ALEXANDER EB

[Maksimus]

No.. Historic does not work ... I just got a CTD. I think it could be fixed like in EB 1 for BI.exe but I haven't moded that .. maybe it's just some folder names and descriptions wee need to change so It works.. I leave that to people that did make custom/historic battles work on BI.exe

And about that other thing

here is my VH/VH campaign


I am just now in a way to destroyed KHellenon in my 266 bc.. I went to Rhodos. . .and yet i missed some turns (like 2 years becaus of some CTDs after battles)..
Basicly.. My campaign is based on great and fast victories, In my first turn I took Pella and Demetrias .. so you understand how much battles mean to me..

Still.. I an strongly convinced that cavarly is realy weak.. I mean really.. I asked some EB members about it and they just told that that is the way it should be...
I must say, the AI is very well balanced on Medium and on VH settings, you can always win - like me.. But you can not, use ganeral in charge at all .. exept if enemy is fighting my phalanx..
In my battle of Sparta It took 3 of my upgraded generals to NOT kill a single peltast unit that si wrong .. no? Well. .. I think there is muchhistoric proof to put cavalry a little up the latter. And when I fought at Rome.. my god.. My generals were 'sent off' - you know leaving infantry finish the job - generals are just to weak for battles balance fo ALX
i will do so when EB 1.1 comes out, at least giving all cavarly 2 hit points

But hey! Try it with Alex.exe it realy is harder

HISTORIC and CUSTOM now work!

[Gerhard]

I switched to ALX for a new Romani campaign. Had no problems and the AI seems to be a bit smarter.

However, I am having issues with my generals. None of them has died of old age, my faction leader is now 104.

Is not-dieing-of-old-age a hardcoded feature of ALX? Can someone confirm if or is just this particular campaign messed up?

cheers

[Admetos]

Generals not dying of natrual causes is a feature of Alex, but its in no way hardcoded. That said, I would be extremely suprised if it was activated for all generals simply by switching to alex.exe. IIRC it involves going through a .txt file and adding it to the generals you want.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Maksimus
In my battle of Sparta It took 3 of my upgraded generals to NOT kill a single peltast unit that si wrong .. no? Well. .. I think there is muchhistoric proof to put cavalry a little up the latter.

This would have probably been the un-balancing that playing on VH gives the game.

[Maksimus]

Can anyone mess a bit to see if custom or histoirc work
I am sure that BI.exe is the same thing.. How do you make Custom and Historic work on BI.exe? any Help?

This would have probably been the un-balancing that playing on VH gives the game.

Well - No. Not acctually, It seemed to me and others that was the case (especially because EB members are 'pointing' at that), but it's actually not
EB 1 is not unbalanced because of VH settings - that said I am refering that VH settings are not addressing only to cavalry.. VH settings boost +7 morale and some attack and defence value to the enemy, wich is making them just a bit harder to beat.

What I am refferint to is the fact (by my expirience of RTW game-playing) that Cavalry is, generaly, undervalued.. And that si probably the way it is intended in EB by the creators, What is not intended surely is to have a general whose infantry is fighting with no probs - but he himself is usless ..

In my case, I would like to have stronger cavalry in general - but that is actually refering to their attack and hit points (i will make such a mod where ordinary infantry would not have a chance against Company)

[mrtwisties]

Infantry might not find VH/VH as hard as cavalry do. Cavalry rely on their stats (charge bonuses) to be effective in combat. If they can't kill enough people in their initial charge to give them time to withdraw, then they get mauled when they turn their backs. By giving the AI a +7/+7 stat boost, you reduce the set of units that the cavalry can kill enough of in their initial charge.

If you want to make it harder for yourself, don't play on VH/VH. Use general cam, don't pause the battles, put the wings of your army under AI control and don't reload when you lose (and with the wings of the army under AI control, you WILL lose). That way you'll get a challenge AND the pleasure of riding down foot soldiers.

[HamilcarBarca]

What I am refferint to is the fact (by my expirience of RTW game-playing) that Cavalry is, generaly, undervalued

Its is important to consider that cavalry in the Hellenistic Period often did not have large, strong, quality mounts (horse breeding), did not always use horse shoes (limiting the movement of horses), and - most importantly, did not have stirrups.

The paired stirrup did not appear until around 322 AD (Sarmatians used a single loop as a horse-mounting aid prior to that). In the absence of stirrups, cavalry had less stability in the saddle, were more easily unseated while riding, were unable to engage in close-fighting from the saddle with great force (i.e. wielding a sword with stirrups is very different to wielding a sword without), and were more vulnerable to being toppled from the saddle by enemy infantry.

So, I think the balance with the cavalry is about right.

H.

[Maksimus]

Did any palyed a VH battle with 70% infantry, 20% missles and 10% cavalry?
Keep on mind that you have the same numbers (or less as ussuall) as CPU..

Still.. I agree that battle balance is just fine generally - but I was refering to harder-better battle AI with Alex.exe... Miniding that cost/versses use is highly undervaluated - it makes you wish not to use cavalry at all!

Anyway..