ALEXANDER EB

[Maksimus]

Konny, can you just add what is that you 'use' on top of the EB vanilla *txt?
What exactly... in the script and/or in the your game... I thought Redmeth wanted the vanilla EB on Alex.exe screens? no?

[konny]

As for the money script, that is not so much different to the (new) EB money script, but uses more extreme values and no time progression. But I am going to change that anyways and link it to the Victory Conditons, using values that are closer to the EB standards.

See also: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=92691

The Victory Conditions were a discovery by JMRC, that I had picked up some time ago. Callicles, MiniMe and me are testing several settings to influence the direction of AI expansion. The results are promising and because it is RTW 1.5 compatible, the EB team might consider to make their own in the future (at least that's what was posted in the respective thread by team members).

See also: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86313

The changes in descr_strat mainly influence the start of the game. In the 230s still is important the reduced rebell spawn rate (now about 1 random rebell army every 10 years on the entire map) and the changed priorities for AI aggression, these were set for the most factions against the rebells in the original EB version.

See also: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...6&postcount=80

For the rebell spawning, I am thinking on replacing the random rebells with real rebell armies, including FM, that pop up when public order falls under a specific value in a given province. But I don't know if checking public order by script is possible at all.

[Maksimus]

As for the money script, that is not so much different to the (new) EB money script, but uses more extreme values and no time progression. But I am going to change that anyways and link it to the Victory Conditons, using values that are closer to the EB standards.

See also: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=92691

The Victory Conditions were a discovery by JMRC, that I had picked up some time ago. Callicles, MiniMe and me are testing several settings to influence the direction of AI expansion. The results are promising and because it is RTW 1.5 compatible, the EB team might consider to make their own in the future (at least that's what was posted in the respective thread by team members).

See also: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86313

The changes in descr_strat mainly influence the start of the game. In the 230s still is important the reduced rebell spawn rate (now about 1 random rebell army every 10 years on the entire map) and the changed priorities for AI aggression, these were set for the most factions against the rebells in the original EB version.

See also: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...6&postcount=80

For the rebell spawning, I am thinking on replacing the random rebells with real rebell armies, including FM, that pop up when public order falls under a specific value in a given province. But I don't know if checking public order by script is possible at all.

Ok, can you test that script with Casse on VH/VH of VH(campaign)/M and just End-turn for 50 turns or so.. and then post ? I just think that Aegypt is too strong here.. really.. can you do something about that?

[Maksimus]

NOT ACTIVE

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=94861

[Spoofa]

You cant program the AI, the only thing you can do is deny or give them money, either way one of them is going to win, that's not even that bad really, the Ptolemies did historically beat the Selucids back to babylon IIRC.

[Maksimus]

The first is about 290bc ad the second is in 200bc...and note here about the Syrian Wars.. the Wiki source for this short copy-past issue

First Syrian War (274-271 BC)
A decade into his rule, Ptolemy II faced Antiochus I, the Seleucid king who was trying to expand his empire's holdings in Syria and Anatolia. Ptolemy proved to be a forceful ruler and skilled general. In addition, his recent marriage to his court-wise sister Arsinoë had stabilized the volatile Egyptian court, allowing Ptolemy to successfully carry out the campaign. Some feminist interpretations of history even claim that it was Arsinoe's brains and talent which won the war.

The First Syrian War was a major victory for the Ptolemies. Antiochus took the Ptolemaic controlled areas in coastal Syria and southern Anatolia in his initial rush. Ptolemy reconquered these territories by 271 BC, extending Ptolemaic rule as far as Caria and into most of Cilicia. With Ptolemy's eye focused eastward, his half-brother Magas declared his province of Cyrenaica to be independent. It would remain independent until 250 BC, when it was reabsorbed into the Ptolemaic Kingdom.

Second Syrian War (260-253 BC)
Antiochus II succeeded his father in 261 BC, and thus began a new war for Syria. He reached an agreement with the current Antigonid king in Macedon, Antigonus Gonatas, who were also interested in pushing Ptolemy II out of the Aegean. With Macedon's support, Antiochus II launched an attack on Ptolemaic outposts in Asia.

Most of the information about the Second Syrian War has been lost. It is clear that Antigonus' fleet defeated Ptolemy's at the Battle of Cos in 256, diminishing Ptolemaic naval power. Ptolemy appears to have lost ground in Cilicia, Pamphylia, and Ionia, while Antiochus regained Miletus and Ephesus. Macedon's involvement in the war ceased when Antigonus became preoccupied by the rebellion of Corinth and Chalcis in 253 BC, possibly instigated by Ptolemy, as well as an increase in enemy activity along Macedon's northern frontier.

The war was concluded around 253 BC with the marriage of Antiochus to Ptolemy's daughter, Berenice Syra. Antiochus repudiated his previous wife, Laodice, and turned over substantial domain to her. He died in Ephesus in 246, poisoned by Laodice according to some sources. Ptolemy II died in the same year.

Third Syrian War (246-241 BC)
Also known as the Laodicean War, the Third Syrian War began with one of the many succession crisis that plagued the Hellenistic states. Antiochus II left two ambitious mothers, his repudiated wife Laodice and Ptolemy II's daughter Berenice Syra, in a competition to put their respective sons on the throne. Laodice claimed that Antiochus had named her son heir while on his deathbed, but Berenice argued that her newly born son was the legitimate heir. Berenice asked her brother Ptolemy III, the new Ptolemaic king, to come to Antioch and help place her son on the throne. When Ptolemy arrived, Berenice and her child had been assassinated.

Ptolemy declared war on Laodice's newly crowned son, Seleucus II, in 246 BC, and campaigned with great success. He won major victories over Seleucus in Syria and Anatolia, briefly occupied Antioch and, as a recent cuneiform discoveryproves, even reached Babylon. These victories were marred by the loss of the Cyclades to Antigonus Gonatas in the Battle of Andros. Seleucus had his own difficulties. His domineering mother asked him to grant co-regency to his younger brother, Antiochus Hierax, as well as rule over Seleucid territories in Anatolia. Antiochus promptly declared independence, undermining Seleucus' efforts to defend against Ptolemy.

In exchange for a peace in 241, Ptolemy was awarded new territories on the northern coast of Syria, including Seleucia Pieria, the port of Antioch. The Ptolemaic kingdom was at the height of its power.

Fourth Syrian War (219-217 BC)
Upon taking the Seleucid throne in 223 BC, Antiochus III (241–187 BC) set himself the task of restoring the lost imperial possessions of Seleucus I Nicator, which extended from Greco-Bactrian Kingdom to India in the east, the Hellespont in the north, and Syria in the south. By 221 BC, he had re-established Seleucid control over the eastern provinces and taken Anatolia back from his rebellious uncle Achaeus. The ambitious king turned his eyes toward Syria and Egypt.

Egypt had been significantly weakened by court intrigue and public unrest. The rule of the newly inaugurated Ptolemy IV Philopator (reigned 221-204 BC) began with the murder of queen-mother Berenice II. The young king quickly fell under the absolute influence of imperial courtiers. His ministers used their absolute power in their own self-interest, to the people's great chagrin.

Antiochus sought to take advantage of this chaotic situation. After an invasion in 221 BC failed to launch, he finally began the Fourth Syrian War in 219. He recaptured Seleucia Pieria as well as cities in Israel, amongst them Tyre. Rather than promptly invading Egypt, Antiochus waited in Israel for over a year, consolidating his new territories and listening to diplomatic proposals from the Ptolemaic kingdom.

Meanwhile, Ptolemy's minister Sosibius began recruiting and training an army. He recruited not only from the local Greek population, as Hellenistic armies generally were, but also from the native Egyptians, enrolling at least thirty thousand natives as phalangites. This novel choice paid off, but it would eventually have dire consequences for Ptolemaic stability. In the summer of 217, Ptolemy engaged and defeated the long-delayed Antiochus in the Battle of Raphia, the largest battle since the Battle of Ipsus.

Ptolemy's victory preserved his control over Coele-Syria, and the weak king declined to advance further into Antiochus' empire, even to retake Seleucia Pieria. The Ptolemaic kingdom would continue to weaken over the following years, suffering from economic problems and rebellion. Nationalist sentiment had developed among the native Egyptians who had fought at Raphia. Confident and well-trained, they broke from Ptolemy in what is known as the Egyptian Revolt, establishing their own kingdom in Upper Egypt which the Ptolemies finally reconquered around 185 BC.

Fifth Syrian War (202-195 BC)
The death of Ptolemy IV in 204 was followed by a bloody conflict over the regency as his heir, Ptolemy V, was just a child. The conflict began with the murder of the dead king's wife and sister Arsinoë by the ministers Agothocles and Sosibius. The fate of Sosibius is unclear, but Agothocles seems to have held the regency for some time until he was lynched by the volatile Alexandrian mob. The regency was passed from one adviser to another, and the kingdom was in a state of near anarchy.

Seeking to take advantage of this turmoil, Antiochus III staged a second invasion of Coele-Syria. He made an agreement with Philip V of Macedon to conquer and share the Ptolemies' overseas territories, although this greedy alliance did not last long. Antiochus quickly swept through the region. After a brief setback at Gaza, he delivered a crushing blow to the Ptolemies near the head of the River Jordan which earned him the important port of Sidon.

In 200 BC, Roman emissaries came to Philip and Antiochus demanding that they refrain from invading Egypt. The Romans would suffer no disruption of the import of grain from Egypt, key to supporting the massive population in Italy. As neither monarch had planned to invade Egypt itself, they willingly complied to Rome's demands. Antiochus completed the subjugation of Coele-Syria in 198 and went on to raid Ptolemy's remaining coastal strongholds in Caria and Cilicia.

Problems at home led Ptolemy to seek a quick and disadvantageous conclusion. The nativist movement, which began before the war with the Egyptian Revolt and expanded with the support of Egyptian priests, created turmoil and sedition throughout the kingdom. Economic troubles led the Ptolemaic government to increase taxation, which in turn fed the nationalist fire. In order to focus on the home front, Ptolemy signed a conciliatory treaty with Antiochus in 195, leaving the Seleucid king in possession of Coele-Syria and agreeing to marry Antiochus' daughter Cleopatra.

Don't get me wrong .. it's just that Aegypt had their as Seleucid's had their moments of victory... And. Aegypt is really to strong for 236bc, with chances to go deep in Asia and taking all Asia Minor.. that is really too soon :(

[Spoofa]

what do you want him to do about it though? what CAN you do? nothing, except edit money, which if he's using Konny's script is tipping the favor in the Seleucid's favor money wise anyway, AI is unprogrammable, the best we can do is victory conditions, and all that jazz to try to influence them to expand a certain way or direction, and thats all. sometimes a yellow, silver or blue death are inevitable and should be expected as the norm rather then the exception, thankfully with good micromanagement of the middle east ive managed to keep the Seleucid's and Ptolemies balanced when it comes to the middle east in my Mak campaign.

[mrtwisties]

Sounds good.

Key question - how can we help AI factions to defeat one another? From Konny's screenshots, it looks like the AI finds it difficult to expand into anything other than rebel-held territory. That is a bit of a game-breaker.

One idea: set up a "days of thunder" trigger, which has a 1 in 100 chance of taking place for any given faction on any given turn. If it activates, it "captures" the historic faction capital (if it's not already owned) and spawns two or three highly capable armies led by top-notch generals. This might give the AI the wherewithal to expand for a while, until those armies were depleted.

Has the added advantage of creating nasty late-game challenges for a human player who thinks he's conquered the map.

Another (similar) idea: have a "days of thunder" trigger that will run auto_win attacker before every AI vs AI battle for 20 turns. I don't think this would work, but maybe we could do something similar?

Another (similar) idea: have a [ blah blah blah ] that automatically replenishes the armies of AI characters with certain traits (eg "in AI enemy territory"). At least that way they'll be balanced against the auto-replenishing defenders.

[Maksimus]

what do you want him to do about it though? what CAN you do? nothing, except edit money, which if he's using Konny's script is tipping the favor in the Seleucid's favor money wise anyway, AI is unprogrammable, the best we can do is victory conditions, and all that jazz to try to influence them to expand a certain way or direction, and thats all. sometimes a yellow, silver or blue death are inevitable and should be expected as the norm rather then the exception, thankfully with good micromanagement of the middle east ive managed to keep the Seleucid's and Ptolemies balanced when it comes to the middle east in my Mak campaign.

You did not get me as I wanted.. does not matter ..
I was refering to Konny as he is a 'part' of Alexander Team - like me .. ... but it's just that he did not added that in his signature so one can belive that I am making bad remarks .. konny is my comrade here
anyways these kind of talks that include 'modified' *txt for EB on Alex.exe are now moved to this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=96135

see you there .)

[mrtwisties]

Just thinking, it would actually be pretty cool if we could set AI battles permanently to "auto_win attacker". It'd have no effect on human players (because we actually play out our battles), but it would mean that the AI would be constantly swapping territories back and forth.

Even if auto_win attacker isn't possible, there might be a way of favouring the attacker. For example, you could create traits that give attacking generals ten command stars, or significant bonuses to the valour of their bodyguards. These bonuses wouldn't apply in human vs AI battles (perhaps the traits could be temporarily nixed whenever the prebattle screen started up). But in AI vs AI battles, they'd shift the balance strongly in favour of the attacking army.

Another thing to do might be to run auto_merge troops for every AI army at the start of every turn. That way they're less likely to retrain everyone and end up with a stack full of gold chevron troops.

[mrtwisties]

Has the added advantage of creating nasty late-game challenges for a human player who thinks he's conquered the map.

You know what'd be fun with this? Set it up so that a script triggers a few turns beforehand saying "You have been warned". That's all. No actual specific information about WHERE the days of thunder will start - just a warning that some faction somewhere is about to go nuts.

- mr.twisties.tension.ratcher

[overweightninja]

Hello again chaps, have been following your progress and is looking good, finally managed to get time to start a campaign with alx and konny's scripts, let you know if anything interesting happens.
Anyway, I had a thought in regards to the AI retraining issue. Is there evidence of the Eleutheroi retraining its troops in sieges etc? There would be obvious implications if so

Cheers

[Maksimus]

For Mrtwisties

Maybe the trrigers are not the best solutin.. do I am for it to be tested anyways..

Still, one of the solutions may be the 'advanced' barracks system, well, not really a system at all, it's rather a 'tweaked' way of chosing wich faction can have low or high-end units and to what extend in what period of the game..

That should work like this (and this is apart from your suggestions that could work)::
The capitols of the factions would have (that means one region with a homeland resource as capital) at least an army barracks from the start (even do some could have a city one's) or (in the case of nomads) other buildings that would enable them to train medium army and elites (but not the finall-end ones) from the start in just one city (the capital)..

So, now, you have an option to have elites and it is up to you to manage your money. Some players (more aggressive ones) will use money after sacking a city to give their army a small boost - of maybe just one reliable unit that could help alot in a battle - one elite) - but just at one place - in your capital, so even if you have money you can't raise much at all - but you have one great motivation to fight and to look all those nice units you could train ,)

Second.. And I will leave this post comment only in terms of Factional barracks by now.
Construction times for barracks (or atleast for city to royal) should have 4-5 od 6-8 higher construction times. That way Human player wont end with an Empire of 20 regions, and one army barracks while CPU has Army and Royal bs in Every town untill 240bc (like AS or Aegypt). Plus you won't end fighting much more advanced Alex.exe AI that RETRAINS his elites ANYWHERE while you have to drag them form 'America'! So you don't end with a gap that really - I mean really - disables you to win ! You just can not win armies full of elites that are being retrained by Alex engine all the time and Everywhere!

And plus.. MAAntonius gave us a green light to use City Mod for Alexander EB 1.1 when he makes one for it .)

So in a way of expansion - the barracks could be one very and more important 'trigger' than other solutions.. there is also a question's of share.. but that will be the topic later .)

[Maksimus]

Hello again chaps, have been following your progress and is looking good, finally managed to get time to start a campaign with alx and konny's scripts, let you know if anything interesting happens.
Anyway, I had a thought in regards to the AI retraining issue. Is there evidence of the Eleutheroi retraining its troops in sieges etc? There would be obvious implications if so

Cheers

If you look at the export_descr_buildings.txt you can see this
;;;
}
building barracks
{
levels muster_field militia_barracks city_barracks army_barracks royal_barracks
{
muster_field requires factions { slave, }
{
capability
{
}
construction 3
cost 900
settlement_min town
upgrades
{
militia_barracks
}
}
militia_barracks requires factions { slave, }
{
capability
{
law_bonus 1
}
construction 6
cost 3000
settlement_min town
upgrades
{
city_barracks
}
}
city_barracks requires factions { slave, }
{
capability
{
law_bonus 1
trade_base_income_bonus bonus 1
}
construction 9
cost 7500
settlement_min town
upgrades
{
army_barracks
}
}
army_barracks requires factions { slave, }
{
capability
{
law_bonus 1
trade_base_income_bonus bonus 2
}
construction 12
cost 12000
settlement_min town
upgrades
{
royal_barracks
}
}
royal_barracks requires factions { slave, }
{
capability
{
law_bonus 2
trade_base_income_bonus bonus 2
}
construction 15
cost 15000
settlement_min town
upgrades
{
}
}
}

That means the Slaves are not retraining - and In the game it is quite clear they don't add the numbers of their armies after one defense (wich is not the case with factions .)

[mrtwisties]

For Mrtwisties

Maybe the trrigers are not the best solutin.. do I am for it to be tested anyways..

Still, one of the solutions may be the 'advanced' barracks system, well, not really a system at all, it's rather a 'tweaked' way of chosing wich faction can have low or high-end units and to what extend in what period of the game..

That should work like this (and this is apart from your suggestions that could work)::
The capitols of the factions would have (that means one region with a homeland resource as capital) at least an army barracks from the start (even do some could have a city one's) or (in the case of nomads) other buildings that would enable them to train medium army and elites (but not the finall-end ones) from the start in just one city (the capital)..

So, now, you have an option to have elites and it is up to you to manage your money. Some players (more aggressive ones) will use money after sacking a city to give their army a small boost - of maybe just one reliable unit that could help alot in a battle - one elite) - but just at one place - in your capital, so even if you have money you can't raise much at all - but you have one great motivation to fight and to look all those nice units you could train ,)

Second.. And I will leave this post comment only in terms of Factional barracks by now.
Construction times for barracks (or atleast for city to royal) should have 4-5 od 6-8 higher construction times. That way Human player wont end with an Empire of 20 regions, and one army barracks while CPU has Army and Royal bs in Every town untill 240bc (like AS or Aegypt). Plus you won't end fighting much more advanced Alex.exe AI that RETRAINS his elites ANYWHERE while you have to drag them form 'America'! So you don't end with a gap that really - I mean really - disables you to win ! You just can not win armies full of elites that are being retrained by Alex engine all the time and Everywhere!

And plus.. MAAntonius gave us a green light to use City Mod for Alexander EB 1.1 when he makes one for it .)

So in a way of expansion - the barracks could be one very and more important 'trigger' than other solutions.. there is also a question's of share.. but that will be the topic later .)

I like this idea, and am interested to see how it develops. I think it'd cut out a lot of AI retraining. But even if it works beautifully I'd still be concerned about medium troops in some areas being constantly retrained by the AI and ending up with all gold chevrons. One or two units like that is okay. An army of them completely changes the battle dynamic and renders it unhistoric - you might as well play on VH/VH.

Forcing the AI to auto_merge units at the start of its turn seems to me to be a useful, low impact part of the solution (if it's at all possible). That way the AI will end up with one or two units of uber-gold Pezhetairoi, rather than four or six.

[Maksimus]

I like this idea, and am interested to see how it develops. I think it'd cut out a lot of AI retraining. But even if it works beautifully I'd still be concerned about medium troops in some areas being constantly retrained by the AI and ending up with all gold chevrons. One or two units like that is okay. An army of them completely changes the battle dynamic and renders it unhistoric - you might as well play on VH/VH.

Forcing the AI to auto_merge units at the start of its turn seems to me to be a useful, low impact part of the solution (if it's at all possible). That way the AI will end up with one or two units of uber-gold Pezhetairoi, rather than four or six.

This idea was already tested by myself in numerous modds for RTW, that changed the way AI plays in the general picture, those AI 'tweaks' should follow as one City Mod version would be implemented (or one that could 'copy' that idea). In my examples I always used the 'big city start's and stays big during the game' like it was often the case in history, so one 'can' develop small town into Imperial one, but with alot of effort, construction time and money..

AI on Alex.exe is not automerging because it is 'smart' in a way it makes it harder for us to win.. That engine is gold! So we all have to count we must run and strike fast after one victory to destroy enemy as a whole - if we don't want that army to came back after it fils it's rank's again .. The barracks system will make much of that to be 'controled' ... Like, you know that Royal Barracks are in Alexandria.. so you know that if you strike elites - only the natives would be able to fight even as retrained..

That is one balance in the middle of advanced AI engine and human needs to win .. Also.. celtis reforms are acctually one more reason that barracks system should be worked on..

btw, I use VH/VH it's just that I am waithing Konny to upload his 'modded' script for EB on Alex for me to test it on VH

[mrtwisties]

Oh, okay. I'm probably not that interested in an EB mini-mod that's geared for VH/VH, and am pretty concerned about letting the AI develop golden stacks of anything, since although the human player might capture such a city, the AI definitely wouldn't.

Reckon we might have different philosophies, mate. Good luck with it!

[Maksimus]

Oh, okay. I'm probably not that interested in an EB mini-mod that's geared for VH/VH, and am pretty concerned about letting the AI develop golden stacks of anything, since although the human player might capture such a city, the AI definitely wouldn't.

Reckon we might have different philosophies, mate. Good luck with it!

This is really not an EB mini-mod that will be geared for VH/VH game, It is very possible this thread would carry 2 or more optional minor 'tweaks' mod's and one 'whole' so, you shouldn't be concerned.)

The Alexander EB will not be made for VH/VH, It is tested on medium by konny and the only VH that could be recommended is campaign VH (and that would be me to say it - just because I am one 24 year old RTW veteran that won tournaments on it)

By what we know AI on Alex is not ending up with all gold chevrons or even silver as much as one could belive... the point is that barracks system should prevent that .. Let me note, I play always on VH/VH and I started Epeiros and reached Alexandria and I never fought an army with above level 4 experience, so we don't have much different philosophies my friend

It's just that most of what you are suggesting (or all of it) is open for talks and test-modding but with Konny, he is the one that is currently messing with a EBBS - and he has my full support.. I doubt he will ever leave CPU unbeatable.. So you should not worry, stay around during the test's so you can see it your self.. Hell I will post tomorrow segments of my VH/VH campaign so anyone can see that there are NO golden stacks of chevrons for CPU..

What I wa refering as gold - Was The Engine Of Alexander - not the diffuculty

And after all, most of downloads and files will be separated, so you can chose what to use.. maybe there would be one 'lighter' and one 'harder' version's of the mod.. Who know's .. we are in beta fase of discussion yet .)

[Lgk]

And here i go, migrating from old alex thread.

At last i got my EB and now begin to test it immediately. Made a few short runs with BI exe to note campaign flow there, then switched to alex, starting new campaign. Here are my observations.

Human player: Casse
RomeTW-ALX.exe only (alex not installed)
Difficulty: H/M (not fought many tac battles anyway)
EBBS script: original, then changed (see below)
Victory towns assigned: no
descr_strat: "options +prebattle_night_battle_tickbox", NOT "options bi" (see below)

I confirm that AI factions have a tough time expanding, despite AI being more active in general under alex... It wasn't a prob in XGM, where rebels are weak and unscripted, but in EB many rebel towns eventually get half-stack garrisons full of golden chevrons... This doesn't mean that AI can't expand at all (Lusitans took Numantia in 255!), but smaller factions tend to stagnate most of the time, falling in dire debt under high upkeep rates and still reluctant to attack rebel cities.

Now i think that "difficult start help" (what a misnomer!) in EBBS (section 5a) isn't up to the task. Now, it gives 20000 mnai per year to all factions short of 5000 mnai, which is excessive for larger ones (not to mention makes pointless such things as naval blockades) and not enough for smaller factions (eg checked stagnating Pontos in 253 and found them losing over 7000 per turn - that's about 30000 per year, EB original script can't solve this). There is also per-city help in EBBS, but again, it's useless for smaller factions. Also i checked konny's and Davor's scripts and found it less than ideal... so here is my variant, applied in mid-campaign circa 250 with great effect.

It is divided in two parts for each faction:

1) This part will cover any debt as big as 65536 mnai (per turn)...

monitor_event FactionTurnStart FactionType romans_julii
and not FactionIsLocal
and Treasury < -32768
console_command add_money romans_julii, 32768
end_monitor

monitor_event FactionTurnStart FactionType romans_julii
and not FactionIsLocal
and Treasury < -16384
console_command add_money romans_julii, 16384
end_monitor

monitor_event FactionTurnStart FactionType romans_julii
and not FactionIsLocal
and Treasury < -8192
console_command add_money romans_julii, 8192
end_monitor

monitor_event FactionTurnStart FactionType romans_julii
and not FactionIsLocal
and Treasury < -4096
console_command add_money romans_julii, 4096
end_monitor

monitor_event FactionTurnStart FactionType romans_julii
and not FactionIsLocal
and Treasury < 0
console_command add_money romans_julii, 4096
end_monitor

...and leaves treasury within certain range (0-4095 mnai in this case) afterwards. One can get lesser values and even exact zero treasury continuing this pattern (note last 2 bonuses are equal and last bound is 0), but script becomes bloated soon and i don't think it's really necessary.

2) This part will help small factions only!

monitor_event FactionTurnStart FactionType romans_julii
and not FactionIsLocal
and Treasury < 5000
and I_CompareCounter seasonCounter = 4
if I_NumberOfSettlements romans_julii < 5
console_command add_money romans_julii, 5000
end_if
if I_NumberOfSettlements romans_julii < 4
console_command add_money romans_julii, 5000
end_if
if I_NumberOfSettlements romans_julii < 3
console_command add_money romans_julii, 10000
end_if
end_monitor

It's nothing more than modified original EBBS section-5a script. It gives 20000 mnai per year if AI faction has only 1-2 cities, 10000 in case of 3 cities, and 5000 if 4 cities (i noticed that after gaining 3-4 regions AI factions finally can take care of themselves and perform well, but some further faction-specific tweaks are possible). Now human tactics of targeting AI economics makes some sense, at least when fighting large empires (we can always pretend that enemy resorts to desperate measures when he's reduced to last 2-3 regions).

Reloading game with new script variant had a couple of sleeping factions almost immediately awake and going on conquest (though i'm still worrying about gauls, still beaten by rebel garrisons). But, if script alone won't be enough, there are other possibilities, eg giving AI generals command traits vs rebels (not sure if they affect autocalc, though), in similar giving rebel generals negative traits vs neighbouring AI (thus making certain factions harder to take certain regions and leading to more historical expansion), aging some rebel generals, so they die early and garrisons come out... All such changes can take into account human player's faction proximity - luckily most edits then will affect campaign script and descr_strat, not the background script.

Also tried to destroy some factions (using auto_win cheat) - and all the pictures were shown with no probs (though text stated something about Romans rejoicing, despite the fact that destroyers were the seleucids).

[Redmeth]

For testing purposes as the Casse, I'm pretty sure you will find this small executable very useful
http://www.usaupload.net/d/ueyssz5v6jm

It's an autoclick program you start it set it to unlimited and the interval at something like 30 secs than you can position the mouse over the end turn button and let it autoplay. The only thing that stops it are adoption events so you'd need to check on it from time to time but it sure helps that you don't have to click end turn and be around the computer for too long.

The -ai switch doesn't work cause you can't start the script, you can use this with the -ne switch to leave the game in windowed mode too.

[mrtwisties]

The -ai switch doesn't work cause you can't start the script.

So they can't run the script from descr_strat.txt?

I assume not, since that's not what you guys have been doing. But what stops it from working, do you know?

[mrtwisties]

Also Redmeth, do you know any programs that can automate keypresses like enter and esc? I've been hunting around for some to coerce my year jump script into actually working. If I can also get it to work with the EBBS, it could become a really useful testing platform - all of the factions will be played by the AI, and there'll be nothing that pauses it.

[Redmeth]

So they can't run the script from descr_strat.txt?

I assume not, since that's not what you guys have been doing. But what stops it from working, do you know?

Well I remember trying it and the 4tpy didn't work for sure, descr_strat and campaign_script are run once at the beginning of a campaign so that's why all the stuff that needs counters to check for different condition each turn and so on needs to be in EBBS. I can't give a good explanation like a scripter could but it won't work.

Also Redmeth, do you know any programs that can automate keypresses like enter and esc? I've been hunting around for some to coerce my year jump script into actually working. If I can also get it to work with the EBBS, it could become a really useful testing platform - all of the factions will be played by the AI, and there'll be nothing that pauses it.

I don't have one but I looked till I found this small bastard (the autoclick one) for more than an hour and went through 10+ others before I found this one that did exactly what I wanted (on a Romanian site of all places). So keep googling...

[Redmeth]

I don't really like city mod because it gimps certain factions too much (like the steppe factions and the barbs IMO) EB thrives on what if scenarios and perhaps if the celts would have conquered Rome perhaps they would have expanded to large cities.

I don't really know how it works now but in the beginning I know that it was too penalizing on the "uncivilized" cultures.

EDIT: You guys have a lot of ideas, but make sure you test them out and put them in one at a time if possible, it's all a bit chaotic now but I hope it will turn out OK, keep in mind that in many cases less is better as long as it works so do try not to go overboard with the changes...

[marseu]

Some Questions about using Alex.exe for EB.

1) Wich are the Known fixes for EB 1.0 and where I can find it?

2) If I will use the Alex.exe to play EB, could I use the unofficial modding projects for EB such as "City MOD" or "EB Tweakes"?

3) Is possible to use some features of BI in ALEX.exe EB, such as Warcry, shiledwall, schiltrom, swim ability?

[MiniMe]

2 Maximus: would you be so kind as to post the list of cnanges you are going to apply?

[Maksimus]

Some Questions about using Alex.exe for EB.

1) Wich are the Known fixes for EB 1.0 and where I can find it?

2) If I will use the Alex.exe to play EB, could I use the unofficial modding projects for EB such as "City MOD" or "EB Tweakes"?

3) Is possible to use some features of BI in ALEX.exe EB, such as Warcry, shiledwall, schiltrom, swim ability?

1) Here is an EB team member thread that deals with fixes https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=93820 - thank Bovi there, I note that those fixes are included in the *txt files that are modded for Alexander (*txt files EB team officialy made as fixes were the base for *txt changes thet lead to Alex.exe for EB.)

2) Yes, I think there will be no probs at all, only if the *txt files overlap you should use the manual to add Alex.exe featrues

3) We are working on it.. LGK is the one master here and it should be done for EB 1.1 .)

[Maksimus]

2 Maximus: would you be so kind as to post the list of cnanges you are going to apply?

Will do.. it's just that we are really in beta stage in testing here, we are consolidating ideas and finding the 'path' solutions for some aspect's of the game - and we are not so powerfull to have a hidden forum .

You see, The AI is retraining and grouping all the time, so that either must make a player to play fast a furious or just loose, and we don't want that, we also don't want to limit the retraining capability of CPU with more and more triggers, we will rather use some 'simple' EBBS script options that anyone could change back or 'tweak' to his needs
So all we do is transparent and clear as a sky (well like a clear sky.)

But!

Let me be short for now (because the main post of this thread will be edited with a the list of cnanges we are going to apply). First of all there are numerous issues in the main Alex.exe thread that need to be addressed - Like:
How to make EB more friendly to the Human player in Alex (that means to make several + bonuses that will be added for buildings that have none)? How to help human player develop without having to go to Total War against the CPU just to survive - in AlexEB player can't waith to develop by 'slow-pace' like it is mentioned (that means adding some infrastructure to all factions (+also building time) and also adding some mines in rebel regions near small factions - like Pergam or Sidon or region West of Armenia.. so someone 'would really lilke' to play with them, also make nomads more 'likely' to gain money - if you can notice - they have the one of the biggest minuses after 10 turns)... etc

All this will be more deeply measured in some time. It's just we don't have a hidden forum for this as I said.. so sorry if this seems -not so serious- now, but I am sure that one or two mods would be for EB 1.1 100%ž

be well.)

[MiniMe]

Would be glad to test your project after I finish my yellow campaign with Konny's current win conditions.
Best regards
MiniMe.

[Maksimus]

I don't really like city mod because it gimps certain factions too much (like the steppe factions and the barbs IMO) EB thrives on what if scenarios and perhaps if the celts would have conquered Rome perhaps they would have expanded to large cities.

I don't really know how it works now but in the beginning I know that it was too penalizing on the "uncivilized" cultures.

EDIT: You guys have a lot of ideas, but make sure you test them out and put them in one at a time if possible, it's all a bit chaotic now but I hope it will turn out OK, keep in mind that in many cases less is better as long as it works so do try not to go overboard with the changes...

Most ot those ideas are already made.)

Don't worry about City Mod.. I asked MAAntonius to make it 'friendly' for us just so we can see or use some features, I even told him the same as you now in his thread - I belive that the "uncivilized" cultures should not be 'crumpled' that much...

But the scope for EB Aalexander is that Big Ancient Cities - should be big from the start and in 100 turn, not like in EB 1 based on RTW, that when you reach 100 or 200 turn's almost 70% of AI factions cities are Large or Huge with Army and Royal barracks (wich means btw you will 'NEVER' win on H or VH campaign difficulty due to the ALX retrainig features), enormus ports and walls and populations..
Still, due to the retraining features of Alex - that posibility is somewhat less frightening..

And may I add that no Alexander Member is going to confront the historic note in any major aspect of EB game - that is one reason I use EB, but there are just some issues left - fo PM's

And Redmeth - thank you so much for being here - we really need your suggestion's and advice support also, any suggestions are welcome too