Couple of observations

**mlp071** · 01-29-2007, 17:36

I can say only great job, it made me play this game again.

I did notice some slight things.Tried it in 6-7 diferent campaings

- Regions with Mines are now on top of the priority list for AI.
Eg. Qarthadast will go straight for Reghion, and it causes war prematurely with Romani (since they do go for it too), and being in war at time when 1st Punic war event kicks in makes both natons not willing to accept ceasefire under any conditions (i guess it increases additionaly their "bad stance")

- Money assistance for AI is a must , but maybe is little to high.Eg. Ptolomeai will get after first turn close to 30000 mnai from assistances alone on VH campaing(including VH monetary bonus of 10000 per turn), or Qarthadast will get around 25000.And they all get 30000 extra on start(except human player). That's 60000 in one turn for AI faction.

If you combine that with good income provinces that they got already it makes some factions really "megapowers" against human player.

Yes, you can beat them eventualy , but with lack of, or non-existance of diplomacy, it is getting them even more "warmongering" (again, causing premature wars). Player has very limited choices how to beat them, causing possible and most likely "blitzing effect".

I tried with cutting their financial help in half (except Eleutheroi), and they it looked better from roleplaying side(at least for me )

AI factions still have strong armies and economy, but they tend to "warmonger" less. They are still hard to beat , powerfull and challenging for human player to beat.But , at least there is no early war over mining provinces.

It looks to me AI(or non-AI does calculations based on strenghts, will less opt for war instead of peace (still in reasonable limits) against human players.

**kalkwerk** · 01-29-2007, 17:48

Upload.

**Velvet Elvis** · 01-29-2007, 17:54

Would playing @ H over VH have a similar effect?

**mlp071** · 01-29-2007, 19:50

Originally Posted by Velvet Elvis

Would playing @ H over VH have a similar effect?

Nope, because rebels are not aggressive at all on H, i played this on VH/H , VH/M, H/H and H/M ,for hard challenge VH/H is best, then VH/M.

They are for me key of slow expansioning to all factions.With their money untouched, they are causing all factions to spend more money and effort to clean them out.

Plus, one more thing that i noticed was that Epiros/KH are involved in longer struggle against Makedons, instead of getting them shrinked fast.

H for battles equals up field to EB original, but prevents you being swamped in slugfest early on(meaning stacks after stacks coming at you early in the game).

**kalkwerk** · 01-29-2007, 19:55

Originally Posted by mlp071

Nope, because rebels are not aggressive at all on H, i played this on VH/H , VH/M, H/H and H/M ,for hard challenge VH/H is best, then VH/M.

They are for me key of slow expansioning to all factions.With their money untouched, they are causing all factions to spend more money and effort to clean them out.

Plus, one more thing that i noticed was that Epiros/KH are involved in longer struggle against Makedons, instead of getting them shrinked fast.

H for battles equals up field to EB original, but prevents you being swamped in slugfest early on(meaning stacks after stacks coming at you early in the game).

Sorry I dont really get you. Are you talking about the difficulty levels for campaign only or for battlefield too? I presume only the difficulty levels for the campaign are relevant for this discussion? And what are you suggesting? Hard? Very Hard?