Tarentum too strong?

[Dyabedes of Aphrodisias]

Oh, that's a good idea. I think we know the Sweboz's secret ...

[O'ETAIPOS]

In one of the AI related therads I found info that AI prefers NE expansion over any other direction (code searches for targets in clockwise direction?)

The fact is that if you play as Maks Romans wont take Taras, even if there is only one unit. (I tried)

[Thaatu]

I do see a roman army sieging Taras from time to time, but they have a harder time actually winning those battles.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Maybe removing a single Taras unit could help the situation.

[Thaatu]

Maybe removing a single Taras unit could help the situation.

Is that sarcasm or do you mean Helenos? I can't quite tell...

Anyway, there must be some way to restrict rebel building&recruitment. My Saka campaign is now in the year 238bc and Rhegion and Messana are still independent. But the worst part about it is that Messana is a huge city, Rhegion is a large city and they both have large walls. Not going to be conquered in a while.

[abou]

Personally, I think we should make the garrison stronger. Get those super slingers in there while we're at it - the ones with 240 men per unit plus officers.

Maybe some of those horse-slingers too.

[Thaatu]

Personally, I think we should make the garrison stronger. Get those super slingers in there while we're at it - the ones with 240 men per unit plus officers.

...against human player, not AI.

[anubis88]

Although AI tends to expand very ahistorycally, my campanign looks like a miracle... Rome has conquered sicily and corsica an sardinia (still playing with carthage:D... and after taking the po valley they expanded via south france into iberia.... i'm reduced to only 2 cities in iberia, and the romans have allied against me with lusotanna.... so... kinda histroycall don't you think?

P.S. i had to conquer tarentum for them and give it to them for free

[NeoSpartan]

Ok fellas the garison in Taras is FINE. Usually the AI doesn't sends its troops to it. Have you guys ever paid attention to AI factions fighting eachother???? The AI is hesitant, not aggressive, and it doesn't recruit 6 merc units per general, and it trains levys most of the time.

[Thaatu]

Actually I've paid attention to AI actions all the time in my campaign (been playing with no FOW), especially Rome for the last 25 years. They tried to take Taras close to 20 times. The problem is that AI usually attacks settlements with too small armies, a problem which can't be directly helped. I don't know if reducing garrisons actually helps, it might or might not.

[NeoSpartan]

Actually I've paid attention to AI actions all the time in my campaign (been playing with no FOW), especially Rome for the last 25 years. They tried to take Taras close to 20 times. The problem is that AI usually attacks settlements with too small armies, a problem which can't be directly helped. I don't know if reducing garrisons actually helps, it might or might not.

Good, now you why a smaller garrison won't really fix the problem.
9 times out of 10, the Romani will send a smaller attacking force. The same thing happens with most AI siege attacks, even against the Eleuthroi (sp).

[mlp071]

Kalabria (Tarentum) also has 12 mercenary units available at the start , while Aemilia( Bononia ) only has 2. And Kalabrian mercs are respawning like every 3-4 turns, and we know that AI is thrilled to buy as many he can afford.

That explains Epyrotes General constant getting in and out of city.

That probably creates also huge difference in AI determining where to go first, since after AI calculates odds, they are way better in north then south.

Rhegion has huge amount and respawn rate for mercs too, in comparison to north provinces..

Exception is Mediolanum , they have 6 merc units that respawn every 3-4 turns plus almost full garrison. Thats why i never saw Romani going after that province yet....

[HamilcarBarca]

Put simply, Taras is too strong.

Having made the decision to begin the campaign in 272 BC - the historical year in which Taras submitted to Rome and Epirus faded forever as a significant Hellenistic power - I believe EB should adjust its set-up at game start.

Epirus was a power in 280 BC; the decision by EB to start the campaign in 272 BC should carry the consequence that Epirus is not a playable faction, and that Taras has a small "rebel" garrison ready to fall to Rome.

Remember, the Epirote garrison at taras surrendered the city in exchange for being allowed to evacuate Italy. It was a pushover.

The Roma-Epirote struggle was interesting 280-275 BC; that's it.

A campaign beginning in 272 BC should be setting up the situation for a Roma-Carthage clash in the central Mediterranean. Instead, Rome rarely subdues Taras and rarely attacks Sicily.

By eliminating Epirus as a playable faction, and considering adding a new faction like the Insubres (in the Po Valley), Scordisci (on the middle Danube), Dardanians or Ardiaei (Illyrian "kingdoms" in the Balkans), would have the effect of constraining an AI Rome from expanding northwards and eastwards, and instead return an AI Roma to an historical path southwards and westwards against Taras, Sicily & Corsica-Sardinia.

Just a thought.

H.

PS Luv the Mod!

[Kull]

Put simply, Taras is too strong.

If it were Rebel, AI Rome would wipe it out in a few years, so it's not too strong. The problem is that AI aggression is focused about equally on the human player and rebels, while other AI factions are a distant third. The EB Team is happy with Epeiros as a faction, so that option is off the table. But Tarentum almost always survives deep into the game, and that's annoying. And it may lead to some of the other problems that you and others have discussed. The team is looking at this.

[MiniMe]

Put simply, Taras is too strong.

I'm sorry but I have to desagree with you on this matter. EB is a game dedicated to alternative history and it is not a Discovery channel documentary.
History is based on mere chances more often than we would like to acknowledge.
The biggest city of Magna Grecia had every chance to stand against Rome. With or without epirotean help provided. It didn't happened in real life, but this doesn't mean they were doomed to fall.

Since you name yourself HamilcarBarca, I suppose you have some simpaties for the Carthies ;-)
Well, we all know one thing for sure: Carthage was destroyed. Then why bother playing Carthage campaign, if it would be completely ahistorical for Carthage to overcome Rome?

Instead, Rome rarely subdues Taras and rarely attacks Sicily.

Wrong. In mine Carthage and KH campaigns Rome did it. Despite its weak starting armies, Rome is a strong EB faction, it comes to power a bit later.

By eliminating Epirus as a playable faction, and considering adding a new faction like the Insubres (in the Po Valley), Scordisci (on the middle Danube), Dardanians or Ardiaei (Illyrian "kingdoms" in the Balkans), would have the effect of constraining an AI Rome from expanding northwards and eastwards, and instead return an AI Roma to an historical path southwards and westwards against Taras, Sicily & Corsica-Sardinia.

By eliminating Epirus as a playable faction (hope, that's never going to happen ) you won't provoke Rome from expanding northwards. Even if Epirus would be eliminated from the game, Rome would expand northwards and southwards only when it has enough power to do it.

Best regards,
Minime.

[Quilts]

Hi,

I agree, and disagree, with both sides of this discussion. I'm rather torn about who's arguements are more 'relevant'. At the games start Tarentum is NOT too strong.....from a historical perspective. From a gameplay perspective it is.....in a very awkward position. It presents the AI with 'difficulties' that it does not seem able to surmount. Do we care? Some do, some don't. So what is the right answer.....or for that matter, question?

The overall goal of EB seems to be to represent the historical situation (within factions limits) as it existed in 272BC. This ultimate goal is at times 'compromised' by the desire to present players with factions that became powers at some point within the mods timeframe (Pontus, Bactria etc), when some of them did not technically exist, and others held virtually no power, in 272BC. I think we would all agree that these are necessary 'compromises' for the sake of a well rounded 'histogame'.

I don't know who's making the final calls on what is or is not 'permissable' for the sake of gameplay, but obviously some things are. So in that light-

Is the start date the real issue? Would 271/0BC be a better start dates? Or would the loss of Pyrrhus (and Tarentum) relegate the Epirote faction to a position where they would lose their 'right' to exist as one of the invaluable faction positions? And if so, why? Gameplay, or history this time?

Cheers,

Quilts

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We definitely won't be changing the start date. Just think about the positioning of soldiers and armies, the ages of generals, some would be dead, some cities might even change hands. Political relationships might be a little different too.

[HamilcarBarca]

If it were Rebel, AI Rome would wipe it out in a few years, so it's not too strong.

That is my point. I think Rome should wipe it out in a few years.

But Tarentum almost always survives deep into the game, and that's annoying. And it may lead to some of the other problems that you and others have discussed. The team is looking at this.

terrific.

Minime said;

I'm sorry but I have to desagree with you on this matter. EB is a game dedicated to alternative history and it is not a Discovery channel documentary. History is based on mere chances more often than we would like to acknowledge. The biggest city of Magna Grecia had every chance to stand against Rome. With or without epirotean help provided. It didn't happened in real life, but this doesn't mean they were doomed to fall.

I like alternative history too. My view is that if you want to have an "alternative history" featuring Phyrrus and Epirus - the last opportunity for the Greeks of Magna Graecia and Sicily to assert themselves as a power in the central Mediterranean - then start EB in 280 BC.

By starting in 272 BC I think you have thereby made the decision to start AFTER Rome had overcome Epirote-Italiot opposition, and the issue of Roman hegemony in southern Italy was settled.

The biggest city of Magna Graecia had every chance to stand against Rome prior to 275 BC. By 272 BC it was all over.

[QUOTE]Since you name yourself HamilcarBarca, I suppose you have some simpaties for the Carthies ;-) [QUOTE]

Guilty.

Well, we all know one thing for sure: Carthage was destroyed. Then why bother playing Carthage campaign, if it would be completely ahistorical for Carthage to overcome Rome?

A campaign starting in 272 BC - the eve of the First Punic War (264-241) should obviously feature Carthage. A game starting in 146 BC should not.

That is my point. 272 BC is the year Taras surrendered to Rome.

Quilts said;

The overall goal of EB seems to be to represent the historical situation (within factions limits) as it existed in 272BC.

Yes. That is why I think a weak Taras - ready to fall into Rome's hands - would be both accurate and good for the game.

At least worth play testing.

Is the start date the real issue? Would 271/0BC be a better start dates? Or would the loss of Pyrrhus (and Tarentum) relegate the Epirote faction to a position where they would lose their 'right' to exist as one of the invaluable faction positions? And if so, why? Gameplay, or history this time?

Yes I think the start date is the critical point. If we want a strong Rome-Epirote contest for southern Italy then start the game in 281 or 280 BC. If you don't, then start in 272 BC - and Epirus should lose their 'right' to be a playable faction. And that is a view I hold based on both history and gameplay.

H.

PS Luv the Mod!

[QwertyMIDX]

Your vision of the world in 272 is way to focused on Rome. Rome didn't overcome 'Epirote-Italiot opposition' so much as the Phyrrus got distracted first in Sicily and later in mainland Greece. If he hadn't died in Argos late in 272 things could have gone very differently. Most importantly this game isn't only about Rome. At the start of 272 Phyrrus seems certain to conquer Pella and become King of Macedon and seems to have a chance to subject a large number of the greek cities to client-state status. The role of Eperios is incredibly important to situation in Greece and Macedon in 272, even if the role of Eperios in Roman history and Italy have wanned. In 272 Macedon and Greece are much more important places than Rome, its important to keep that in mind.

[HamilcarBarca]

Your vision of the world in 272 is way to focused on Rome. Rome didn't overcome 'Epirote-Italiot opposition' so much as the Phyrrus got distracted first in Sicily and later in mainland Greece.

I don't agree. Phyrrus was driven from Sicily by Carthage, rival Siciliots and Mamertines in 275-274, and decisively defeated in Italy by Rome in 274. He didn't leave Italy because he was distracted. He left Italy beaten.

If he hadn't died in Argos late in 272 things could have gone very differently. Most importantly this game isn't only about Rome. At the start of 272 Phyrrus seems certain to conquer Pella and become King of Macedon and seems to have a chance to subject a large number of the greek cities to client-state status.

I think Pyhrrus' struggle for the throne of Macedon in 272 was not nearly as clear as you portray. Antongas II Gonatas had defeated Gauls and rival Macedonian claimants in 279-276, and was not going to be easily dislodged. As events show...

The role of Eperios is incredibly important to situation in Greece and Macedon in 272, even if the role of Eperios in Roman history and Italy have wanned. In 272 Macedon and Greece are much more important places than Rome, its important to keep that in mind.

Yes. I agree. Greece & Macedon are important centres in 272 BC. But Epiros was dissapearing as an important power. In "our" period the Kingdom soon vanishes, to be replaced by a "league" that is largely a pawn for the Antigonids and Aetolian League.

Epiros was a "power" only briefly, because of Phyrrus, rather than any inherent strength in Epiros itself. Phyrrus himself was powerful only because in 281-280 he was able to build the strongest field army of its day. And he was only able to achieve this because he attracted (1) support from Ptolemy Keraunos of Macedon in 280 BC in the form of Macedonian phalanx troops and elephants so as to to facilitate his departure from Greece, (2) moneys from Antigonas II Gonatas (then only ruler of Athens, Corinth and Calchis) so as to facilitate his departure from Greece, (3) moneys from Ptolemy II so as to facilitate his departure from Greece, (4) moneys from Taras soas to attract him to Italy, and (5) his own reputation as a war leader that enabled him to attract a host of professional mercenaries.

So, in 272 BC, with the death of Phyrrus, Epiros survives only briefly as a minor kingdom, then becomes a fractious league of little significance.

H.

[Imperator]

HamilcarBarca brings up a good point- after 272 Epirus was practically done for. But in the Spring of 272, which is when the game starts, Epirus was more than ready to take over Macedon- then Greece and become a super-power. Funny how quickly things can change.

I think maybe the team should reconsider Epirus' starting position. First of all, I do believe the forces in Italy are waaay to big. They have a half-stack army with solid troops, which can easily hold off a Roman legion (ie half stack). I am under the impression Taras was actually vulnerable to Roman aggression (which is why they called in Pyrrhus in the first place) so it seems silly to give them an army large enough to easily and consistently beat the Romans. Perhaps moving some of those soldiers over to Pyrrhus' army in Macedonia would be a good idea. Pyrrhus should be able to conquer Macedonia at least SOMETIMES, but they almost never do.

It's kinda backwards really; Epirus loses in Macedon but dominates S. Italy. In 272 the opposite was true: Pyrrhus has screwed up and Italy was all but lost, but he had great prospects in Greece. The Epirote campaign-er should have a relatively easy road to Macedonia (given how weak they were at the time) but he should have to sweat to keep Italy.

[Foot]

Pyrrhus should be able to conquer Macedonia at least SOMETIMES, but they almost never do.

It's kinda backwards really; Epirus loses in Macedon but dominates S. Italy. In 272 the opposite was true: Pyrrhus has screwed up and Italy was all but lost, but he had great prospects in Greece. The Epirote campaign-er should have a relatively easy road to Macedonia (given how weak they were at the time) but he should have to sweat to keep Italy.

We really cannot help it if the Ai decides to move away from a vulnerable target. We've done all we can, but often we find that pyrrhus moves away from Pella rather than to take it.

Foot

[keravnos]

was driven from Sicily by Carthage

Ok, now where did you get that? Mammertines and rivalry between city states, yep, but Qarthadastim driving Pyrros out? Nope. Unless you call losing Eryx to Pyrrhos and trying to make a lasting peace with him, holding on to their cities at Sicily "a dastardly ploy to keep him occupied"

There are many reasons to either pick Epeiros or not, and I agree that it faded to obscurity pretty much after the start of the game, but NOT haveing them?

Even your namesake, called Pyrrhos a better general than himself, with Alexander being first. It seems he appreciated Pyrrhos' and his kingdom more than present day people do. Had he been victorious in Sparta at 272 BC, being a ruler of both Sparta and Macedon, what do you think Antigonos Gonatas would, or could do?

Oh, and for the record, I am an Epirotes, so I am not the most subjective person. Still, I believe my points to be valid.

[The Errant]

Playing with the money script I noticed several things about Taras. It's garrison is decent. Good mix of decent factional troops. The problem rises out of three things. Money, mercs and RTW AI.

- Money means the Epirotes can repenish their losses easily.

-The province is also crawling with mercs, which means that the governor of Taras can easily recruit more troops to defend his city. Some of them are of a far better quality than the ones he can train locally.

- RTW AI. You can stick an army right next to a weak city, and for no reason at all it will walk off into the vilderness.
AI Pyrrhos has a nasty habit of disappearing up north or turtling in Ambrakia with his stack. Neither which helps much.

The AI is not stupid. Just stubborn and persistent. When playing the Epirotes myself I noticed that after defeating enough Roman armies consisting of mostly Rorarii, Accensii and Leves. They finally started showing up with stacks made up of Principes, Triari, Samnitici Milites and Perdites Extraordinari.
Both Phalangitai Deuteroi and Hoplitai Haploi are good troops, but not quite on par with the later Roman stacks.

The problem is that the RTW AI can't be as agressive towards another AI faction that it is against the human player. If it was. Taras would be sure to fall. Maybe not in 272 B.C but within the first decade of the game for sure.

I've noticed that an early Epirote defeat in Taras sets the stage for their Greek expansion. They can often become the dominant power in Hellas, Thrace and Illyria.

On the other hand a prolonged conflict in southern Italy, often has them become a protectorate of their far more agressive neighbor. The Koinon.

As for history. Pyrrhos was one of the great generals of the age. He simply lacked self restraint and focus. Had he gone trough with his conquests as planned, Epeiros would propably have dominated the entire Greek peninsula within a decade.
And with the resources of Hellas at his full disposal, going up against Rome or Carthage for control of Sicily, might not have felt like such a bad idea after all.
At the beginning of the game Epeiros is a rising power. Historically it is true, that the kingdoms fortunes rose and fell on the whims of a single man. But had that man succeeded, there is no telling what sort of mark they would have left on history.
Pyrrhos was as much a military and political genious as Julius Caesar. They where both opportunists. The only difference is, the other gambled and lost. The other gambled and won an empire. Along with everlasting fame.
Might just as easily have been the other way around.

Nothing justifies removing Epeiros as a faction. Period.

[Pharnakes]

I entirley agree with the above. Thank you Errant.

[Quilts]

We definitely won't be changing the start date. Just think about the positioning of soldiers and armies, the ages of generals, some would be dead, some cities might even change hands. Political relationships might be a little different too.

Considering the level of effort that has (and continues) to go into factions dispositions in 272 I completely understand your feelings about this.

In fact, 272 was a very good choice in the sense that so much 'hung in the balance' in greece and surrounding territories.

Further, I would hate to see the Epirotes dissappear as a faction, hence my querying their fate 'should' there be a date change.

The Errants post highlights the major issues that 'hinder' the AI with respect to Taras and many other regions. But how to fix these issues? Are they issues? Obviously some people think so (me too ).

Considering recent experimentation with Mercs, getting rid of mercs would be a start (something I have thought desireable for some time).....but not a popular one because of the current gameplay mechanics. Currently you virtually need mercs as a 'stop-gap' between the conquest of a territory and being able to recruit troops there.

Perhaps the virtual need for mercs is the issue that 'needs' addressing? If it even can be, considering the efforts that were needed to make the current MIC system on 1.5 workable.

Would it even be possible to make Mercs recruitable in factional/regional barracks for appropriate factions without busting troops restrictions? Oh God, I feel dizzy just considering the level of coding required to make more troops only available to certain factions in certain areas.

Ok, enough of the 'soul searching'.

Cheers,

Quilts

[-Praetor-]

I guess it all reduces to this:

Is it just Pyrrhus existance the reason that justifies Epeiros`s existance as a faction?

So, if the start date would be December 272 (not Januar 272 as it is now), after the death of Pyrrhus, then Epeiros wouldn`t be justified as to be a faction, since without him that state didn`t had a chance?

[keravnos]

Fair enough. Still you have to remember that many times in History, especially in our timeframe, a single man in charge may mean the difference between existence and destruction.

Let's take culprit no. 1

Eukratides, or as I call him the "Magnificent Bastard". Prior to him there were two "brother" kingdoms Baktria and the IndoGreek Kingdom both ruled by different branches of the Euthedemid dynasty. Biggest powers of Central Asia. After him and his fracking stupid civil war (because that's what it was) between IG and Baktria there was IG kingdom alright, but Baktria was on the verge of being overrun. Then his ancestors moved on to Northern India to begin the civil war anew, which led to the utter destruction of IG and Hellenism in India, as Sakae and Yuehzi picked off the pieces of a divided realm.

then there is always the case for culprit no. 2

Antiochos III Had he reigned in his cataphracts and assaulted the Romani legions in Magnesia instead of a fools' gold charge against the already fleeing Romani cav. most people would probably know him, as his plans (according to some Historians) might have been uniting all of Hellas VS Rome. That would be something with world changing implications, let me tell you.

Now, back to Pyrrhos, He had a son he lost at Sparta. If he had won the day (basically, if he assaulted the first day- one of the worst blunders in mil. history if you ask me), he would be Lord and Master of All Greece. Antigonos Gonatas and his Athenians wouldn't be able to stop him, his Epirotes, his Spartans his Makedonians and Gaul Mercs. So, it isn't just Pyrrhos who was killed but all his aggresive bloodline with him.

This is one of the things I love about EB, and why I am honoured to be part of them. Fact of the matter is that we could be debating this to Kingdom come with correct arguments to and fro.

Or you, me, anyone here, can load up EB and see if he can do himself what Pyrrhos failed to. And that would be the ultimate answer.

[Imperator]

First of all I'd like to clarify that I agree completely with the inclusion of Epirus in EB. It is accurate to have it, and it makes Greek politics so much more fun . However, the Epirote behavior seems rather buggy still. I believe by weakening their army in Taras to the point where it seems almost impossible to hold then beefing up Pyrrhus' position in Greece, the Epirotes would have a much better chance all-around. They waste huge amounts of cash and men clinging on to S. Italy when they should be in the mad scrap over Greece with the KH and Macedon, which means they rarely succeed in Greece; they just retreat into their coastal forts, and play tortoise for years until they are exterminated, or occasionally dominate Italy (!)

Now we know Pyrrhus was the driving force behind Epirote power, and he was an ambitious, tireless man bent now on domination of Greece. So does it make sense for the Epirote faction to consistently follow a static defense policy in Greece and a pseudo-expansionist in Italy?

If we moved some forces out of Italy (to help the Romans take Taras, which they were poised to do) and into Greece I think Epirus would perform MUCH more true to form. Not only would they lose S. Italy faster so they stop wasting money there, but will be more likely and better equipped to menace the Macedonians and Greeks in Hellas. I may test that out myself on my install of EB, just to see if that works...

[Foot]

If we moved some forces out of Italy (to help the Romans take Taras, which they were poised to do) and into Greece I think Epirus would perform MUCH more true to form. Not only would they lose S. Italy faster so they stop wasting money there, but will be more likely and better equipped to menace the Macedonians and Greeks in Hellas. I may test that out myself on my install of EB, just to see if that works...

Test it then. All the information you need to change is in descr_strat. Just search for Epeiros and scroll down to where the family members are. Add more units to the armies in Macedonia and less in Taras and do some testing. If you are correct you will see Rome take Taras and Epeiros take Pella much more often. Just play a few games (ten or so) with the Casse for about ten years or so, and show us what happens.

Foot