Steppe-Factions as AI stand no chance

**marodeur** · 01-29-2008, 15:30

In my campaigns, the Samatians, Parthians and Saka (played by the ai) are nearly always among the first factions to be destroyed (without me interfering).
I think, steppe factions are at a severe disadvantage in RTW and also EB because they have to defend cities with units not suited to this task.
With the horde-option it would be more realistic and they would be able to fight in a more steppe-like way: don't defend a fixed position, stay on the move.
Also, it would be necessary to change the way the ai uses steppe troops. Horse archers for example should (if possible) retreat after having used up their missiles and having taken down some isolated, weakened units. Thanks to the TW-engine the use up their arrows - and after that, try to ride down even complete phalanxes. Such a raid should count as a victory for them, if they kill lots of enemys and retreat without severe losses. This change in tactics should also be factored in auto-battles.
If I play one of the steppe factions myself, I use these tactics, and armies without horse archers or quick cavalry are normally no match for my troops, they are whittled down in a succession of aggressive raids.
I guess that by this it would be prevented, that hordes of indian spearmen (Baktria) or hellenic phalangites (Seleukids) conquer the steppes - taking down the horse archers - incredible! Sarmatia, Parthia, Saka would be much more dangerous and nearly invincible on their home-turf.

**Livius Andronicus** · 01-29-2008, 15:53

I disagree with you on the point that the AI never expands with the steppe factions. It really depends on the campaign.

In my current Romani campaign I recently allied with the Sarmations, who have expanded to the west and are beginning to attack the geti in the balkans. The parthians have expanded east and south nearly destroying saba and forcing backtria further south into the grey death's terroritory.

I am quite interested to see how it plays out when I move further east after I have finished the geti with the sarmatians.

Your point about horse archers is vaild, although I don't really see a solution that will change how the AI does battle.

**Papal Knight** · 01-29-2008, 16:45

yeah, I don't see any constants either. each campaign seems different in that regard....

**marodeur** · 01-29-2008, 23:43

Originally Posted by Livius Andronicus

I disagree with you on the point that the AI never expands with the steppe factions. It really depends on the campaign.

Don't misunderstand me. They expand sopmetimes (I have had Sauromatae in Sapmi and Egrisi, even though not for very long) - but in general they are quite weak, and I am always irritated, when some factions who only use cheap mass-infantry are expanding in the steppes. It isn't that the Steppe factions are only losing - but they are definitely too weak on thev defense of their homecountries.

**Teleklos Archelaou** · 01-29-2008, 23:46

We really have tried to balance them - to make them more dangerous. It's very difficult. It has been my recomendation to give them enough bonuses and such until we see them becoming *too* much of a problem, then scaling back - but it hasn't really happened. They remain the weak (as AI) sisters of the game.

**Jaywalker-Jack** · 01-30-2008, 01:17

To repeat what I said on a different thread, is there anyway to have a province with no settlement in it? Ownership somehow decided by the number of troops in the region? No, I suppose. Would be realistic though.

**MarcusAureliusAntoninus** · 01-30-2008, 09:21

Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack

To repeat what I said on a different thread, is there anyway to have a province with no settlement in it? Ownership somehow decided by the number of troops in the region? No, I suppose. Would be realistic though.

Not in the RTW/M2TW engine...

**marodeur** · 01-30-2008, 11:50

Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack

To repeat what I said on a different thread, is there anyway to have a province with no settlement in it? Ownership somehow decided by the number of troops in the region? No, I suppose. Would be realistic though.

Quite a good idea, but I have to agree with MarcusAntoniusAntoninus that it will not be possible.
The EB team has done a fantastic work and made the steppe factions much more realistic, especially with the two pathes of development (pastoral / Nomadic), so I think it is a shame the RTW engine is the way it is and prevents further improvements.
In my opinion there are two possibilities to make steppe-factions even better / more realistic:
1. the steppes can't be conquered at all (like the arabian desert).The steppe nations are startingas hordes and can recruit new troops in this area only by recruiting mercs. But I fear, that the ai will leave those areas, so that the steppes will be completely empty. And there would be no way to make money in this area - and it would be a wee bit frustrating if you play a steppe-faction as the human player.
2. The other option is based upon new opportunities offered by the MTW2-expansion. I think of a combination of the horde-function and some undestroyable "castles" (as featured in the MTW2-expansion), I guess. Each "Castle" would be representing a small settlement, so you could hold upon a part of a province without controlling the main city. This would reduce the importance of the main city and would give the steppe factions a chance of survival in case they loose al troops. Best thing would be if the castles would also generate money and allow the production of units. Money could be made possible by an inclusion of the "merchant" of mtw2 in the castle. Sounds strange, but i once read a thread of a guy claiming it would be possible to do just this.

**Mouzafphaerre** · 01-29-2008, 19:20

.
Known issue. Horse archers suck in auto-calc battles because of their low stat health. I assume it will be updated in the coming EB versions and it's been already addressed in a re-mod or more.
.