The limitations of EB

**QuintusSertorius** · 10-18-2010, 12:33

I love EB for what it does the R:TW; I can't play vanilla any more (and haven't done for years) because so much about it annoys me. Which makes an even greater shame out of the fact that while the EB team have gone to great lengths to improve the game, there are still un-resolvable and glaring problems with the engine itself.

The fact that the military and diplomacy AI apparently don't talk to each other can make for a really annoying (rather than fun) experience. Having a war lasting several seasons with some major set piece battles and the odd settlement changing hands is exciting. Then comes a longer period of peace with rebuilding of armies and mutually profitable trade before you do it all again. Dealing with full stacks (or worse, 3-4 unit stacks that aren't even a threat) every other season unless you blitz/raid all the settlements nearby is more like a chore. Allegedly the AI is much more passive (but also smarter about building armies) with Alexander's executable, maybe I need to try that?

Something that's really bothering me right now is the absolutely crappy armies the AI builds. It's probably asking too much to expect even vaguely historical composition (Roman armies with five units of basic Gallic spearmen, or eight units of Triarii...), but it would be nice if they actually used half-decent compositions. I'm facing Makedonian and Karthadastim armies with 4-5 units (or more!) of unarmoured javelineers, the odd elite or two and if I'm lucky some regular phalangites or hoplites. I don't think it was this bad in 1.1 or 1.0, I wonder if some subtle change has had unexpected consequences in this regard.

Then there's the excrable in-battle AI. All I would ask is that the AI builds a single line, and keeps them in a line. Is that so hard to do? No matter which formation files I use (currently using Sinhuets after the disasters with DarthMod), no matter how they start out, the AI insists on breaking up the line to chase after individual units. Or delay/stagger the advance of their frontline infantry so that they are a lot less effective than they might otherwise be (and I can destroy them in turn).

An addendum to this is the annoying tendency of the AI to simply charge their cavalry-mounted general into the toughest front line spearmen you have. I gave up on EB last time around for this very reason, I'd gone past the ability to make up rationalisations for the AAR I was writing for the AI's stupidity. The number of battles I won simply because the enemy general suicided and suddenly decreased their army's morale and defense was getting ridiculous.

It's a shame, I enjoy a lot of EB, but the limitations of the RTW engine really do sour my fun.

**johnhughthom** · 10-18-2010, 12:36

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Allegedly the AI is much more passive (but also smarter about building armies) with Alexander's executable, maybe I need to try that?

It may be slightly better, but nowhere near enough to stop the game feeling like a chore after a while.

**vollorix** · 10-18-2010, 13:13

Imho, the army compositions of the AI depends on the balancing of the unit size/cost factor, and on the total amount of money it gets.
For example: i´ve halfed the size and the upkeep of Triarii, but kept the recruitment costs, and see - there are no more then 2 of this units per large Roman army most of the time. Or cut the size of Pedites EXtr. to 30 men per unit ( 60 on large ), kept the price for recruitment + upkeep, and now you see far more Samnites Heavies on the field, which i didn´t touched. But then, once Roman AI becomes quite rich, it starts to crank out Pedites again, so if one would reduce their recruitment pool to Roma only, and perhaps tweak the recruitment costs a little bit more, AI won´t get so obsessed in hiring them. Farther: once i´ve done those changes, the AI started mass recruiting Rorari, so i lowered the costs for Hastati by 100 and Princeps by 50, iirc, and now i can see very nice historical compositions for the Romans: up to 6 Princeps, 4 Hastati, 2 Triari and some Pedites + couple of Samnites, with all the other support troops. But this i could only achieve by taking the abilities of the Romans to recruit any Celtic or Greek troops at all.

Therefore my conclusion would be: if one balances the costs of the units to force specific recruitment behavior rather than simply following kind of formula for the unit stats, one can get quite satisfying results.

Edit: It should be Rorari instead of Leves.

**Titus Marcellus Scato** · 10-18-2010, 13:36

@vollorix: Very interesting post - I think I'd like to make your modifications to my own EB installation, it sounds fantastic!

Would you care to post your edu file?

**Titus Marcellus Scato** · 10-18-2010, 14:25

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I love EB for what it does the R:TW; I can't play vanilla any more (and haven't done for years) because so much about it annoys me. Which makes an even greater shame out of the fact that while the EB team have gone to great lengths to improve the game, there are still un-resolvable and glaring problems with the engine itself.

The fact that the military and diplomacy AI apparently don't talk to each other can make for a really annoying (rather than fun) experience. Having a war lasting several seasons with some major set piece battles and the odd settlement changing hands is exciting. Then comes a longer period of peace with rebuilding of armies and mutually profitable trade before you do it all again. Dealing with full stacks (or worse, 3-4 unit stacks that aren't even a threat) every other season unless you blitz/raid all the settlements nearby is more like a chore. Allegedly the AI is much more passive (but also smarter about building armies) with Alexander's executable, maybe I need to try that?

Something that's really bothering me right now is the absolutely crappy armies the AI builds. It's probably asking too much to expect even vaguely historical composition (Roman armies with five units of basic Gallic spearmen, or eight units of Triarii...), but it would be nice if they actually used half-decent compositions. I'm facing Makedonian and Karthadastim armies with 4-5 units (or more!) of unarmoured javelineers, the odd elite or two and if I'm lucky some regular phalangites or hoplites. I don't think it was this bad in 1.1 or 1.0, I wonder if some subtle change has had unexpected consequences in this regard.

Then there's the excrable in-battle AI. All I would ask is that the AI builds a single line, and keeps them in a line. Is that so hard to do? No matter which formation files I use (currently using Sinhuets after the disasters with DarthMod), no matter how they start out, the AI insists on breaking up the line to chase after individual units. Or delay/stagger the advance of their frontline infantry so that they are a lot less effective than they might otherwise be (and I can destroy them in turn).

An addendum to this is the annoying tendency of the AI to simply charge their cavalry-mounted general into the toughest front line spearmen you have. I gave up on EB last time around for this very reason, I'd gone past the ability to make up rationalisations for the AAR I was writing for the AI's stupidity. The number of battles I won simply because the enemy general suicided and suddenly decreased their army's morale and defense was getting ridiculous.

It's a shame, I enjoy a lot of EB, but the limitations of the RTW engine really do sour my fun.

Some tips that might help you:
Use Force Diplomacy mod to make peace with the AI.
Build forts at strategic choke points (preferably with a full stack garrison) - that will usually discourage the AI from attacking, or at least slow them down.
The AI formation-keeping when attacking is worse than the AI formation-keeping when defending. If it bothers you, try to attack the AI army rather than defending. That gives the AI the tactical advantage. Or if you want to defend, do so with a considerably weaker force, then the AI's poor formation keeping can be put down to overconfidence given their numerical advantage. Or, if attacked, you can sometimes avoid a battle by withdrawing.
To counter suicidal AI cavalry generals, always try to make sure you have a cavalry unit of your own to go and attract the AI general's attention before he reaches your front line. Light skirmisher cavalry is good for this, the AI general will often chase such a unit all over the map. And in the end it doesn't matter if your light cavalry gets minced in melee by the AI general, as long as you win the main battle. Or you can use heavy cavalry of your own to just duke it out with the AI general.

**QuintusSertorius** · 10-18-2010, 16:49

Good points.

I already use FD to make peace, it ameliorates a little but the gap between military and diplomacy AI means you get the peace until the military AI moves something to break it again. Better than nothing, without FD you don't even get a ceasefire, just a lull while they build up for another attack. Sometimes I find saving, quitting and reloading (which resets the AI allegedly) after a ceasefire stops them immediately leaping into another war.

Funny thing is, I already use smaller armies (no more than 14 units, often against AI full stacks), which immediately puts me on the defensive since they outnumber me.

I usually station my cavalry in reserve behind the line, maybe I need to push them further out to the flanks to attrack the general? A cavalry duel is at least a little more thematic. Though I'm wary of that resulting in getting some spearmen charging across the battlefield to fight them.

**Titus Marcellus Scato** · 10-18-2010, 17:29

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Good points.

Funny thing is, I already use smaller armies (no more than 14 units, often against AI full stacks), which immediately puts me on the defensive since they outnumber me.

I usually station my cavalry in reserve behind the line, maybe I need to push them further out to the flanks to attrack the general? A cavalry duel is at least a little more thematic. Though I'm wary of that resulting in getting some spearmen charging across the battlefield to fight them.

Well, you're not being like Alexander the Great, then, who was renowned for attacking armies that outnumbered his own. You may not be a military genius, but you're a darn sight better than the AI. Be brave and attack anyway, despite being outnumbered! If you're good, you'll win, if not, then you deserve whatever spanking the AI gives you. ;)

Cavalry (especially light cavalry) should be on the wings of an infantry based army. Only your general's bodyguard belongs behind the line, really. Of course, if the enemy has a lot of cavalry besides his general, then you have to be prepared for that. Your light cav may be able to entice the AI general away by looping round the flank, charging him quickly, then immediately running away. He should chase you after such an insult!

**QuintusSertorius** · 10-18-2010, 17:49

My lights are normally behind the FMs, who are behind the outer-most unit. I could always move them outside to the extreme flank.

**vollorix** · 10-18-2010, 20:15

Well, first of all i use BI exe. so don´t know how compatible my EDU would be with others.
Second, i´ve changed a bit more than only Roman units, making the rare and powerfull units like Lugi Swordmen, Goidian Elite Shock Hammer guys and Thrakian elite infantry with 2 HP ( similar to Gaesatae ) etc.

The EDU is quite easy to adjust. The marked lines only are important, and only "latin" written numbers matter in this case.
Delete the ownership "seleucid" from all units you don´t want the Romans to be able to recruit.
Change the number of soldiers for a unit, but before you changing "wild", i suggest you read some guides on this, and of course back up your original EDU.
Costs, as was said, are important for AI, a human player can handle it easier, but upkeep seems not to matter for AI anything...

;249
type roman infantry camillan rorarii
dictionary roman_infantry_camillan_rorarii ; Rorarii
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type General_1
soldier roman_infantry_rorarii, 60, 0, 1.05
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, hardy, can_swim
formation 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 6, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 4, 4, javelin, 55, 3, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown
stat_sec 12, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr light_spear
stat_pri_armour 4, 9, 4, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 1
stat_ground 0, 0, 0, -2
stat_mental 8, low, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 959, 240, 20, 30, 959
ownership seleucid, slave, gauls, scythia, britons, germans, spain, dacia, greek_cities, thrace, macedon

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Hope this helps :)

**Titus Marcellus Scato** · 10-18-2010, 21:31

vollorix, you're a star! Thanks very much, I'm getting modding straight away!

**QuintusSertorius** · 12-05-2010, 16:25

This is starting to annoy me again. Why does the AI fragment perfectly good full stacks into five pathetic little armies? How does that make any sense when one big army will achieve a lot more than several small ones? I have to wonder at what idiot programmed it that way, thinking it was a good thing. And what's the point in un-generalled stacks? They're just ripe for slaughter.

Composition I can mitigate to a degree by just spawning proper armies (long as there aren't stacks filled with heavily-depleted units...). But the in-battle AI is really getting on my nerves. DarthMod is awful, especially in reinforcement battles where the incoming just circle around or sit in a column. Sinuet's doesn't seem capable of making them stay in a line. Again we get these stupid probes by one unit at a time rather than coming forward in force.

And we still have suicidal generals charging the phalanx at the centre of the line...