More than a weak tendency?

Hi.

The year is 233 B.C. and I'm seriously thinking that maybe I should quit this one too. I'm playing as Sabyn for the second time in a row v. 0.81 H/M difficulty. The reason for these second thoughts is that the "story" from my first try seems to repeat itself. The Seleukids are all over the place, and no one can stop them. Of course two campaigns, and not played to the end, is not enough to draw an conclusions with at least some relevance. Therefore I've got two questions:

1) Am I the only one experiencing a weak Ptolemaic empire? (and a Seleukid empire that seems to have some kind of jet engine put into their economy, that wasn't there in v 0.80)

2) Is there any hope that some historic event after 233 B.C. will turn things around? I know that 241 B.C. didn't do the trick as it used to in 0.80, at least not in the two campaigns I've tried so far. The Baktrians are now more concerned about their more powerful neighbours. I really think thats great, because I agreed with those who thought that the Baktrians were a bit overpowered in v. 0.80.

I realize that at least one "line" in this post is unnecessary, a bit provocative, but hey its boring if we always must keep our spontaneity "in the closet". Apologies to the EB-team, just got to let of some steam, (frustrated I blame it on the fact that I'm a swede who is longing for https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image.../misc/cool.gif i.e. sunny and hot weather, but all we can do outside at present time is some of these https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...sc/snowman.gif(trying to sqeeze in some smileys as you can see). If I were a member of the EB-team I think I would go like this https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...gc/gc-wall.gif after reading this post. Those players out there simply are impossible to satisfy ;-). At the same time, hopefully, we're at least contributing by testing the mod and noticing small things and sometimes serious "issues". As I said earlier this post may be nothing, since the statistics is very bad. Two campaigns is nothing.
The fantastic EB-mod is getting better and better, but one of the hardest things to get right/optimal (whatever that may be, and I'm not the one to tell since I'm not a professional historian) is game balance. I guess that some factions really should have a hard time if you don't put in quite modest winning conditions. Now I'm beginning to slip of topic so I better stop.

Ive played three campaigns in .81 up to circa 220 BCE or later, and have two balanced out Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires in both. I am very pleased with AI expansion in .81 right now.

Youre not playing on the recommended difficulty settings, for one thing which may affect your outcomes.

OK, I was aware of that the difficulty settings wasn't the recommended ones. I will try switching to VH/M to see if it makes any difference. I doubt it. What faction did you play? I've got this bad feeling that as long as you are far away the AI balancing is better. I will test that. My guess is that there will be no problem with the balance between the Ptolemaic and Selekid empire if I play as Lusotania (wrong spelling?) e.g. or another faction far away from them. Once again not scientific at all, just a feeling based on earlier campaigns in v.0.80.

What I would think be interesting to know is if someone has played as Sabyn on the right difficulty settings, and if they experienced nice balance between the two supposed giants "in the hood", Ptolies and Seleukids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminos64

OK, I was aware of that the difficulty settings wasn't the recommended ones. I will try switching to VH/M to see if it makes any difference. I doubt it. What faction did you play? I've got this bad feeling that as long as you are far away the AI balancing is better. I will test that. My guess is that there will be no problem with the balance between the Ptolemaic and Selekid empire if I play as Lusotania (wrong spelling?) e.g. or another faction far away from them. Once again not scientific at all, just a feeling based on earlier campaigns in v.0.80.

---

You have quite literally answered your own question. Of course the game is going to be different if the player is acting in the area. Firstly the AI will zoom after the player as soon as it possibly can. Secondly, a few of the Ptolemaioi's provinces rebel to Saba control, which the player can utilise to a far better degree than the AI can. Ptolemaioi is the only faction at the beginning of the game that has any chance to subdue the Seleucid machine, and I imagine having a strong Saba doesn't aid them there.

Foot

I have also noticed a weak ptolemaioi when playing as the maks; the seleucids just steam rolled them and Pontos (R.I.P). If it wasn't for my invasion of asia minor, huge money boosts to ptolemaioi, huge money decreases from seleucids and settlements bribed from seleucids and given to ptolemaioi, I'm pretty sure they'd be dead. They're still in quite a bad situation right now. I think a way to balance this would be to make the small factions on the edge of the seleucid empire stronger, creating more resistance.

I just want to tell that my AI behaves much better in my .81 Makedonian campaign than in my .80 Roman campaign. It's 257 BC now and...

- Sweboz, Lusotannan, Getai, Pontos, Hayasdan don't just sit around, but managed to conquer at least one province (Heruskolandam & Sucum-Murgi), or even two or three (Getai with Scorcouw and Pannonia, Pontos with Galatia and another one, Hay expanded northwards mostly). The four were completely immobile in .80

- Aedui and Arverni behaving well as they did in .80, but now also going for Massalia

- Carthage didn't conquer as much as in .80, only two desert hinterland provinces

- Rome has serious problems now. They conquered Region and the Aemilia, but since I drove Epeiros into the sea, they lost both Capua and even Roma to them!

I can go and cheat a bit and look up for the rest if anyone is interested.

Playing as the Romans, with no interference in Ptolly-Seleuko affairs, I've seen the same thing. AS is totally dominant, and the Ptollies are all but kicked out from that whole area north of the arabian peninsula, only 2-3 cities left and doesn't look like they'll be holding up.

Here's a screen from my latest 81 campaign.

This shot is 212 BCE

https://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e...icture1-10.jpg

From my point of view: it's just a matter of tossing a coin really. In all my campaigns in which I was not the Seleukids (they're one of my favourites, together with KH) they ended up being eaten in the east by Parthians... At the moment I'm taking a different aproach playing as AS then I normally do. Instead of going on the "wipe out the Yellow" Egypt journey, I decided to make peace with all Diadochi enemies immediately and kill of all of the Eleutheroi I would be able to. Since then the Ptolemies have yet to conquer their first bit, but then again I'm only by 268 B.C. :juggle:

Currently the nasty Ptolemies keep trying to bribe Pergamon unsuccesfully from me. And they've allied with Pahlava, plus made peace with anyone else... so I'm in for a two front war I believe. I love it! :2thumbsup:

EDIT: Stupid fool I am, of course the Seleukids are way stronger than the Ptolemies are. Someone else, I believe it was Bozos, mentioned in another thread that each faction gets 1.2 K for each settlement under it's control a turn + an additional amount in the first few turns. So it's not that surprising really if others see the Seleukids beating the crap out of everyone nearby, or at least the Ptolemies.

AS are true monsters. They killed Pontus, are busy thrash the Ptolemies, took the lands around Armenia so they are nearly surrounded. Bashing the Arabians and Indians. Me taking all of Asia minor hasn't slowed them down one bit. I'm smashing a half stack every turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Youre not playing on the recommended difficulty settings, for one thing which may affect your outcomes.

---

What are the recommended settings?

Thanks

K

In 0.8 and before it was the Ptolemaioi who were the steamrollers. However I think the reason they might be "worse" now is that the recruitment zone for Kleruchoi Agema (their elite phalanxes) was reduced from a whopping 32 provinces to 4.

I do think though, that perhaps making the factions around AS more hostile to them might work.

Yup - the steamroller faction switched from the Ptollies to the Seleukids.

https://img168.imageshack.us/img168/...257vchryf0.jpg

The Casse are finally moving.~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

I do think though, that perhaps making the factions around AS more hostile to them might work.

---

Nah, I don't think so. Parthians are now much more inclined to rebel, and that doesn't really stop AS from steamrollering on. Deviding the government cash differently might work though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinus

What are the recommended settings?

Thanks

K

---

Campaign VH
Battle M
The reason the battle part is recommended to be played on M is that neither you nor the AI receives any unfair bonuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

You have quite literally answered your own question. Of course the game is going to be different if the player is acting in the area. Firstly the AI will zoom after the player as soon as it possibly can. Secondly, a few of the Ptolemaioi's provinces rebel to Saba control, which the player can utilise to a far better degree than the AI can. Ptolemaioi is the only faction at the beginning of the game that has any chance to subdue the Seleucid machine, and I imagine having a strong Saba doesn't aid them there.

Foot

---

First of all I would like to thank everybody for the response. I'm glad I didn't make a total fool out of myself, since the post wasn't written in a calm mood. Secondly I find the above answer quite interesting, since I've never realized that my style of playing is dead wrong. I've always hoped that it would be possible, playing as a small faction, to "sniff around" grabbing opportunities while the "big guys" are busy killing each other. I definitely experienced that the human player seemed to be number one on their "list of hate" but I wasn't sure. Definitely time for a change in strategy. Another thing I want to say is that I don't think that Saba under my leadership, given the style I've used, can be something negative for the Ptolemaioi compared to a AI controlled Saba. I've often given the rebellious province straight back to them and allied with them, even given them some money.
Finally, I just notice that the answer to my main question need some more statistics. There are some support for "the weak tendency" but also the opposite. I started a new campaign with the recommended difficulty settings. It's too early to say anything about that really, but this time it seems to have started off a little bit better for the Ptolemaioi. One thing that may save us, i.e. me and the Ptolemaioi, is that the Baktrians declared war upon the Seleucids during my last turn for today. Hopefully the Seleucids will get a little bit busy in the far east.

I usually see the two forces balance out pretty well, sometimes the seleukids get a good push, but the ptolemy eventually spring up again to fight back, usually after the AS gets stabbed in the back.

Quote:

---

Campaign VH
Battle M
The reason the battle part is recommended to be played on M is that neither you nor the AI receives any unfair bonuses.

---

Could You please be more exact? What exactly bonuses? You see, I have always conceitedly considered myself to be a veteran of RTW-based games, besides I managed to fulfill my campaign objectives in 0.8 playing on VH/VH. So when 0.81 came out I presumptuously started a new campain for Qart Hadasht on VH/VH without any hesitation. At first everything was nice. I conquered several rebel provinces in Iberia, defeated the Lusots, subdued Sicilia. During all that time I had constant severe financial crisis but I hoped to overcome it by conquering rich Italic cities. So I invaded Italia and, OH NO!!!! Was crushed by the romans!!!:sweatdrop: :embarassed: That samnite heavy butchers just slaughtered my elephants... Now I'm having problems... But I've gone too far to quit everything and start from the beginning. So what are the bonuses? Is it morale, stamina, or else. I need to know. Perhaps I'll be able to take some counter measures next battle.

I believe it is plus 7 attack and defence and morale
Basically it turns everything into elites... and elites into immortal monsters...

The only thing I'd really like to see with regards to the Seleucids (but it's an issue with all factions in the region, really) is to make the Arabian interior unconquerable. I really dislike seeing one big blot in the centre of the peninsula, and besides it'd force other factions to approach Saba along the coasts, which would be more realistic than marching across the deserts.

In my campaign as the Romans so far neither the Seleukids or the Ptolemies seem to have a big advantage. Better yet, Baktria doesn't seem to be steamrolling the "Far" East. I'd say that the Succescor factions are much more balanced from a gameplay point of view than they were in v. 08.

@ Geoffrey S: If the Arabian Interior was made unconquerable, you would see a big Rebel blot in the center of the peninsula, which in my opinion is much more vexing than any faction owning it.

well in reality no one could control the wastes of Arabia. Bedouin tribes are the only ones who dwell there, and have no masters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sdragon

AS are true monsters. They killed Pontus, are busy thrash the Ptolemies, took the lands around Armenia so they are nearly surrounded. Bashing the Arabians and Indians. Me taking all of Asia minor hasn't slowed them down one bit. I'm smashing a half stack every turn.

---

Same deal in my Sweboz campaign, except I'm not actually fighting them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

The only thing I'd really like to see with regards to the Seleucids (but it's an issue with all factions in the region, really) is to make the Arabian interior unconquerable. I really dislike seeing one big blot in the centre of the peninsula, and besides it'd force other factions to approach Saba along the coasts, which would be more realistic than marching across the deserts.

---

Second.
https://img55.imageshack.us/img55/3481/scruffy2ze1.jpg

I'm playing as Saba right now ( VH/M circa 240bc) and, while the Seleukids did start off strong, the Ptolemia have made a come back. Granted, that could be due to the fact that every time the Seleukids send an army into the desert I anhilate them. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus

@ Geoffrey S: If the Arabian Interior was made unconquerable, you would see a big Rebel blot in the center of the peninsula, which in my opinion is much more vexing than any faction owning it.

---

Vexing, but far more realistic.

The Arabia province is dirt poor with virtually no population. If you build mines it can actually turn a hefty profit but it will never be a big recruitment ground.

As the Saba, if you control Dumatha either through conquest or rebellion there is a very high risk the AS will come south looking for a fight. The only time this does not happen is when you leave Dumatha to the AS. Even then it's only a matter of time.

The single biggest reason they're able to steamroll everyone else is the "money per held settlement script" that gives them an overwhelming advantage against practically every other faction in the game.

In the early game the Sabyn can afford to keep maybe half a stack of mediocre troops. That stack has to take the surrounding Eleutheroi settlements, who often have both a town garrison along with a roving "field army". There is no way the Sabyn can stand against recurring stacks sent down by the AS. It's not the armies themselves. It's the sheer number of them (5 stacks against 1).

The only way to keep the AS in line is to reduce the amount of money given per turn to an AI faction in the script. (Assuming the AI had half a brain to manage an economy with) :furious3:

There might be another way to solve the weak Saba problem though. Mines are still the single most profitable recourse around. It the Saba started with a more developed settlement (with mines and farming upgrades) they might have the cash to stand against the endless hordes of Seleucid phalanxes.

Wonder if it's possible to keep the money per settlement script, but for AS only make it less money than the rest of the factions. Or if that can't be done, add an extra script to the AS that subtracts some amount of money, on top of what it gets because of the first script...... Who knows?

I tend to use a lot of spies to keep the Seleucids tied up elsewhere, which allows me to handle the odd stack sent down south. I'm also allied to the Ptolemies, who at the moment have the Seleucids held down in Judea. It's an interesting campaign, using a lot of tricks I never needed before.