Aggressive factions are unrealistic

[DECEBALVS]

Hello! In normal level game, the AI factions are attacking in all directions where they see a vulnerable city [sometimes even if that means they are fighting with too many factions and are dissipating their military power]. That indicates a lack in the strategy made for AI: the human [historical] faction is more wary, it keeps troops at every borders or have a campaign based attack on another faction. My dissatisfaction concerning the naturally-born aggressive AI faction is that the map becomes too quickly owned only by a superpower and me. That's unrealistic for Antiquity. Maybe a campaign-attacking AI could be more aggresive [winner] than a random-attacking AI, but it makes sense and it could be possible for the defender or his allies to predict the foe's attacks or to know who really must be attacked. Maybe if the EB team will create a community of factions who cannot attack themselves for a long time without massive internal rebellion, this will be equivalent with the balancing role of the pope in Medieval TW. Examples: the gauls factions, the germanic factions etc. This could indicate to the AI faction who is the real [historically] ennemy. What do you think?

[Drunk Clown]

Aren't the Gaul factions supposed to attack eachother?

[DECEBALVS]

Yes, they were fighting for a long time, but they dissapeared only with the "help" of Rome. So, in game, they must fight for short time [without winner and looser], but have no interdiction to attack Rome. That's historically correct.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Acrually, in MedII AI factions honour their alliances better then before. So it will be less likely that you will get a superfaction early on.

[Drunk Clown]

Acrually, in MedII AI factions honour their alliances better then before. So it will be less likely that you will get a superfaction early on.

Superpowers occur just as much in Medieval II as in Rome.

[QuintusSertorius]

I'm kind of more concerned about how unrealistic siege warfare is (thanks to the R:TW engine). In antiquity, most sieges went one of four ways: surrender before the first parallel was even dug or engine sited; treachery leading to the garrison being betrayed (and a large sum of silver changing hands); surrender because of starvation after a long blockade; or an accomdation reached between besiegers and defenders, with the former moving on and leaving the place unmolested. The number of sieges won by assault were extremely rare, because a properly sited fortification was just too costly to attack.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Superpowers occur just as much in Medieval II as in Rome.

I don't agree. In my current campaign as England in SS6.4, after 250+ turns there is only one faction that has been destroyed (the HRE, ghe ghe ghe) and there is only one faction close to 'superpower' status: The Mongols (which is historical). Especially Europe is completely divided.

[WinsingtonIII]

Superpowers occur just as much in Medieval II as in Rome.

This may be true, but the diplomacy does seem to be somewhat better in that I've had allies in M2TW games (including modded games) that I have kept without them backstabbing me for the whole game (well... at least as long as I played). I don't think I've ever had that happen in EB1.