Aggressive factions are unrealistic

[Populus Romanus]

The Roman and Parthian Empires are the few exceptions to the rule. The reason they are held in such awe even to this day is because nations that huge and that powerful are extremely rare. Using such massive empires as Rome and Parthia is not fair. They were so powerful that hardly anyone could resist them for long. Instead, one should look to the average nation of this time period. The majority of them never grew. Indeed, the majority of the factions included in EB never grew (significantly), the Romani and the Pahlava are really the only two examples of ones which did so on a titanic scale. Looking for instance to the Lusotana, they were very powerful, but never grew virtually an inch because no matter how many enemy tribes they defeated, another one would spring up to fill the vacuum and continue to resist the Lusotana. Makedonia as well never grew at all during EB's timeframe because new powers sprung up to fight it. First, there were the Diadochi wars, then when they were brought to an end Pyrrhus of Epirus attacked Macedonia. When he had finally been dispatched, Aetolian League, the Achaean League, and the Chremonidian League were formed specifically to fight the Macedonians. They successfully held off the Macedonians until their defeats at the hands of the Romans. Then there is the Qarthadastim, who could never expand much (there were a few examples of Carthaginian conquests gone mad, such as Hamilcar's Iberian conquests, but even these were temporary, as they fell victim to the forces of yet another nation that rose up to challenge Carthage.). Carthage would often come under attack on one front, be it Iberia, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, or Africa. When they defeated their attackers, they often would come under attack on another front, forcing them to constantly shift their forces and never press an advantage. I could go on and on, but I am too lazy to type and research all that. However, I think I have made my point.

[moonburn]

herm i do not believe the factions are over agressive i do believe however that they react accordingly to th level of threat they perceive and prepare so if you go blitz on them the ai´s will try to harness as much power as they can to opose you if you play it slower the ai will feel less threatned (unleass it starts to catch your spies and )

[QuintusSertorius]

herm i do not believe the factions are over agressive i do believe however that they react accordingly to th level of threat they perceive and prepare so if you go blitz on them the ai´s will try to harness as much power as they can to opose you if you play it slower the ai will feel less threatned (unleass it starts to catch your spies and )

Well as someone who moves very slowly in my games, that doesn't reflect my experiences at all. The AI moves at a slightly-slower-than-blitz speed all the time if they have funds. I don't even play on VH campaign difficulty, with the bonus money, and they still move far too fast for my liking. Seriously, within 20 years of the game start, if unchecked either Koinon Hellenon or Makedonia will have destroyed the other. Parthia and Pontos will tend to have vanished. Baktria often does too. Either the Aedui or Arverni will have been wiped out. Look at virtually every map at 50 years after game-start that people post, and you have about ten super-factions left.

Arche Seleukeia and the Ptolemaic Kingdom are both examples of Super Powers as well (although their sphere of influence was confined to a smaller area of the globe).

However, the Ptolemies intentionally confined their area of influence to what was sustainable. From their very inception they weren't expansionist, it was all about keeping a very firm hold of what they had, dominating (eastern) Mediterranean trade, and preventing any other power from rising to significance.

[Atraphoenix]

If you want to create super power no matter on which mod, simply make their units with 2 hitpoints then watch the show, I never did it myself. I like the mod the way it is in..

[B-Wing]

I think the OP's concern is with preventing the creation of numerous superpowers...

[fomalhaut]

Luckily my experiences with super factions has been relegated to only a few, mine included when i play one of the big hitters like SPQR. To be honest, I really like playing as isolated, minor powers and watching the great power politics from a far. This is why Lusotan, Saby'n and Koine Hellon are my favorite. I really enjoy colonizing foreign lands and barbarianizing/arabianizing/hellenizing the lands into my own and using their unique regional auxilaries.

[Drunk Clown]

Well as someone who moves very slowly in my games, that doesn't reflect my experiences at all. The AI moves at a slightly-slower-than-blitz speed all the time if they have funds. I don't even play on VH campaign difficulty, with the bonus money, and they still move far too fast for my liking. Seriously, within 20 years of the game start, if unchecked either Koinon Hellenon or Makedonia will have destroyed the other. Parthia and Pontos will tend to have vanished. Baktria often does too. Either the Aedui or Arverni will have been wiped out. Look at virtually every map at 50 years after game-start that people post, and you have about ten super-factions left.

If there are ten factions the same, then no one is "super".

However, the Ptolemies intentionally confined their area of influence to what was sustainable. From their very inception they weren't expansionist, it was all about keeping a very firm hold of what they had, dominating (eastern) Mediterranean trade, and preventing any other power from rising to significance.

Sounds like a superpower to me.

[QuintusSertorius]

If there are ten factions the same, then no one is "super".

Course they are. After dealing with their local rival and absorbing the rebels nearby, you get a collection of regional superpowers, each the master of their area. They then spend the next 10-20 years duking it out til you're down to four or five.

Is EBI designed to basically be done within 200 turns? Because in reality that's what we get with the pace of AI conquest.

Sounds like a superpower to me.

But not one that behaves anything like AI Ptolemaic Egypt. Which not only tends to gobble up all the Seleukid lands, but in some games all of Qart-Hadast's territory too.

[Foot]

The Roman and Parthian Empires are the few exceptions to the rule. The reason they are held in such awe even to this day is because nations that huge and that powerful are extremely rare. Using such massive empires as Rome and Parthia is not fair. They were so powerful that hardly anyone could resist them for long. Instead, one should look to the average nation of this time period. The majority of them never grew. Indeed, the majority of the factions included in EB never grew (significantly), the Romani and the Pahlava are really the only two examples of ones which did so on a titanic scale. Looking for instance to the Lusotana, they were very powerful, but never grew virtually an inch because no matter how many enemy tribes they defeated, another one would spring up to fill the vacuum and continue to resist the Lusotana. Makedonia as well never grew at all during EB's timeframe because new powers sprung up to fight it. First, there were the Diadochi wars, then when they were brought to an end Pyrrhus of Epirus attacked Macedonia. When he had finally been dispatched, Aetolian League, the Achaean League, and the Chremonidian League were formed specifically to fight the Macedonians. They successfully held off the Macedonians until their defeats at the hands of the Romans. Then there is the Qarthadastim, who could never expand much (there were a few examples of Carthaginian conquests gone mad, such as Hamilcar's Iberian conquests, but even these were temporary, as they fell victim to the forces of yet another nation that rose up to challenge Carthage.). Carthage would often come under attack on one front, be it Iberia, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, or Africa. When they defeated their attackers, they often would come under attack on another front, forcing them to constantly shift their forces and never press an advantage. I could go on and on, but I am too lazy to type and research all that. However, I think I have made my point.

Arche Seleukeia and the Ptolemaic Kingdom are both examples of Super Powers as well (although their sphere of influence was confined to a smaller area of the globe). Furthermore Achaemenid Persia was also a Super Power of the East.

Your example of Lusotanna is ridiculous (other than that they do have a tendency to go on the rampage in EBI). The Lusotannan were a people who were pastoral with very little in the way of large centralised government (and by very little I mean none). They never developed the bureacratic complexity to administer conquered lands for any length of time, and had no need to do so - they were successful enough as they were. That would be like me saying that because the Pacific Islanders havent developed into a Super Power, we should dismiss the case of the United States and Soviet Russia.

Of course Super Powers are the exception not the rule in any given time, but thats because a world stage cannot accompany more than 2 or 3 by definition (if the world was replete with super powers, they wouldn't be super powers).

I don't think you've made your point at all, and the collapse of nations and tribes to one faction was common throughout all eras until only 2 or 3 are left standing. Its an arms race, the size of the powers dictated by what is politically and socially feasible at the time.

Foot

[vollorix]

I think its more the lack of internal problems for those superpowers rather than external enemies, who were able to actually threaten their existense. The unrest implemented in many provinces seems to me beeing neglected by the additional bonuses for AI gouverneurs, and also by the immidiate placement of the gouvernment buildings for the AI. Although, i have no idea how the money script for the AI actually works, it´s still able to recruit troops + build barracks, while struggling with minor rebell parties or all too rebelios settlements. The restriction of the availiability of particular troops might be a part of solution, but the AI will still spam armies, no matter what. Since there will be no counterfactions to not waste faction slots, and there, apparently, won´t be any superfaction in game, to represent an active resistance in diverse parts of the world, i would like to know how the team supposes to stop AI from going nuts in a total war style? As QS said, it takes very short period of time for those superpowers to emerge, so a player can either play slowly and patiently, trying to maintain some kind of realism in his actions, but then be confronted with endless enemy stacks, or one can blitz, intervene, use console commands and play kind of world police force, to slow down some factions. My problem with that - it´s getting boring, and quite intensively annoying, to not only manage your own empire, growing more and more, but also to watch over the world too. I hope no offence will be taken from my words, we all know the limitatons of TW engine, but not all of us are high class modders, so it´s more curiosity about the master plan of the team :)

[DECEBALVS]

I think its more the lack of internal problems for those superpowers rather than external enemies, who were able to actually threaten their existense. The unrest implemented in many provinces seems to me beeing neglected by the additional bonuses for AI gouverneurs, and also by the immidiate placement of the gouvernment buildings for the AI. Although, i have no idea how the money script for the AI actually works, it´s still able to recruit troops + build barracks, while struggling with minor rebell parties or all too rebelios settlements. The restriction of the availiability of particular troops might be a part of solution, but the AI will still spam armies, no matter what. Since there will be no counterfactions to not waste faction slots, and there, apparently, won´t be any superfaction in game, to represent an active resistance in diverse parts of the world, i would like to know how the team supposes to stop AI from going nuts in a total war style? As QS said, it takes very short period of time for those superpowers to emerge, so a player can either play slowly and patiently, trying to maintain some kind of realism in his actions, but then be confronted with endless enemy stacks, or one can blitz, intervene, use console commands and play kind of world police force, to slow down some factions. My problem with that - it´s getting boring, and quite intensively annoying, to not only manage your own empire, growing more and more, but also to watch over the world too. I hope no offence will be taken from my words, we all know the limitatons of TW engine, but not all of us are high class modders, so it´s more curiosity about the master plan of the team :)

I think the creation of new factions from the aggressive rebels at normal level game can limit the expansion of superpowers. All the rebels might have the chance to conquer another settlement and to have diplomatic rellations. So the map will be stable, we can then create a Pax Romana where the commerce with others will never end to be interesting and where will make war only for peace [a good status quo of politics]. We'll no longer fight to death to become the single faction on the map [because we can be defeated by another unrealistic ultragigaempire]... isn't that?

[Drunk Clown]

I think the creation of new factions from the aggressive rebels at normal level game can limit the expansion of superpowers. All the rebels might have the chance to conquer another settlement and to have diplomatic rellations. So the map will be stable, we can then create a Pax Romana where the commerce with others will never end to be interesting and where will make war only for peace [a good status quo of politics]. We'll no longer fight to death to become the single faction on the map [because we can be defeated by another unrealistic ultragigaempire]... isn't that?

It may be just me but I can't follow you anymore. You want peace in... a war game?

[DECEBALVS]

It may be just me but I can't follow you anymore. You want peace in... a war game?

I only want to say that the eternal and "global" war wasn't the best description for Antiquity. All wars and peaces had peak points and we don't see that on the map.The peaces were when the states became too military stable to be conquered: so, even if there is an official war between x and y, there will be no battle [="peace", like Russia and Japan today, without peace agreement after world war 2]. An AI empire cam be made enough little/big if we'll introduce the internal rebellion able to create new factions. These new factions will make the map interesting at any moment.

>>I think the creation of new factions from the aggressive rebels at normal level game can limit the expansion of superpowers. All the rebels might have the chance to conquer another settlement and to have diplomatic rellations. So the map will be stable, we can then create a Pax Romana where the commerce with others will never end to be interesting and where will make war only for peace [a good status quo of politics]. We'll no longer fight to death to become the single faction on the map [because we can be defeated by another unrealistic ultragigaempire]... isn't that?<<

[bobbin]

I only want to say that the eternal and "global" war wasn't the best description for Antiquity. All wars and peaces had peak points and we don't see that on the map.The peaces were when the states became too military stable to be conquered: so, even if there is an official war between x and y, there will be no battle [="peace", like Russia and Japan today, without peace agreement after world war 2]. An AI empire cam be made enough little/big if we'll introduce the internal rebellion able to create new factions. These new factions will make the map interesting at any moment.

That would require using up faction slots of which there is a limited number, we are looking at the possibility of having re-emergent factions though.

Oviously we will be changing the campaign AI to make it less aggressive, although M2TW AI is already a lot less aggressive than RTW's.

That's right, only after defeating Antigonos I Monophtalmos (meaning "The One Eyed") Seleukos managed to establish his authority in Asia Minor. And then, a couple of years later, they killed Lysimachos, but was murdered himself not too long after (while trying to conquer Thrace, iirc).

He also spent about 9 years reconquering the eastern pasts of Alexander's empire after he regained control of Babylon.

[Populus Romanus]

Arche Seleukeia and the Ptolemaic Kingdom are both examples of Super Powers as well (although their sphere of influence was confined to a smaller area of the globe). Furthermore Achaemenid Persia was also a Super Power of the East.

Your example of Lusotanna is ridiculous (other than that they do have a tendency to go on the rampage in EBI). The Lusotannan were a people who were pastoral with very little in the way of large centralised government (and by very little I mean none). They never developed the bureacratic complexity to administer conquered lands for any length of time, and had no need to do so - they were successful enough as they were. That would be like me saying that because the Pacific Islanders havent developed into a Super Power, we should dismiss the case of the United States and Soviet Russia.

Of course Super Powers are the exception not the rule in any given time, but thats because a world stage cannot accompany more than 2 or 3 by definition (if the world was replete with super powers, they wouldn't be super powers).

I don't think you've made your point at all, and the collapse of nations and tribes to one faction was common throughout all eras until only 2 or 3 are left standing. Its an arms race, the size of the powers dictated by what is politically and socially feasible at the time.

Foot

I would hardly say the Seleucids and Ptolemys are good examples, after all they never conquered any of their territory. It was all conquered for them by Alexander. Indeed, they are fragmentations of a larger empire. And they, for the most part, never expanded much. For the majority of their history their borders remained static, with the regular, but very small, fluctuations of the border either way. Mostly, however, their borders would shrink rather than grow, though this applies to the Seleucids more than the Ptolemys. The Seleucids in particular were held in check by rebellious satrapies, though I do not know what exactly was holding the Ptolemys back. Also, the elimination of nations until their are progressively fewer and fewer nations is not inevitable. If it was, why isn't the entire Earth one country? If the constant assimilation of power was inevitable, then that is what inevitably would occur. However, the entire world is officially divied up between 100 to 200 nations (I'd rather not look it up), although that is an extreme understatement given all the regions of the globe where "official" nations have no juristiction whatsoever.

[QuintusSertorius]

The Seleucids in particular were held in check by rebellious satrapies, though I do not know what exactly was holding the Ptolemys back.

The Ptolemies were held back by ascribing to their founder's notion that what they had was broadly enough. Old Ptolemy I was a canny fellow, he realised the futility of trying to seize hold of all of Alexander's conquests as one unit. Furthermore, he saw the value in sitting outside the fray and letting his rivals kill each other, just ensuring none of them were able to get so strong as to turf him out of his comfortable spot.

[Grade_A_Beef]

That, and the inbreeding.

[bobbin]

I would hardly say the Seleucids and Ptolemys are good examples, after all they never conquered any of their territory. It was all conquered for them by Alexander. Indeed, they are fragmentations of a larger empire. And they, for the most part, never expanded much. For the majority of their history their borders remained static, with the regular, but very small, fluctuations of the border either way. Mostly, however, their borders would shrink rather than grow, though this applies to the Seleucids more than the Ptolemys. The Seleucids in particular were held in check by rebellious satrapies, though I do not know what exactly was holding the Ptolemys back.

Since when was constant expansion the sole defining feature of a super power? As i understand it a super power is a nation that vastly surpasses most others in power and wealth.
Say what you like but by EB's start the Ptolemies, Seleukids and possibly the Carthaginians were the superpowers of the region and the Romans, Parthians and Baktrians would later become ones too.
So thats 6 (7 if we count the Mauryans who were just beyond our map) in the space of 300 years, as you can see they were hardly rare.

Also, the elimination of nations until their are progressively fewer and fewer nations is not inevitable. If it was, why isn't the entire Earth one country? If the constant assimilation of power was inevitable, then that is what inevitably would occur. However, the entire world is officially divied up between 100 to 200 nations (I'd rather not look it up), although that is an extreme understatement given all the regions of the globe where "official" nations have no juristiction whatsoever.

The reason there are so many countries in the world today (203) is because we don't live in an age of rampant imperialism where annexing territory is the norm, go back 100 years and things looked a lot different (~60, even less if you miss out the tiny principalites).

[Populus Romanus]

I am not denying that Carthage, the Ptolemys, and the Seleucids were superpowers. Certainly no! I can't see how you even got that impression from what I said about Carthage. About the Seleucids and Ptolemys, I am saying that they reached superpower status by inheriting the conquests of Alexander, rather than actually doing the conquering themselves.

[bobbin]

The reached that status through a long and bloody civil war you know, it wasn't the case that once Alexander died they just received those kingdoms. Seleukos especially gained his entire empire through conquest and Ptolemy gained all his holdings outside of Epypt this way too.

I should also point out that these men were part of Alexanders armies, they had already conquered the territories from the persians, under his banner.

[aristotlol]

"Aggressive factions are unrealistic"

No they aren't...

Factions are still aggressive. Competition is kind of their raison d'etre.
If you can over 2 factions at once then you are really doing good for your faction!

Anyway, I see your point to a certain degree, but the problem is not at all in the mod but rather in the video-games fixed number of faction-slots. To have dynamically changing factions, with newcomers, rump-states and cultural expansion, the whole game would have to be coded a lot different and set in a much different stage-light.

The game is set up so that you can create an empire and directly control its troops and successful Emperors! Yes, it would be cool if it was highly-realistic; but it would also be impossible with the MIITW engine-- and I'd imagine even still impossible with a more modern engine.

but just my 2 mnai, man

[Klemens]

The development team of Stainless Steel nailed what I want in diplomacy with their Savage AI sub-mod. Alliances stick, nations band together against an aggressive force and backstabbing is extremely rare never happening if there is a high risk of failure. I'm sick of seeing factions in Europa Barbarorum hyper-focus on my territories when it would be more beneficial to not be throwing their armies away in annoying mini invasions, instead of expanding in other directions that don't give so much resistance.