Nerfing Bakria- and assorted campaign suggestions

[Imperator]

Well, the title kinda says it all- in a lot of games we see Baktria taking over the East from Mesopotamia to India within 50 years, so I think they need to be seriously nerfed- and fast.

Besides that I noticed a few other tiny tweaks that do a lot to improve the campaign balance and overall performance:
1)Baktria nerfed (previously stated)

2) Greece re-balanced- Macedon in a more fragile state (what with Pyrrhos and all) and same with the Koinon Hellenon (it's a loose alliance of otherwise bitterly devided cities, how uber can it be? But TA mentioned that it would be fixed in upcoming patch, so the team must already have that one figured out...

3) slow down growth rates- I've suggested that before and in my games I reduce all the base growth rates by a LOT (the highest is 3 or 4 as opposed to 8 or 9) and it seems like cities grow slower (duh) so the map isn't dominated by Large cities by 250 BC and backwater Celtic towns aren't massive, urban, metropolises within decades- save that for vanilla. I haven't seen its affect on the long-term campaign- maybe I'll post a save-game later.

4) Beef up Nomads, including Parthia- I'm sure it's already a team priority so it's a little like suggestion #2 but I wonder if that includes Parthia. I know the team doesn't believe in forcing the AI progression to mirror that of real history but then I can't help but wish that Parthia would expand every now and then, of all the factions they are among the most stagnant in a lot of my games.

just a few suggestions, and hopefully I'll get some useful feedback from other fans and the team!

[Tellos Athenaios]

About the Nomads: in my current campaign the Sauromatae are doing a splendid job - no needing there.
The Parthians didn't really do a thing, but I anihilated them pretty early on so maybe I'm not the one to judge.
The Hayasdan need some adjustment too. Placing their armies conviently next to an Eleutheroi town might be just fine.The Saka need some support too - so far only Bin Kath has been added to their realm.
Other factions
Pontus expands into Sinope area, and then quits campaigning till I conquer Anatolia and Phrygia (playing as AS); but then again I have removed faction early on, so perhaps it's all a matter of time.
The Romani are going so fast! By 261 BC, they'd pushed all the way north to the Southern Germany/Northern Swiss regions.
The Sweboz need some support, they haven't yet conquered a single region.
I haven't seen Baktria taking off on their own, it basically just sits there and keeps quiet...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

About Hellas itself in next patch: Yeah, we made some changes. And we definitely like what we have now better than what we had in 0.80. Does that mean we'll stick to it? Probably not. We want to keep tweaking things and if AI progression turns out to stink we might have to try some other things. Plus we really don't have all the factions' starting city development levelled out yet. That will come a little later too. Some factions' FC's pushed for more stuff in their starting cities and it hasn't been subjected to a mod-wide levelling in quite a while, so we probably need to do that a little (Romans would be high on the list I think of ones that need a little toning down).

As for Baktria, let's see how the mining changes affect things. We will do further resource and mining changes too, but it might affect things in a good way. I would highly recommend everyone picking this topic up again when the patch comes out - but we have moved on and made some changes here for the next one, so we won't be looking at 0.80 itself as much as soon as we can release the patch.

Sweboz will definitely get some help. Casse will too when their port problem is fixed (500 mnai a turn difference I've been told).

Pontos needs better units all around - their own. We will be working on this when our unit directors show back up again. Vacation and some health problems made us slam into a brick wall on this matter about a week ago.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

1- I have come to hate Baktria so very much (because of their expansion). I wish they would be nerfed so much that it was suprizing if they were aroundi in 250BC.

3- Second. Many cities didn't change in size for hundreds of years. And if there is a city like Sardis that has been around for centuries, why did it suddenly have a population boom in 272 and increase in size 10fold within fifty years (as well as its insignifigate, poor neighbor city)?

As for beefing up some nations, I like the way that some nations are right now. Casse, Armenia, Pontus, Lusatani, and Sweboz never built huge nations so that means they're balanced... ? Though I do wish that one day I could fight a huge Persian (Parthian) empire.

[MSB]

In my opinion Baktria should be gone at the start, they didn't exist until the 250sBC, but rebels in that region should take up the old Baktrian banner when they rebel. I think, instead, that the faction slot should be taken up by an Indeo-Greek Faction further east than Baktria. It's a little a-historical having a Baktrian Statrap at the start - those provinces were under Seleucid control.

[Lucasiewicz]

but rebels in that region should take up the old Baktrian banner when they rebel.

Is that even possible? If so, you would still have to save a faction slot for them, not?

[MSB]

Is that even possible? If so, you would still have to save a faction slot for them, not?

Not - EB has found a way of giving different rebels in different regions different banners. They are all, however, still under the rebel faction slot and have the same diplomacy, same turn etc.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The difference in rebel faction banners is based on the founding faction of that region. If Baktria were to rebel from Seleucia and be a rebel with Baktrian banners, then all territories owned by Seleucia at the beginning(with exception of a couple near Parthia and a couple in AsiaMinor) that rebel from anybody would have the Baktrian banner.

Too little is historically known about Baktria.

Either way strong or weak, Baktria shouldn't stand a chance against a Persia established Parthia.

[Thaatu]

1.) If it was possible then Baktria, Parthia and Armenia would be Seleukid protectorates in the beginning of the game, but I guess it's not. I'm hoping that alliances between these factions would last a bit longer than 2 turn from the start. Now either the client faction attacks seleukids or seleukids attack the client faction in the first 5 years...

2.) Growth rates go
...and I mean WAY down. Another thing that contributes to the baby boom of 272BC (besides the base growth) is governer traits. With retinues and good education I managed to get a governer who gives 6% bonus to growth rate... just what I've always wanted (now how do I get rid of him! ).

3.) Nerf Ptolemies a little. I was playing as Baktria and tried to interfere as little as possible with Seleukids, but they still got steamrolled by Ptolies, though not as fast. Weren't Seleukids winning the Syrian wars, so they should be the ones to eventually steamroll Ptolies (without Roman intervention).

4.) 70% of wealth for Baktria comes from mines, so if there's going to be some mine nerfs it's going to affect Baktria greatly. Maybe that's the key...

5.) Parthia... I don't like the idea of Parthian expansion in the early game. All I hope is they stay alive to the middle game and then start by conquering rebelling Seleukid provinces, which leads me to number six...

6.) Find a way to disable the AI "feature" of changing capitals. Its effects are most notable in the east Seleukid realm, because those provinces won't rebel anymore once the AI switch their capital to Susa or beyond.

7.) Roman expansion...

8.) I know I had something else... damn, it got away. Well that's it then...

[Dumbass]

What's the state of Sabyn like in the patch? They are soo fun to play, but it's annoying they don't have as much depth or units.

[-Praetor-]

Roman expansion is weird.

They go against cisalpine gaul in force, but leave Tarentum and Sicily alone.

Eventually, Epeiros starts to take Arpi, Capua and eventually Rome itself...

It`s weird. IMO, Rome should first go after Tarentum and Rhegion, and also after Sicily, and then go after Bononia and such...

Cheers!!!

[blank]

Maybe another thing to change:
two Epeirote settlements are ''towns''. Their capital is a village? A bit odd, ain't it? Maybe it should be changed to at least ''large town''

[Markus_Aurelius]

3) slow down growth rates- I've suggested that before and in my games I reduce all the base growth rates by a LOT (the highest is 3 or 4 as opposed to 8 or 9) and it seems like cities grow slower (duh) so the map isn't dominated by Large cities by 250 BC and backwater Celtic towns aren't massive, urban, metropolises within decades- save that for vanilla. I haven't seen its affect on the long-term campaign- maybe I'll post a save-game later.

How do you do this?

[Zaknafien]

Growth rates are being looked at internally. As far as Ptolemaics/Seleucids, some say nerf one some say nerf the other, I thought A.S was overpowered in my first couple of campaigns on 8.x but the next couple Ptolemies dominated. I think theres a good amount of variation in the campaigns, just because one dominates in a paticular playing doesnt mean they're necessarily overpowered.

[Markus_Aurelius]

but still the question remains, how do i go about changing base growth rates?

[Kugutsu]

Its more the speed with which they dominate. In my Hayasdan campaign, the Seleukids were sending forces of Argyrspidai and Kataphracts against me by about 250BC. They shouldnt have access to such high level units, in such quantities, so early in the game. Assuming they need high level MICs to build these elite units, the cities must have grown extremely fast to allow government and MIC buildings for each city level to be built.

Is it possible to give massive population growth limiting effects to type (II) III and IV governments. After all, how likely is it that towns on the fringe of empires will expand to become vast cities.

[Thaatu]

Someone must be nerfed for every patch. People demand blood.

Seriously though, I think the new resources boost the eastern mediterranean seatrade enough to give Ptolemaics the edge in Syria. In the AI faction progress thread there are 3 instances of Seleukids beating Ptolies. My theory is the Ptoly-Seleuk feud is decided right at the beginning of a campaign, depending on weather Ptolies take Antiocheia, though my theories tend to lack certain credibility.

Edit: If the theory is correct, then the balance of power will once again be changed when 0.81 introduces Seleukid and Ptolemy starting armies.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Growth rates are being looked at internally. As far as Ptolemaics/Seleucids, some say nerf one some say nerf the other, I thought A.S was overpowered in my first couple of campaigns on 8.x but the next couple Ptolemies dominated. I think theres a good amount of variation in the campaigns, just because one dominates in a paticular playing doesnt mean they're necessarily overpowered.

I say nerf both. By the time the Romans got there (albeit after 150 years and taking Asia Minor themselves) Seleucia was but Syria and the Ptolemais were down to the Nile.

but still the question remains, how do i go about changing base growth rates?

In ...\Rome - Total War\EB\Data\world\maps\base\DESCR_REGIONS.txt there is a base farming level (last number for each settlement). This is the easiest way to affect growth rates. I took 3 from every settlement.

[Markus_Aurelius]

thank you sir

[Caratacos]

In ...\Rome - Total War\EB\Data\world\maps\base\DESCR_REGIONS.txt there is a base farming level (last number for each settlement). This is the easiest way to affect growth rates. I took 3 from every settlement.

The good thing about lower growth rates is that then the player has to juggle their taxes more (growth rate vs tax money). at the moment i have all my taxes at very high and still get growth rates of +2-3%. Not as much money due to lower tax rates to facilitate growth means harder campaigns-- i'm ok with that.

[Barigos]

Is this savecompatible to change those base farm levels?

[Numahr]

The good thing about lower growth rates is that then the player has to juggle their taxes more (growth rate vs tax money). at the moment i have all my taxes at very high and still get growth rates of +2-3%. Not as much money due to lower tax rates to facilitate growth means harder campaigns-- i'm ok with that.

Note that with reduced growth rate, there is a real risk the AI depopulates its cities by recruiting too fast OR limits itself in recruitment and does not offer an interesting challenge anymore. I guess the solution would be to script pop bonus for the AI...