Nerfing Bakria- and assorted campaign suggestions

[Tellos Athenaios]

The only AI with fleets are the Carthies. They have dozens. The Romans have a couple, but the Carthies tend to sink them. The Seleukids did have a couple, as did the Ptolies, but I sank them...

It seems as if the AI thinks: I am very much surrounded by seas, let's build fleets. And: I very much 'surround' seas, why bother?

In my campaign I haven't encountered any but pirate ships, perhaps also because of the fact that I'm not expanding into Carthiginian realm. I have one fleet consisting of some heavy warships that keep sinking them and another consisting of highly experienced penteconterai that keeps sinking them too. And I retrain.

Btw, I hope it's not intended that the heaviest warships take less time to build than their smaller 'predecessors'?

[Zaknafien]

In my game, the sea action is crazy.. Macedon, Ptolemies, Cartghaginians, Hellenes, and me as Rome, have all built larger fleets from 250-ish onward to the present day (190 ish). Domination of the sea is a major goal for each of these powers, and there are several naval engagements each turn in the crowded sea-lanes. The Macedonians are even building the "Huge" ships in their great naval ports now, seeking mastery of the middle sea.

of course, im playing 8.x on the BI exe so that may have something to do with it.

[Thaatu]

Tellos Athenaios: I concede (damn mathematics).

About AI fleets I have to say that in the Baktria campaign Carthage was at peace with everyone and Ptolemaics, who controlled the whole eastern mediterranean, were at war with Seleukids, who had no coastal provinces left. Rome was conquering rebel provinces after they had forced Aedui to become their protectorate and Greeks and Macedonians were devastating mainland Greece. So no faction actually had any enemies to fight naval battles with (except pirates), so I'd say that's the main reason for the lack of fleets.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes, I bet that is the main problem: the AI has no enemies to fight naval battles with, because it is either connected with them through land(bridges) or is too far away from it's enemies to be bothered.

[Thaatu]

I tested this with a fresh Roman campaign. About 267 BC the first punic war started as I took over Messana (Carthage wouldn't attack it because of the huge rebel garrison) and the whites began sieging it...

Next I saw three pirate fleets, each with three units of either sea warriors, small pirate fleets or great pirate fleets. They came from the east and set themselves between Sicily and Carthage, destroying everything in their path thus effectively ending the first punic war. Damn Cilician peacekeepers...

I guess my scientific method has some faults.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update from the campaign:

After the pirates headed back east, I built a fleet and loaded it with an army to invade Carthago. It was just to test if they try to intercept it, or build up their fleet after that. Well I transported the army to Messana to hold up for the winter and I planned to cross the sea in the spring. I didn't bother to put the fleet into port, so out of nowhere comes an another pirate fleet.

This time it consisted of 3 great fleets, 1 small and 2 sea warriors.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And? How many AI fleets did you notice, apart from pirates? (I guess very few, as thos pirates probably took care of that...)

[MiniMe]

...I have a Baktrian campaign going on at the year 228 BC .... The AI won't recruit elephants...

That's exactly the reason why you don't see AI recruiting elephants =)
In mine Epeiros campaign Baktria recruits armoured elephants, and they recruit plenty of them, I've seen 3 units.

[Thaatu]

That's exactly the reason why you don't see AI recruiting elephants =)
In mine Epeiros campaign Baktria recruits armoured elephants, and they recruit plenty of them, I've seen 3 units.

Yeah, I just noticed that Seleukids were broke, Ptolemaics didn't have their southern provinces and Carthage had no need for elephants as they had no wars, so I guess that campaign is dismissable as evidence.

Coupled with the fact that in my Roman game the first punic war has turned into a joint anti-pirate operation for me and Carthage (although we are at war), and they are building some sweet ships, it seems like upkeep cost doesn't have a crippling effect on AI. Myth busted (I hope).

But still one point remains:


Ceterum censeo Ptolemaioium esse nerfendam.


(Some may notice I don't actually know latin.)

[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?

[MiniMe]

About "nerfing Baktria":
Perhaps if eastern seleukeia provinces with persian population would revolt to Pahlava instead of Eleutheroi, it'd be almost "historically accurate" and solve the problem with Baktria.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Is this savecompatible to change those base farm levels?

Unfortunately, no. And it does require the deletion of the map.rwm file in the "...\Rome - Total War\EB\Data\world\maps\base" folder.

[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...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

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...

The AI's recruitment seems retarded though. They seem to have one city with 400 people in it and the rest have 30000+. I captured Damascus (a major city for centuries prior) and it had just over a thousand people and was still a "town". Of course this doesn't make since, because the AI seems to recruit one unit in every town every turn.

[Fondor_Yards]

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...

The AI DOES get a scripted population boost every time it recruits a unit in a town, in that town.

[Dumbass]

It seems like the ability to build levels of buildings aren't restrained by the level of the settlement. Example, as Saba, I could build the best MIC with only a town, same applies with the romans (I think). This could be causing settlements to be maxing out way to quickly.

[Bonny]

It seems like the ability to build levels of buildings aren't restrained by the level of the settlement. Example, as Saba, I could build the best MIC with only a town, same applies with the romans (I think). This could be causing settlements to be maxing out way to quickly.

Only some building complexes, like Barracks and walls are untied ofthe townlevel, some like roads are tied to it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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...

Which could, perhaps, be achieved through the following solution:
One loop in the background script, checking each settlement each turn and removing some population by the add_population "Settlementname" amount command. This amount may take negative values... It would also take care of human controlled cities.