Aggressive factions are unrealistic

[DECEBALVS]

If it is too hard to invent for game a counter-wall or ramp, surelly the siege time can be minimised, the price and number of siege equipment [built per turn] increased, all these with only few modding, I guess.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Yes, but it would upset the balance of the whole game.

[Ichon]

? Now the top siege times I've seen for upgraded Citadel with grain storage is 12 turns or about 6 years depending on tpy. Which is a bit long without a port to provide supplies. Not sure if anything can be done to make it so only ports last that long but making it so a certain level of port buildings give extra turns rather than walls might be a start. It would be really cool if the fact a port is blockaded could then affect the siege turns required but I'd guess that is way beyond the MTW2 engine.

[Foot]

If it is too hard to invent for game a counter-wall or ramp, surelly the siege time can be minimised, the price and number of siege equipment [built per turn] increased, all these with only few modding, I guess.

What "seems" to be possible, and what actually is possible is too different things. If you think those changes are possible, you could do some research into finding out how it is possible.

Foot

[DECEBALVS]

What "seems" to be possible, and what actually is possible is too different things. If you think those changes are possible, you could do some research into finding out how it is possible.

Foot

I'm not a modder. What about this idea: I'm not assuming static and Rome-centered AI faction, but I'm trying to imagine a system that makes factions to have diplomatic relations closer to the historical ones. For example, if in Antiquity A was at war with B and both neutral to C and B was allied with D which was neutral to the rest of all [and all are neighbours], in the game we must have:
A will want to attack D when it sees it as a good movement
A will not attack C without a clear chance to win
C and D are really the factions were the machine may decide which will their relations be
So, that system will force the factions to action like in history. If romans aren't actually neighbours with Pontus, they can have a predilection to attack it after the year x. The historically correct game mustn't preserve only the starting diplomatic relations, but also must try to re-create [as a first to choose option for factions] the diplomacy at every turn according to the year in history. That isn't boring [to know
approximately all the factions' movements], but is a way to stop the creation of ahistorical superpowers.

[Foot]

I'm not a modder. What about this idea: I'm not assuming static and Rome-centered AI faction, but I'm trying to imagine a system that makes factions to have diplomatic relations closer to the historical ones. For example, if in Antiquity A was at war with B and both neutral to C and B was allied with D which was neutral to the rest of all [and all are neighbours], in the game we must have:
A will want to attack D when it sees it as a good movement
A will not attack C without a clear chance to win
C and D are really the factions were the machine may decide which will their relations be
So, that system will force the factions to action like in history. If romans aren't actually neighbours with Pontus, they can have a predilection to attack it after the year x. The historically correct game mustn't preserve only the starting diplomatic relations, but also must try to re-create [as a first to choose option for factions] the diplomacy at every turn according to the year in history. That isn't boring [to know
approximately all the factions' movements], but is a way to stop the creation of ahistorical superpowers.

Its probably best if you do actually learn a bit about what the engine is capable of before you start making suggestions that can easily be shown to be impossible - and that includes the one above. We cannot create specialist circumstances that will define what certain factions will do in certain scenarios based upon what we know of history. The campaign ai engine is 1) not that powerful and 2) not that moddable. All we can do is tweak settings to make certain outcomes more or less unlikely given the balancing of the campaign game.

And what you may find enjoyable, does not make it enjoyable for anyone else. What you describe I would not describe as enjoyable, because it would mean that my actions were not impacting the world as a player. If I, as Epeiros, had beaten Rome back into the Northern Alpine regions, such that the entirety of Italia was under my control, I would not expect Carthage to then declare war against Rome (or vice versa) while I was the more immediate threat to both.

To create ingenious scripts that would catapult certain factions into peace or war at certain times based on their history would be more ahistorical than what we do, because it would be forcing our realities turn of events onto a separate reality whose players are not the same.

Now, the idea of creating more thoughtful and more realistic campaign Ai's is certainly something we aim to do, but this will not script a faction's actions where such actions would be unrealistic. Furthermore, it would be dull if, every game you played, the Punic wars happened at exactly the same time; if, in every campaign, the rise of the Parni as successors of Persia happened each and every time. As Rome, I don't want to end every campaign fighting against the horsemen of the east. Perhaps I would prefer, in one game, to have a strong Greek east with phalangitai after phalangitai, and perhaps in another I would like to see the combined arms of Pontos be the superior power in the east.

Of course, thats not the say that the outcomes that we have now in EBI are perfect, and we would like to be able to balance the powers in the east out better (as we would like to balance the powers in the west out better). We hope that EBII will be better able to offer diverse campaigns.

As for the idea of Superpowers, that is exactly what eventually happened in history's case anyway, and we would expect the same to happen in the game. It would be a bit crap if all the factions largely stayed the same size except for the players faction, which grew.

Foot

[QuintusSertorius]

As for the idea of Superpowers, that is exactly what eventually happened in history's case anyway, and we would expect the same to happen in the game. It would be a bit crap if all the factions largely stayed the same size except for the players faction, which grew.

Foot

My only complaint here is the speed with which it happens in EBI. You can have a faction wiped out in under 10 years from the start of the game, and early success tends to snowball from there unless the human player intervenes somehow.

[Kocmoc]

Just a quick note from an average player.
To introduce something which keeps a certain historically correctness is almost useless. As human player, you play any faction you like and try to win the whole.
You dont sit in your country and try to keep the border as it was in history. You want to get a challenge and win with any faction, this of-course include no historically correctness.

It might be possible in the early start of the game, to keep some correctness, but with time a human player will always wipe this.
If you play Single-player, there is always a peak somewhere, at that point you just roll over anything.

[Drunk Clown]

Just a quick note from an average player.
To introduce something which keeps a certain historically correctness is almost useless. As human player, you play any faction you like and try to win the whole.
You dont sit in your country and try to keep the border as it was in history. You want to get a challenge and win with any faction, this of-course include no historically correctness.

It might be possible in the early start of the game, to keep some correctness, but with time a human player will always wipe this.
If you play Single-player, there is always a peak somewhere, at that point you just roll over anything.

Some people want to keep it as historical as possible (AAR etc.). (Not saying that I like it, I hate roleplaying )

But personally I would hate it if the outcome of every campaign would be the same. I love it when a faction surprises me.

The only thing I want is that the CAI would make less stupid moves, but you can't change that so too bad. I also have no problems with superpowers I just kill them; I even like a powerful adversary. Superpowers occurred in real history and if it happens in EB then maybe it isn't Romani but the Koinon Hellenon. The game is more about what if than to re-enacting things (dull)

[Ludens]

To introduce something which keeps a certain historically correctness is almost useless. As human player, you play any faction you like and try to win the whole.

Don't worry. EB1 is not history-on-rails, nor will EB2 be. The starting positions will be historical, but beyond that it will be up to the player, and the A.I.

Welcome to EB, by the way.

[Populus Romanus]

As for the idea of Superpowers, that is exactly what eventually happened in history's case anyway, and we would expect the same to happen in the game. It would be a bit crap if all the factions largely stayed the same size except for the players faction, which grew.

Foot

If I am correct, I believe that the formation of superpowers such as those in EB would almost never actually occur. That is due to the fact that in real life, if a nation struck down another nation, another one would spring up to attack them. Historically, new nations were constantly not only coming out of existance, but also coming into existance. Therefore, all nations were constantly kept weak by the fact that there was a neverending stream of enemies to fight. Therefore, the formation of superpowers in real life was an unprecedented event, an must have required truly remarkable circumstances, whereas in EB the formation of superpowers is a forgone conclusion, because no new enemies are ever created, indeed the number of them can only go down. I am not advocating for emerging factions at all, I just thought I would clarify.

[Foot]

If I am correct, I believe that the formation of superpowers such as those in EB would almost never actually occur. That is due to the fact that in real life, if a nation struck down another nation, another one would spring up to attack them. Historically, new nations were constantly not only coming out of existance, but also coming into existance. Therefore, all nations were constantly kept weak by the fact that there was a neverending stream of enemies to fight. Therefore, the formation of superpowers in real life was an unprecedented event, an must have required truly remarkable circumstances, whereas in EB the formation of superpowers is a forgone conclusion, because no new enemies are ever created, indeed the number of them can only go down. I am not advocating for emerging factions at all, I just thought I would clarify.

What would you call the Roman Empire? What would you call the Parthian Empire? Superpowers of their age. Of course, they were beset by internal conflict, but new nations didn't pop into existence within their borders all that often. Once Pontos was lost to the Romans, it didn't suddenly appear again when that province got a bit too rebellious.

Foot

[Populus Romanus]

The Roman and Parthian Empires are the few exceptions to the rule. The reason they are held in such awe even to this day is because nations that huge and that powerful are extremely rare. Using such massive empires as Rome and Parthia is not fair. They were so powerful that hardly anyone could resist them for long. Instead, one should look to the average nation of this time period. The majority of them never grew. Indeed, the majority of the factions included in EB never grew (significantly), the Romani and the Pahlava are really the only two examples of ones which did so on a titanic scale. Looking for instance to the Lusotana, they were very powerful, but never grew virtually an inch because no matter how many enemy tribes they defeated, another one would spring up to fill the vacuum and continue to resist the Lusotana. Makedonia as well never grew at all during EB's timeframe because new powers sprung up to fight it. First, there were the Diadochi wars, then when they were brought to an end Pyrrhus of Epirus attacked Macedonia. When he had finally been dispatched, Aetolian League, the Achaean League, and the Chremonidian League were formed specifically to fight the Macedonians. They successfully held off the Macedonians until their defeats at the hands of the Romans. Then there is the Qarthadastim, who could never expand much (there were a few examples of Carthaginian conquests gone mad, such as Hamilcar's Iberian conquests, but even these were temporary, as they fell victim to the forces of yet another nation that rose up to challenge Carthage.). Carthage would often come under attack on one front, be it Iberia, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, or Africa. When they defeated their attackers, they often would come under attack on another front, forcing them to constantly shift their forces and never press an advantage. I could go on and on, but I am too lazy to type and research all that. However, I think I have made my point.