Hmm, then maybe you should look for some. The Roman factions especially will become quite large and quite powerful if the player doesn't do something to stop them early on. Egypt is another powerhouse. Sadly, the other factions don't expand as much as might be hoped for. But suggesting that the AI isn't more effective with more territory seems foolish. They are demonstrably so.Originally Posted by roguebolo
I'm sure they would, but I think that's going beyond the scope of the discussion.My gut feeling is that however this situation might turn out, neither scenario would provide as much of a challenge as if the AI factions did a better job of producing more elite troops and providing them with the latest weapons and armor upgrades.
This is flawed logic. The fact that the player can actively work to oppose the AI in no way excuses the fact that the AI will also be hampered by the save/reload issue. If there was a bug that automatically killed any army you encounter, would you excuse that because you're likely to win the encounter anyway?Taking Sicily as an example, which seems to be upheld as the prime example of the ineffectiveness of the AI's behavior, I know of several other actions on the part of the human player that will prevent the Scipii takeover of Sicily, in addition to load games. 1) If the human player is one of the other Roman factions and decides to prevent it by forming alliances; and 2) if the human player is Greek or Carthaginian, and decides to resist the takeover through military action. (And why doesn't the AI do this if it hasn't been "crippled" by load games?)
I'm really not sure where you are trying to go with that paragraph. I don't understand how you think it reflects on the save/reload issue, or why you think it excuses if (if, in fact, that is what you are trying to suggest).
Bh
Bookmarks