unit numbers to Unit Cards. These can now be enabled in battle interface options ("Unit Card Man Count" check box).
Added option to game settings menu to enable/disable aide de camp (Battlefield Advisor), so the player can now disable this panel from ever appearing.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoom
For me and at least one other poster at the other forum, this tool tip is a bit buggy. I've had two issues so far. When I first bring up the panel, I don't see the total positive percentage, but instead only see the top positive percentage. Then the tool tip will show the missing positive that makes up the total. If I exit the panel and activate it again by right clicking on the target, it reads like it used to with the total positive and the tool tip breaking that down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
Then last night the tool tip quit working all together. All I could see in the initial panel was the very small percentage for the best result with no clue what my total positive chances were.
The only way I could fix it was to go back to the previous auto-save and re-run the end turn. That got it working again for now, but still with the different percentages in the initial panel on successive attempts.
I'm still kind of surprised that they didn't do another beta for this patch like they did for all the others.
Cheers
You know, I'll be pretty happy with what I paid for Rome 2 so long as this continues.
And maybe seasons and more turns per year ! Cause I start to realise how absurd it is to simulate ancient warfare camapign strategies without seasons ! Plus the armies's movement points make the campaign map much too small !Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkhorn1x
I dont think that they are ever going to change the turns per year, I think thats up to the modders to change, which they have. Mostly. Seasons are still in the works.
I'm wondering, even w/ tpy mods do they count in actual seasons and give bonus' or penalties?
Hooahguy, thanks for keeping us all up to date on the patches. It's much appreciated.
In this thread : http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...sign-Concepts)
(which is interesting btw) a guy (Morgothic) wrote that the yearly turn is essential to render the attrition effects of the campaign map. I really don't understand the logic of it... I mean, it doesn't change anything, with 4 turns per year you just have the attrition losses divided but I don't see the point.... Maybe he suggests errors are more fatal with 1 TPY ?
That thread is so painful to read =X
I think you might be reading into his remarks too deeply. I don't think he was suggesting that it was some essential game mechanic for attrition to work, I think he was just stating that he prefers it the way it is, with players incurring attrition penalties for things like moving through deserts rather than being penalized for having your army outside a settlement during the winter season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
Smaller light transports have been added. Mounted generals and artillery units get them.
I've played a couple of games till about turn 60 since the latest patch (both VH as Rome: Julia and Junia). The biggest differences I've noticed seem to have been caused by changes to the CAI and diplomatic relations.
Of course, may just be random luck in my 2 games. However, I find:
- AI Factions much more ready to ally with each other
- AI Factions slightly more likely to DoW human faction (not sure about this)
- Money a little tighter - for one thing, buffing legionaries from scratch to Armour III and Weapons III costs 1350 per unit
The former means that after the initial period, there are very few no-friends small factions around for the human to bully. By the time I was ready to push into TransAlpina, the Veneti owned all 3 regions and had defensive or military alliances with 5 other factions. There's going to be a lot of battles and my cash flow isn't really enough to be confident I can field sufficient armies. There is also a 'Greek' block of allies that I have joined and an African one and the start of another block in Iberia. Quite a change from the slow eating up of isolated 1 or 2 region factions in previous patches.
The second point may just be my imagination, coupled with playing for the first time as the Junia family. They take what is described as a 'moderate' hit to diplomatic relations with all other factions but it isn't that modest when it tips you into multiple wars as AI factions DoW you. And the snowball effect where once you are in 4 or so wars, other factions like to join in for the fun, means I had 9 or 10 enemies as Junia by about turn 40-50. Not as impossible as Carthage was (is?) since the CAI doesn't seem to be attacking Italy with the same frenzied assaults that it likes to attack Carthage with, but still a big challenge.
The Julia family is proving easier, at least at first. Only Carthage joined in the war on the side of the Etruscan League, which mechanism meant that neither of their allies (Libya, Nova Carthago) joined as well. Once I got a peace v Carthage things were easier.
So, early days, but some signs that the campaigns might prove more interesting.
Upgrading units can be expensive if you want to get them from level 1 to 3. I think that is kind of normal. AI declaring war on you more than on each other has something to do with the difficulty.
I'm playing a 5.0 Seleucid campaign on VH. About a dozen turns in, all of my satrapies excepting Media and Sardes declared war on me. They also began forming an alliance block. I wasn't too worried at first, because of the buffer Media provides. Once Media was eliminated, I was in serious trouble because the Seleucid economy does not support enough armies to repel the hordes of troops from Arachosia, Parthia, Parthava, Drangiana, Aria, Dahae and Sagartia. Fortunately for me, I was able to ally with Athens early on and that boosted my street cred enough that I eventually ended up allied with ALL of the Hellenic factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of the Isles
After setting a War Target somewhere in Parthavan territory, my allies began to declare war on my enemies one by one. Not only did they DOW, but they all sent troops. What followed was an uncoordinated mess, but it ended up working to my advantage. My complaint with my allies is this: initially, their troops entered the lands of my enemies and even conquered a few provinces. Eventually they lost the land they conquered and now, their troops either march around without doing anything (Macedon, Knossos, Pergamon), or they congregate in these large groups in the desert (Athens, Sparta, Bithynia, Rhodos) losing troops to desert attrition turn after turn.
I'm curious what will happen once I've conquered my corner of the map. The huge Hellenic alliance has expanded to cover Rome and some of the northern African tribes, as well as the northern Black Sea barbarians, I'll probably have to travel to Iberia to find anyone to fight and likely end up touching off World War .5
I think the willingness to ally will eventually have to be toned down. Bithynia was part of the Hellenic alliance, and when Armenia declared war on them, I had to break our alliance because I had no troops left to face Armenia and they bordered 4 of my unprotected provinces. I hate to break an alliance, but I could not afford to have the heart of my empire gutted. Bithynia offered me a non aggression pact the next turn, which I accepted. The turn after that, they offered me a military alliance and 7800.
DLC-related posts moved to their own thread.
:laugh3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacque Schtrapp
I find this hilarious...
Of course it still needs some tweaks but the new diplomatic features and the post patch 5 CAI really improved the strategic side of the game ! Maybe it's the Seleucid campaign that starts off to wheel but finally, Persepolis seems closer than my fridge ! The one more turn effect is slowly coming back.
The Ui is still capricious, I sometimes have troubles to open the public order/food panel on the left.
What diplomatic changes were there?
Playing as Macedon, started fresh from patch V (VH since there is no way to get out of the rain bug on legendary): things are really looking up in terms of AI diplomatic interaction at least during the first 50 turns. Despite having Macedonic faction's anti-hellenic diplomatic handicap, I am allied with most of the Hellenic world as I am making my way North-East through the barbarians. My allies stick with me and actually send troops too. As I grow bigger, more and more factions come with alliance offers offering their first-borns for it. On the enemy side, as I attacked them, Getae formed a Celtic confederation with their neighbors: that one actually managed to stall me for a few turns. On the campaign map, AI's coordination of military forces has improved too: they actually managed to sneak-snatch a couple settlements from me.
On the major AI faction side: AI Rome seems to be doing alright. They own all of Italia, all of Magna Graecia, all of Sardinia and now are expanding in Africa. This was unseen before patch V. Seleucids are doing very well too: they're about the only Hellenic faction I am not allied to. I guess, war is brewing (or so I hope).
Not so good: the AI still has a very poor grasp of stances. For example, why would horse archer armies adopt fortification stance [yummy...]?
I wish I saw more AI armies raiding. Would make for an interesting cat-and-mouse game as the enemy army must use it to survive without attrition and you must stop them.
Nice job guys throwing that up on the home page, I bet for sure some folks catch the update because of this that would have missed it otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Something amazing happened while I was taking out the remaining small factions east of my Seleucid Empire. Persia sent 2 stacks to take a smaller settlement I had recently conquered, but with low missile (non-slinger) units they stood little chance of breaking through my stack of mainly phalanxes and hillmen in a town. So they both went into raiding! I have never experienced that before, but it destroyed my public order and pretty much forced my hand. This is exactly what I was hoping raiding was intended to do all along, and I hope the AI continues to use it wisely as it did there. The two stacks combined gave a whopping -40 public order from their raiding, and this type of indirect damage is an excellent addition to the TW strategy map.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Interesting. Ive had very little time with patch 5, so Im hoping for better CAI all around, so Im glad things like this were improved on!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarmam
Yes, I like how raiding has a serious impact on public order now and the AI does it too! It adds a bit more strategic depth to the whole thing. You can force a garrisoned army to come after you by raiding their province or sometimes the AI will do that to you! It's a little annoying that the public order debuff from raiding is a set amount... so a single general is going to wreak as much havoc as a whole army... I can see that becoming annoying quickly if the AI spams it, or you end up with armies at home through slave uprisings or something.
I like the new patch... my pontus game on VH is actually giving me a decent challenge.... Its a big cat and mouse game with a lot of trading territory
So Im just going to guess that the next patch will be on Friday? Anyone else think that? As I recall, patch 5 was released on Friday so Im hoping for another Friday with good news!
I hope so, with every patch the game is more and more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Are the patches working for autosaved games also?
I dont want to quit my current campaign.
The same with me, eventhough i was at a time at war in all my borders, i was able to make peacein the north, with Bythinia and Pergamon finaly with Galatia and now i have aliance with the first two plus Pontus which is a trusted friend from the begining.
I have aliances with the north Africa factions, Carramandia, Nassamones, Cyrinaica and curently i fight at the east with all my ex satrapies plus Media Apopatene.
I just destroyed Gerrthrea south in the vast Arabian Deserts, a war which was very hard because of the big disstances betueen the settlements and the armies and agents of the former inflitrating from everywere, capturing settlements and sambotaging my armies.
Now i can concetrate east, where during the last turns, i had to give 5 battles 4 against Parthava something and 1 against Media Apopatene, in all of them, before they attack, a swarm of their agents were attacking my armies, so in 4 of the 5 battles i didnt have a general due to assasination and 2 of the battles the reinforcing army was sabotaged.
The result was, very hard battles, 1 of the Seleucids armies destroyed, 3 generals assasinated, heavy casuallties, 3 of the enemy armies destroyed, 3 more decimated, and Seleucia, the capital of Messopotamia at last capture.
I was sweting last night and enjoy it.
The Seleucids on Legendary are no cakewalk. You can make it work but you have to fight constatnly on two or even three fronts. Maybe that's me, because I don't really like allying with too many factions (makes them harder to conquer later on) but still.