Fewer AI armies...?

**Baldwin of Jerusalem** · 01-07-2006, 18:00

I agree 100%. I think that the battles on EB are real slugging matches and theres definately a sense of achievement upon winning. Yep, fewer stacks would mean more momentous battles.

I was playing as Epirus last night and the best I could manage was to take that city on Italys toe and then promptly lost my capital to Macedon before "retiring". Hell, thats whats been missing all along from the RTW experience! In RTR(fab mod that it is) its more a case of what order to conquer in and how to keep various easily blitzed factions alive around the map. House rules in effect, to keep the challenge alive. None of that here!

**galathas** · 01-07-2006, 21:27

i have been playing for something like 220 turns as the casse and eventhough i united the isles and have taken the north of gaul its always a fight to the limit. About ten turns ago i thought the iberians would push me off hte continent with their armies after i lost a crucial battle.

And to tell you the truth i have no idea why everyone is complaining about big veiltes armies coming from iberia. half a stack velites and half a stack of those really great infantry can ruin your day. You cant rush them or you look like a pin chusion and you cant ride em down because of the scutarii. At least for the casse i find it quite challenging to beat the iberians.

Oops this got a bit off topic. Something else wich i had already posted was the enormous number of Families members the enemy has. During the iberian invasion of gaul in my campaign i assasinated maybe 12!!! 12!!!! family members not mention those that died in battle. And every turn the stack has a new family member. My opinion is that thats a bit too much and i am pretty sure it wasnt that extreme in vanilla rome.

**AggonyDuck** · 01-07-2006, 21:33

Well the problem I've personally been having is that the typical AI army is largely made of rabble. Atleast that is the case with the Iberians. This means that the Iberians churn out hordes of cheap Iberian Velites, which resulted in the AI emptying it's cities of inhabitants to train rather worthless units. It would already be a huge improvement if the Iberian AI armies could be made to consist mostly of Caetratii, instead of mostly Velites.

It would be nice if the AI would train less armies, but make the armies that they train consist of more higher quality units. Also I'm not sure about the army compositions of other factions, than Iberians and the Ptolemy, but the Iberians truly need to start recruiting the better units.

**Spendios** · 01-07-2006, 22:03

Rabble army ?
In my Pontos campaign I'm being crushed by a Makedon/Koinon Hellenon coalition with armies full of pezhetairoi, thessalikoi cavalry, thureophoroi, thorakitai, thorakitai hoplitai...it's 215 and I will have lost soon (Hayasdan has just join the kill...)

**Dayve** · 01-07-2006, 23:43

Well in my Rome campaign i had to abandon yesterday because of a crash i couldn't get past, i took control of Macedonia to see if i could find the cause of the crash... I was 233BC i think, Macedonia had over 500,000 minai in their treasury, and most of their armies were rabble as someone put it... Skirmishers and cheap nasty taxeis hoplitai/phalangatai.

When i fought Carthage i counted 14 different units of foot skirmishers in one army once, and every other army had at least 10... I saw an Iberian town garrisoned with 20 units of Iberian Velites, and whenever in battle they had mostly Velites and those cheap clansmen that are only good for garrison duties...

**Sdragon** · 01-07-2006, 23:45

In my Pontus game I've never had any problems with any of the Greeks or Hayasdan. Butting heads with the Selucid empire and winning. Only enemy I can't beat is Galatia... Damn rebels.

**Dooz** · 01-07-2006, 23:56

I think the issue of Iberian armies was addressed by the team. Something about a proper Iberian government system not being in place yet, but it'll be fixed in future builds.

Anyhoo, I'm playing the Casse as well, and thankfully I'm currently allied with the Iberians. Their might powerful though and when push comes to shove, I have a feeling good ol' England is where I'll be at.

The way things are now, it makes the player army valuable and crucial if lost, but not the AI. It makes sense if thought about in that perspective. As in, if there were fewer armies, it would probably be easier for the player to gain territory and money and more armies. But since there are so many AI armies hindering your path of conquest, you're somewhat restricted.

This could just be an exploit by those players who just want to win by gamey means if necessary. But if there were fewer AI armies, I'd personally have more fun because I don't blitz or anything like that. After a large engagement between a main force of mine and a main force of theirs, their defeated army lets say would have to rebuild for a few turns. In the meanwhile, I would secure the newly acquired territory or what have you instead of rushing forward and taking new cities while their forces are depleted.

Just makes sense is all.

**CorporateSlave** · 01-08-2006, 17:52

I would love to see someday the AI that consolidates its troops into several large stacks, instead of endlessly moving lots of tiny stacks back and forth all the time. I especially become aware of that when fog of war is turned off. Case in point: Egypt and Seleucids, mortal enemies in the current campaign, have no fewer than 20 armies made of up two-three units each at most in the relatively tight area between Antioch and the Red Sea, all clustered around three or four large cities, fighting skirmishes every turn.... I know this is a CA/RTW problem, cause I've seen it so many times in the vanilla. Just wish there was a way to fix it.