More than a weak tendency?

[The Errant]

I mentioned this earlier on this thread, but I'd like to make a suggestion how to (possibly) improve the situation, for those weak factions bordering the AS.

Since the AS gets a cash bonus to bolster their economy the weak factions surrounding them should have more developed starting settlements, with more economic buildings like Mines and Mining Centers and higher levels of factional MICs.

This should allow them to make a profit from turn one without disbanding most of their armies. Also having better grade troops then the early Seleucids or Ptolies ought to balance out the fact that they can't field the same amount of troops as their larger neighbors.

The only other option is to either reduce the subsidies of the AI or start paying the same cash bonus to the human player. Somehow I don't quite see the latter happening.

And as MarcusAureliusAntonius pointed out. Trying to balance the cash bonus given to the larger AI factions can cause them to stagnate, since the AI isn't very adept at economics.

[Numahr]

Eminos64,

May I ask you, what value have you entered as the new per city bonus for the AS? If it gives balanced results to you, I may use it as well...

Thx,

Numahr

[Eminos]

I'm back to the forum after some testing. I must say that I couldn't imagine this thread growing so much. Maybe its because the topic has broadened a bit.

Numahr, I think the overreacting and angry Eminos put just 400 instead of 1200 for the Seleukids, and 1200 for everybody else. After I've got the idea with a more dynamic citybunus and after reading a little about how to write scripts I'm now running a test with sort of a "step function" with a cut off at 24 provinces, i.e factions reaching over 24 provinces will not get a citybonus. The "reward" per city drop off the more provinces a faction owns. I couldn't figure out how to add mathematical expressions to the script and get a smooth curve, but this is Ok, it's just a matter of many but short intervals if I really want to get a certain type of curve for the citybonus. A bit of an irony that LordCurlyton suggested exactly what I'm currently testing. I saw his post after I had altered my script. Since I'm a real novice at writing scripts for this game (didn't think I would ever do these sort of things again, did it for another game a looooong time ago) I'm not really sure that the script is doing exactly what I think it does. Therefore I've decided to append the altered lines for one faction (risking a real big lough from people who CAN do these scripting things). I know it's doing something since I removed the "not FactionIsLocal" condition in my first test, i.e. I gave me as a human player the bonus just to see if anything happened. In my test it looks the same for the other 19 factions, but that's something that I can play around with in future tests. I kept the citybonus for the slave faction, i.e. 2200 mnai and not affected by the number of settlements under their control. Ok here is an extract from the beginning of my little test section in the EBBS_SCRIPT.txt file:

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;Eminos64 testsection
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;Arverni

monitor_event SettlementTurnStart FactionType scythia
and not FactionIsLocal
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia < 4

console_command add_money scythia, 1200

end_monitor


monitor_event SettlementTurnStart FactionType scythia
and not FactionIsLocal
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia < 9
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia > 3

console_command add_money scythia, 1000

end_monitor



monitor_event SettlementTurnStart FactionType scythia
and not FactionIsLocal
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia < 16
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia > 8

console_command add_money scythia, 800

end_monitor




monitor_event SettlementTurnStart FactionType scythia
and not FactionIsLocal
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia < 25
and I_NumberOfSettlements scythia > 15

console_command add_money scythia, 500

end_monitor

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

Finally, the test looks really nice (it's 240 B.C. now) and the map is a beauty with incredibly interesting war zones. Romani holds back aggression from Karthadast, Epeiros, Sweboz and Aedui. Didn't think they could handle all four, but so far they can. The Seleukids are strong, but not as strong as before the change etc etc ... It's a matter of taste but I certainly like it. The sad part are those nomad factions that are quite inactive. Baktria has pinned the Saka and Parthians by a protectorate, which seems to have happened somewhere else too, (saw it in another thread). The same goes for Sauromatae that are under protectorate from Hayasdan. By the way I've never seen this shape of the Baktrian empire before, it's really looong in the vertical direction, but they are not so interested in those provinces in India. The AS thus has a hard time with war in both ends but they have no problem defending themselves so far. I'm playing as Sabyn, (should have chosen Casse as MarcusAureliusAntoninus did) so I don't interfere so much. Well I don't anyway, I'm just sitting in my corner developing infrastructure etc, defending myself occasionally.

I promise you, I will never come back writing any sort of "criticism", (even though I don't see it that way, nothing is so good that it can't be improved and thats the reason for open beta, right), if it turns out that the altered part of the script is doing nothing, or something completely different from what they are supposed to do. Maybe what I thought were an improvement caused by the change of the script was just "bogus".
Would be nice to know if the above lines in the script are "correct".

[Numahr]

Eminos,

Thx for the very complete answer. This looks very promising. I will implement this code in my own Carthaginian campaign, just started, and I will tell you about the results.

(BTW, don't excuse yourself for making constructive remarks! i am sure the EB team appreciates it, especially since you don't just suggest and stay iddle... :) )

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Here is another ten years of my test:

Parthia would be doing better if Saka and their super generals (100+ guys, 6-9 ceverons of experience) weren't beating them. Baktria is taking over some of Seleucids collapse. Good news is that this didn't completely cripple the big nations, it worked a lot like I wanted it to. Seleucia has dedicated itself to fighting Ptolemai, even retaking Antioch. They are also attacking asia minor. I think I'm done with this test, sitting around in Briton waiting for money is quite boring, plus there are better ideas than this here...

I like Eminos64's ideas, though. I have one thought on it though. Having the cut off point of 25 settlements is ok for the big guys and up and commers, but since there is a different script for each faction, maybe have each group have different range. Topping out the current and historically future big guys at 25, the rest of the civilized factions at 15/20, and the barbarians at 10/15. (All with the decreasing funds along the way.) That way groups that would have more difficulty administering large groups would have that difficulty represented by decreased funds sooner.

[Germaan]

Just find out that AS is not always the biggest growing nation on EB this is Ptotelemaioi on the move. Maybe it's more to do witth the biggest nations. Shows again fine tweaking is not so easy. Who nows with the wright guy to lead it is normal ?

[IMG][/IMG]

I am playing as the Romans This is the rest of the map.

[Eminos]

Ok, back to more tests with the original background script. I just have to get some grip on how often the Ptolies manage to do what Germaan just showed, even though it's quite tedious and boring sitting on those islands as Casse just testing. As I mentioned before I had two straight campaigns with unstoppable Seleucids. Here are three more tests, and finally I got one where the Ptolies are doing great (test2 below). I will continue with more tests, but from what I've seen so far there are a few similarities between the campaigns. Ptolies too weak in four out of five, Macedon were doing Ok in one out of five against the Epeiros/KH alliance. Arverni did Ok in the last test, but usually they seem to be far less powerful than the Aedui.



[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]

Maybe I will use the results, when I have done at least ten test campaigns, to adjust the "step functions", i.e. individual step functions for each faction as MarcusAureliusAntoninus suggested. Btw, thanks for the positive response Marcus and Numahr.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Nice thourough test there. It looks like the money still needs to be turned down though. Not much deminishing expansion for the large empires. Good to see you doing so much testing though. I tested for a couple decades and got bored. I hope you can find some sort of balance in your dynamic money injections. Do share your future finds. I, for one am interested.

[QwertyMIDX]

The Ptols seem to be doing well in two of those 3 campaigns, in the 3rd they routed the SE, and in the first they're holding their own pretty well and seem to be kicking some ass towards the later years there.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]

What is far more concerning than the steamroller attitudes of AS are these of Epeiros. The Maks are in all three cases complete under-achievers. What I also hate is that the Hay are always going for northern Russia and the Romans first to Poland. The Ptolly-issue is not that bad...

[Intranetusa]

they should have a script that gives more money to whatever faction that the player is enemies
with. This will make the game more challenging. ie. If the player is Roman, give +3000 denrii per turn
to Carthage for every one of their cities. When the 1st punic war starts, give Carthage +20,000 denrii, etc