"Civilized" factions conquering the steppe

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

In every game so far, the Baktrians first conquer the Sakae and then the Parthians, proceeding their way through the wayless wastelands of the steppe, becoming the infamous "blue giant". Hayasdan almost always goes after the Sarmatae and snatches some valuable territories like Gava Roxalanna or Uspe.

This is quite annoying, and I think you concur with me. The EB team had big success in hindering the Romans and Suebi to conquer eastern Europe by placing extremely strong independent forces in some areas. They made Saudi Arabia unconquerable and so hindered the Seleukids as well.

So couldn't you please make something similar for Baktria and the Hay? As the above mentioned measures don't seem to apply, I suggest the following:

- As the AI-governments are placed by script, don't give them governments in these areas, except the nomads of course
- Place a "building" in the steppe settlements that gives approximately -150% public order for any culture except nomadic
- For the human player, don't give any homeland/expansion/alliance marker at all
- If possible, tie every building (I don't know if this is already the case) to a government, so that build-up would be made impossible for any faction but nomadic ones

Pleas give me feedback. I don't know if these measures could be successful. Iirc, Foot once said something along the lines: "There shouldn't be governments in the steppe at all". I think so too. What do you think?

[Hooahguy]

i dont really see why the baktrians should be hindered, because they arent always guaranteed to be so great in every campaign- in my past 2 games baktria has been gobbled up pretty quickly. as for the Hai, i dont really know. they seem weak enough as it is.

[TWFanatic]

Baktria rarely grows strong in my games. They pretty much just stay where they are.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Nobody should conquer the steppe, just because it's basically unconquerable, and my post was made to import that unconquerability into the game.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We have tried. We have done a lot to help combat it actually, but there are some inherent weaknesses for any nomadic factions that may be too much for us to overcome.

I will say that I have seen the Parthians really grow stronger than I expected in my current campaign, but I helped them out at first and when they started getting better infantry now they are a serious, and balanced, force, but they are no longer nomads either.

[Hooahguy]

Nobody should conquer the steppe, just because it's basically unconquerable

a fact not yet proven.......

[Maksimus]

We have tried. We have done a lot to help combat it actually, but there are some inherent weaknesses for any nomadic factions that may be too much for us to overcome.

I will say that I have seen the Parthians really grow stronger than I expected in my current campaign, but I helped them out at first and when they started getting better infantry now they are a serious, and balanced, force, but they are no longer nomads either.

I think some ot those prob's are already addressed by EB team

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=96143

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Thank you all for the feedback. I hope you can implement something one day...

[Danest]

Were the steppes truly unconquerable? Didn't the Romans conquer the Sarmations eventually?

[pezhetairoi]

They conquered the Sarmatians because they moved into the Balkan region in the Imperial times. The Sarmatia of EB is way north and east of the Roman Sarmatia... As I see it the Romans never stepped into the steppe, pun not intended...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[russia almighty]

Pez I think your right . Except it's just one group of Sarmatian's . Not the whole damn group .

[Danest]

Well, Attila and Genghis did something like that, didn't they?

[Chris A. T.]

Personally I'm all for making the nomads (especially the sauromatae) stronger campaign-vise, but if you do decide to make the steppe areas inherently harder to control for non-nomad factions, I might suggest that you take a look at the campaign objectives for Baktria. Currently, they include a few steppe areas, and (what is worse) destroying or outlasting the Sakae. In my current game as Baktria, they have spread west, to Dahyu Aursa and Dahyu Yugra, and they don't look satisfied yet.. chasing after them is going to be a pain, especially if they do continue. If you add huge unrest etc., well, its going to be tough.


.. On the other hand, you get the privilege of commanding the baktrian late bodyguard cavalry..
Suffice to say, they make my pants happy.

[Hooahguy]

about your camapign Chris A.T., thats why im also aiming to knock the Saka out early and i already killed off the persians..... less of a pain later on.

[Chris A. T.]

about your camapign Chris A.T., thats why im also aiming to knock the Saka out early and i already killed off the persians..... less of a pain later on.

Yeah, I guess that is the best solution.. exept for the fact that it leaves you with the Arche Seleukia and the Eleutheroi for company for most, if not all, of the rest of your campaign.
That unfortunately kills a lot of the variety, which I feel is otherwise a major EB force.

[blacksnail]

- If possible, tie every building (I don't know if this is already the case) to a government, so that build-up would be made impossible for any faction but nomadic ones

This is not possible as you suggest. Too much of the buildings are interrelated and the code behind the scenes does not allow us to do what you are talking about without breaking buildings throughout the rest of the system.

[anubis88]

It would be great if someone would've found a way to "tell" the factions through the script or something... It would be great to see Baktria and Pahlava to conquer south, for Carthage to leave the poor numidian provinces alone and focus on Sicily and Iberia, and for Rome to start those damn Punic wars!!!

Not to be so negative, the AI surprised me a few times in 1.0... Pontos, Macedon and the Ptolys seem to have their minds on actual history

[SFS2006]

look at this:
In my Roman campaign Pahlava do a great job

[Hooahguy]

Yeah, I guess that is the best solution.. exept for the fact that it leaves you with the Arche Seleukia and the Eleutheroi for company for most, if not all, of the rest of your campaign.
That unfortunately kills a lot of the variety, which I feel is otherwise a major EB force.

ya, well the Eleutheroi are very varied, ranging from HA's to elephants, and i want to have full concentration of the AS.... and i dont want to deal with Saka heavy cavalry stacks.......

[Maksimus]

It would be great if someone would've found a way to "tell" the factions through the script or something... It would be great to see Baktria and Pahlava to conquer south, for Carthage to leave the poor numidian provinces alone and focus on Sicily and Iberia, and for Rome to start those damn Punic wars!!!

Not to be so negative, the AI surprised me a few times in 1.0... Pontos, Macedon and the Ptolys seem to have their minds on actual history

It will be done in ALEM (Alex Lite EB Mod - BETA will be in a week! ) for EB 1 and EB 1,1 by using ''ai_do_not_attack'' option for some factions - that is, Baktria will never attack Saka if Saka does not attack Baktria first (and that happens very rare and afer Baktria spreads into India), so YOU wont have Baktra spreading into the Stepe but into India and AS terittory !

Also, Carthage will spread to Italy from Sicily when we add ''ai_do_not_attack'' for Carthage to Iberia and Rome to Carthage! Then Romans wait that Carthage steps into Italy and then fight's back (mostly Carthage reaches Rome and then slowly loosses)..

It is already tested and it's working..

For further info see ALEX EB MOD thread!

[MiniMe]

Also, Carthage will spread to Italy from Sicily when we add ''ai_do_not_attack'' for Carthage to Iberia and Rome to Carthage! Then Romans wait that Carthage steps into Italy and then fight's back (mostly Carthage reaches Rome and then slowly loosses)..

Maksimus, if you think that saying something like this will help promote your otherwise great idea of ALEX EB MOD you're wrong.
Carthage has been pillaging spain for centuries. And romans weren't sitting and waiting for Hannibal arrival. Therefor everything you propose here is completely ahistorical

Like I've said recently someplace else, changing almost everything is not an option.
Carthage behavior in all campaigns is perfect. They do what they are supposed to do. And as a "corner nation" they have all they need.

I see three main problems of Rome Total War engine:
1. we don't know how to make Romanis more south-aggressive and drug them to Africa;
2. we don't know how to make horse-archer based armies more successful and thus enable steppe domination for steppe-dwellers. Well, as for this we may have found the way to solve it by adding fractional hitpoints to all horsies (light horse-archers and horse skirmishers 1.2 HP, medium horsies 1.4 HP, heavy horsies like hetanks/kinsmen/molossons 1.6 HP, catanks 1.8 HP) but this is still to be tested
3. we don't know how to portray mutual Ptolemaioi and Selevkia empires decline that ended in their collapse

3 may be solved by scripting methinks
as per 1, it simply makes me go mad

and one more thing: posting your posts in huge size does not make them more persuasive. Friend, you are heard by those who wants to hear you, without it ;-)
What it does achieve, though, is that other people posts are lost inbetween yours and thus whole dispute collapses for all but most patient ;-)

[Maksimus]

MiniMe - First of all, you are a part of ALEX EB MOD! By your own free will and your wish mostly - so you should be informed that me for to Claim:

''Also, Carthage will spread to Italy from Sicily when we add ''ai_do_not_attack'' for Carthage to Iberia and Rome to Carthage! Then Romans wait that Carthage steps into Italy and then fight's back (mostly Carthage reaches Rome and then slowly loosses)..''
Is NOT MADE UP!

This only proves you don't even follow the ALEX EB MOD theread! The Mod you are are WORKING ON!.. So I will repost it!

See, this was made according to ''ai_do_not_attack'' faction's. Rome set not to attack Carthage first - so he wait's Carthage to attack him first ! - Only then he fight's back! -
AND Carthage is set ''ai_do_not_attack'' Spain - in this test Carthage was attacked BY IBERIA and ONLY then Carthage took some Iberian TOWNS and now will probably take Spain! I don't know what comes next because I quited testing after Egypt came in EUROPE and destroyed AS!

See now:

Italy 224bc

CARTHAGE IS SIEGING ROME! - there are people that would like this
Spain 224bc


And some quick answers:

1. We can't drug Roman's to Africa - but we can drug them to Sicily;
2. We know how to make horse-archer based armies more successful - it's by adding HP form 1,2 - 1,3 and only for Horse-Archers not - horse skirmishers and other cavalry - this is tested already (and it works)- but not on Anglo forums.
3. We know how to portray mutual Ptolemaioi and Selevkia empires decline that will end in their collapse by manipulating with ''ai_do_not_attack'' option, very little script and more army for AS in Syria (like some that would make Egypt in defence position + Antioh should never be in Aegypt hands!).

.. I use Palatino Linotype font size 2 almost all the time - I only like to use diferent colours.. What is wrong with that? Everyone has an option to do the same

[MiniMe]

Also, Carthage will spread to Italy from Sicily when we add ''ai_do_not_attack'' for Carthage to Iberia and Rome to Carthage!

I see no logik in this argument

This only proves you don't even follow the ALEX EB MOD theread! The Mod you are are WORKING ON!.. So I will repost it!

Friend, I'd like to follow ALEX EB MOD thread cause I'm very intrested in its further development, unfortunately, I'm a dumb person who has seriOUS difficulties TheN follwing text THAT is hard fOr me to Read

See, this was made according to ''ai_do_not_attack'' faction's. Rome set not to attack Carthage first - so he wait's Carthage to attack him first ! - Only then he fight's back! -
AND Carthage is set ''ai_do_not_attack'' Spain - in this test Carthage was attacked BY IBERIA and ONLY then Carthage took some Iberian TOWNS and now will probably take Spain! I don't know what comes next because I quited testing after Egypt came in EUROPE and destroyed AS!

no logik again
my opinion is - Carthage ways of expansion need no further adjustment at all, they are good as they are.

And some quick answers:
1. We can't drug Roman's to Africa - but we can drug them to Sicily;

hot news - Romans ARE drugged in Sicily nomatterwhat after they overcome epeirotes. I've seen this behavior in 0.80 already and I don't see why we need to adjust it

2. We know how to make horse-archer based armies more successful - it's by adding HP form 1,2 - 1,3 and only for Horse-Archers not - horse skirmishers and other cavalry - this is tested already (and it works)- but not on ANGLO forums.

No, we don't know that yet. To be tested.

3. We know how to portray mutual Ptolemaioi and Selevkia empires decline that will end in their collapse by manipulating with ''ai_do_not_attack'' option, very little script and more army for AS in Syria (like some that would make Egypt in defence position + Antioh should never be in Aegypt hands!).

Key word in that part of my post was word "mutual". I want to see them both decline in the midgame not one of them rise to the state of freakin ancient USSR.

.. I use Palatino Linotype font size 2 almost all the time - I only like to use diferent colours.. What is wrong with that? Everyone has an option to do the same

Well, if everyone would happily follow this option I would be forced to leave this forum course it will be impossible to read it

Cheers

[Maksimus]

I will answer this in AlexEBMod thread - because admin will close this thread cause of us

[konny]

3. We know how to portray mutual Ptolemaioi and Selevkia empires decline that will end in their collapse by manipulating with ''ai_do_not_attack'' option, very little script and more army for AS in Syria (like some that would make Egypt in defence position + Antioh should never be in Aegypt hands!).

Have you tested that? When you place a strong AI army for AS in Syria that is not threatened by an army of Ptolemaioi of the same strenght it will immediatly withdraw these forces East and use them as garrison in the towns that are threatened by rebellion. AS hardly leaves much more than a FM and a unit of Pantodapoi Phalangitai in Antiochia. That's the reason why I had placed the two armies on Ptolemaioi territory very close to each other. On every setting both had moved their forces away, much like Pyrrhos does near Pella.

[Lgk]

(will answer here because it's more about HArchers than Alex)

MiniMe, you've absolutely wrong notion of extra hps as "fractional". These are exactly EXTRA hps, and are added together in autocalc (therefore numbers like 1,8 will mean some sort of "rhino archers" rather than "horse archers"). :D Note that elephants and chariots are classified as "cavalry" in EDU, so we can guess they use the same autocalc formulas (maybe even infantry uses the same). Dumb autocalc routine doesn't check if EDU entries are correct, it just applies them "as is" w/o question! So, we can pretend that extra hp for HArchers represents their ability to keep away from the enemy longer shooting extra volleys @ same time (tactical battles use completely different set of calc routines, so extra hps for plain cavalry are ignored there).

Dunno about serbian forum Maksimus mentioned, but i found it myself long time ago and tested in both vanilla and XGM and it definitely works.

[MiniMe]

so these are not fractional but extra hitpoints and there never was a possibility for autocalc to operate with fractionals. Very disapointing. ruins the whole idea for me then, cause I'm against 2 hp horse archers
(not to mention 8 hp rhino catas )

[Lgk]

Very disapointing. ruins the whole idea for me then, cause I'm against 2 hp horse archers

What is "very disappointing" anyway? Extra hps do NOT change performance in tactical battles for plain simple one-man cavalry!! (elephants and chariots are another story). Do you think that, say, armenian "half-stack of lowly eastern infantry and occasional cataphract" beating scythian "half-stack of HAs and a few Noble HAs" is NORMAL? I'm tired of such things since old bad vanilla times - and won't mind if HArchers are given even thousands of extra hps as long as they win in autocalc most of engagements they should easily win in tactical battles.

Exact number of extra hps is to be found by experiment, eg steppe factions expansion pace and achievments in test Casse-campaigns. Though methinks 1,2 - 1,3 depending on unit quality would be enough.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Actually it is disappointing since the guys become a real nuisance in melee as well. (Which is not supposed to happen with such light cavalry.) In any case it'll make life much more difficult for the settled factions since they've got no proper units to counter nomadic nobles -- the favourite flavour of horse archer employed by the nomads.

And finally: AFAIK it would be pretty normal for an army of crappy light infantry & archer/spearmen to see off the occasional half-stack nomadic raids. It's how the Iranians held the nomads at bay.

[Lgk]

Actually it is disappointing since the guys become a real nuisance in melee as well.

NO, THEY DON'T!!!
Does anybody ever READ my posts here?

For elephants, changing 1,2 to 1,12 makes a lot of difference in tactical battle... For cavalry, changing 1,0 to 1,12 (to 1,"anything" in fact) makes absolutely NO difference - it counts in autocalc only! Anybody can test it by himself!!

And finally: AFAIK it would be pretty normal for an army of crappy light infantry & archer/spearmen to see off the occasional half-stack nomadic raids. It's how the Iranians held the nomads at bay.

Small raiding bands, maybe. But definitely NOT armies! And especially not on OFFENCE in hostile steppes!!

Even human player will have hard time and will most probably lose such engagement, unless in VERY favourable terrain.