Does Comp have Unlimitied Money???

[SlickNicaG69]

You know before you guys assume such factions would be broken - try it first. My protest stems from the fact that even though I have the enemy practically dominated - hence FROZEN - my strategic attempt to defeat them by attrition is IMPOSSIBLE due to the fact that even though each of the AI's settlements has negative income, they get 20000 mnai each turn and are able to repair all their order buildings and barracks the next turn... so I ask you all this, who are we playing against?? A preset game configuration (such as easy/med/hard, which I believe every game prior to this one was based on and which in this game would apply to computer strategy) or a rigged game that attempts to hide its futile balance settings by giving it gold. I read an article earlier where some high level general with his whole army got bribed out of the blue... how is this possible?? Is this considered balanced?? Was it caused because of a failure in THE PLAYERS intelligence? Maybe the question should be is EB really that much more balanced than the original? I mean I started a game with Macedonia recently, and they barely compare in starting strength to Rome... and if my studies in history have led me to believe, Rome was not yet a world power, whereas Macedonia was.

I'm not seeking perfection, nothing ever is. But in terms of the gameplay of this game, I would like to think that even though some factions may go broke or frozen, I still win or lose based on fair, realistic rules. If I put Street Fighter on hard, does Bison take more hits than me? No... he just gets smarter. That is what I think is lacking in this game. The AI gets richer, not smarter... think about it!

[Drewski]

You know before you guys assume such factions would be broken - try it first. My protest stems from the fact that even though I have the enemy practically dominated - hence FROZEN - my strategic attempt to defeat them by attrition is IMPOSSIBLE due to the fact that even though each of the AI's settlements has negative income, they get 20000 mnai each turn and are able to repair all their order buildings and barracks the next turn... so I ask you all this, who are we playing against?? A preset game configuration (such as easy/med/hard, which I believe every game prior to this one was based on and which in this game would apply to computer strategy) or a rigged game that attempts to hide its futile balance settings by giving it gold. I read an article earlier where some high level general with his whole army got bribed out of the blue... how is this possible?? Is this considered balanced?? Was it caused because of a failure in THE PLAYERS intelligence? Maybe the question should be is EB really that much more balanced than the original? I mean I started a game with Macedonia recently, and they barely compare in starting strength to Rome... and if my studies in history have led me to believe, Rome was not yet a world power, whereas Macedonia was.

I'm not seeking perfection, nothing ever is. But in terms of the gameplay of this game, I would like to think that even though some factions may go broke or frozen, I still win or lose based on fair, realistic rules. If I put Street Fighter on hard, does Bison take more hits than me? No... he just gets smarter. That is what I think is lacking in this game. The AI gets richer, not smarter... think about it!

I know ure new to this, And I can totally sympathise. I 100% accertain, that the ai faction plays better with 1 or 2 settlements. That is, they actually properly defend their settlements, and send the surplus elsewhere.

To me, their is NOTHING more annoying, than reducing "X" faction to one or two provinces, and then finding they have 2 or 3 full stacks for said provines.

It's utter complete bullshit, but is an unfortunate side effect of the money script....thing is, u can toast those armies, so it isn't that much of a problem....

EB is weird, don'y expect equality. Expect to be outnumbered at least 1.5/1 . And expect to win, otherwise, ure not EB material.....

[Weebeast]

To me it seems childish to play a game where the rules are tweaked so that invisible money is given to the comp just so I can play "cooler battles"... I play the game to win.

I know right. Clearly AI is dumb so we should just accept that fact like a grown man and steamroll it.... I ride roller coaster to get off the cars.

[phoenixemperor]

You know before you guys assume such factions would be broken - try it first.

One would assume the EB team didn't put in the money script just to annoy you, but because they tested it multiple times with and without and prefer the results with.

[Macilrille]

But the AI is hardcoded, it cannot get smarter. Complain to CA, not to EB, they have done their best to balance and make more realistic a very unbalanced and unrealistic game. Because that is what they have to work with. There is no other engines to build the EB-EB II on than the RTW Games. It is but a minor nuisance compared to others.

If you are dissatisfied you have three options as I see it:
1) Play something you like more.
2) Make your own mod that you consider an improvement on EB.
3) Find Human opponents.

As you notice, complaining is not an option, for what cannot be changed will not be helped by complaining. As others have said, change the money script and you will have only one viable faction, your own, the rest will be Eleutheroi-like. Try playing as Sweboz for 30 years into the campaign as well, you think the dumb AI could overcome that deficit without the money-script?
Anyway, my point is, nothing will change no matter how much you complain, for it is not possible to stop. So you might as well desist and look through options 1-3 above.

The day you get an AI that is actually as cunning as a Human, fear, for that day you will serve it.

That being said, and another proof that I am grumpy and arrogant, welcome to the Forum :-D

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

The harder the campaign difficulty level, the more money the AI factions get. That's why VH campaign doesn't work for me. I prefer M campaign. The AI only gets extra money if it's broke, and only a relatively small amount. M campaign is perfectly playable for most factions. I might pick E campaign if I was playing a very difficult faction, like Pontos, for example.

[ARCHIPPOS]

it's a well known fact that the last remaining settlements of a faction are always heavily fortified because of the money script. You can roleplay it as a faction making a final desparate stand. I suggest reading on zaelots for inspiration ...

[SlickNicaG69]

Nobody who has answered to this thread has yet played a campaign with the money script set at 0... You all just assume that the Sweboz or Gauls would go broke... but picture this... lets say the sweboz manage to conquer some rebel settlements, ally themselves with the gauls, is it not possible that they would have positive income regardless of the money script??

Look, despite the money script I still managed to reduce the gauls to their last 2 settlements with negative income. So why would there be a need for a script that prolongs their demise and causes me to do unnecessary things. Again with my allegory, why would street fighter have a script that makes every character of an equal strengh... Ryu > Ken ;) > Blanka > Dhalsim... just as at 270 BC Selukia > Rome = Carthage = Gaul = Sweboz > Casse...

I will restart my campaign with the script set at 0, except for the rebels because I read in the script something about altering them could lead to the script getting messed up... I encourage you all to do the same... maybe we will get some concrete answers to the question as opposed to hypothetical assumptions!

[SwissBarbar]

Nobody who has answered to this thread has yet played a campaign with the money script set at 0... You all just assume that the Sweboz or Gauls would go broke... but picture this... lets say the sweboz manage to conquer some rebel settlements, ally themselves with the gauls, is it not possible that they would have positive income regardless of the money script??

Sure, and then imagine them conquering the Antarctic and attacking you with killer-penguins....

Look, despite the money script I still managed to reduce the gauls to their last 2 settlements with negative income. So why would there be a need for a script that prolongs their demise and causes me to do unnecessary things. Again with my allegory, why would street fighter have a script that makes every character of an equal strengh... Ryu > Ken ;) > Blanka > Dhalsim... just as at 270 BC Selukia > Rome = Carthage = Gaul = Sweboz > Casse...

Maybe you did not notice yet, but... this ist not Streetfighter. Not even comparable to Streetfighter. Lol, Streetfighter is not even worth it being mentionned in one sentence with this Mod. This is EB, in which the factions are meant to expand, this again meaning that they need more money than they're able to gain on their own.

I will restart my campaign with the script set at 0

Yes, do that. What's the point in trying to convince us to do the same? We like the game with the AI able to train strong armies. For some of the players here, the goal of the game is not "to win" - meaning blitz as fast as possible with the least effort possible - but to have the challenge of fighting strong AI factions and win great victories.

, except for the rebels because I read in the script something about altering them could lead to the script getting messed up... I encourage you all to do the same... maybe we will get some concrete answers to the question as opposed to hypothetical assumptions!

Yeah, let us know the results. Not necessary that everyone messes with the script, it will suffice if one (you) tests it.

[Dyabedes of Aphrodisias]

Nobody who has answered to this thread has yet played a campaign with the money script set at 0... You all just assume that the Sweboz or Gauls would go broke... but picture this... lets say the sweboz manage to conquer some rebel settlements, ally themselves with the gauls, is it not possible that they would have positive income regardless of the money script??

Look, despite the money script I still managed to reduce the gauls to their last 2 settlements with negative income. So why would there be a need for a script that prolongs their demise and causes me to do unnecessary things. Again with my allegory, why would street fighter have a script that makes every character of an equal strengh... Ryu > Ken ;) > Blanka > Dhalsim... just as at 270 BC Selukia > Rome = Carthage = Gaul = Sweboz > Casse...

I will restart my campaign with the script set at 0, except for the rebels because I read in the script something about altering them could lead to the script getting messed up... I encourage you all to do the same... maybe we will get some concrete answers to the question as opposed to hypothetical assumptions!

I totally sympathize with your argument, I really do. There's nothing more mind-numbing than approaching the final stronghold of a dying civilization, their citizens packing up their belongings and their boys and elderly and men taking up shield and sword and bow, this last city wallowing debt, and to be assaulted by two fairly elite full stack armies when sieging the city, which also has a full stack garrison.

But you're logic is flawed here: You say "Nobody who has answered to this thread has yet played a campaign with the money script set at 0." Yes they have. Everyone who's played EB has. When you play any faction in EB, you begin the campaign with the exact same starting conditions as the AI does when it is in control of those factions. And as such, for most factions you are given a certain starting military, a certain undeveloped economy and a certain small treasury, all of which combined mean, literally, debt on the very first click of "End Turn." When the player plays those factions, the player takes the starting armies and assaults neighboring settlements or disbands the starting military to make money. When the AI plays those factions, it calculates its odds and decides not to attack the stronger neighbors, and also cannot disband units as an alternative. Therefore, the AI factions do nothing and camp out in the same way they start out until they're literally millions in debt and the player's faction comes knocking. The AI has probabilities, the player has abilities. Therefore, the AI gets money to counter it's auto-debt situation and thus to spur growth and thus a challenge to the player.

I will concede that I have not altered the script to see this myself, but my counter is that I know how the game engine works, so that's unnecessary.You may call it "hypothetical assumptions," but it's not - it's how it works, the end.

Your problem is not with EB's system or the EB team, it's with Creative Assembly. The game designer made a game to be fun for the average Philistine and to make money from, not for people to alter to their liking. Modification of their software was and is an afterthought, I guarantee. If they allowed modders to alter the game's AI, there would be no money script, and I guarantee that even more. The EB team has tested and modified and tested and modified this game over and over again for years, so whatever you find in it is there for an exact and precise purpose, and with an exact and precise effect. EB II may provide the opportunity to add more complexity to the script for you, i.e. that factions on the verge of collapse by conquest get no more money or something of that sort. But I think it may not be changed, because then many of the small factions wouldn't have a chance from the start.

[Intranetusa]

]Nobody who has answered to this thread has yet played a campaign with the money script set at 0... You all just assume that the Sweboz or Gauls would go broke...[/B] but picture this... lets say the sweboz manage to conquer some rebel settlements, ally themselves with the gauls, is it not possible that they would have positive income regardless of the money script??Look, despite the money script I still managed to reduce the gauls to their last 2 settlements with negative income. So why would there be a need for a script that prolongs their demise and causes me to do unnecessary things. Again with my allegory, why would street fighter have a script that makes every character of an equal strengh... Ryu > Ken ;) > Blanka > Dhalsim... just as at 270 BC Selukia > Rome = Carthage = Gaul = Sweboz > Casse...
I will restart my campaign with the script set at 0, except for the rebels because I read in the script something about altering them could lead to the script getting messed up... I encourage you all to do the same... maybe we will get some concrete answers to the question as opposed to hypothetical assumptions!

Because it's stupid.

Have you even played the vanilla/regular RTW game? The campaign is ridiculously easy and that I steam roll the enemy AI with about 400 victories and 3 losses. (3 losses due to random ambushes or rebellions) In the regular campaign, where everything is dirt cheap and all the buildings produce crap loads of money for you, the AI still regularly goes into debt by not bothering to build the money making buildings.

EB introduces a far more complex money system in which everything costs more...the AI is too dumb to build buildings that make money, so they would go into debt even faster.

If you set the money to 0, you'd have the AI with -100,000 money and not being able to produce a single unit/building. The game would be even more easy than it already is.

[Weebeast]

Nobody who has answered to this thread has yet played a campaign with the money script set at 0... You all just assume that the Sweboz or Gauls would go broke... but picture this... lets say the sweboz manage to conquer some rebel settlements, ally themselves with the gauls, is it not possible that they would have positive income regardless of the money script??

Assume? RTW and EB has been around for a while. There aren't much anything to discover until you start hacking the exe and reprogramming the engine.

Look, despite the money script I still managed to reduce the gauls to their last 2 settlements with negative income. So why would there be a need for a script that prolongs their demise and causes me to do unnecessary things.

Unnecessary like what? Fighting their stacks? If you can to reduce them to two settlements then you can eliminate them. Some of us like to have them around and actually keep fighting back.

why would street fighter have a script that makes every character of an equal strengh... Ryu > Ken ;) > Blanka > Dhalsim... just as at 270 BC Selukia > Rome = Carthage = Gaul = Sweboz > Casse...

Why not? Actually there's a script. It is called hadouken spam. It's not about making them equal. Faction balance isn't in EB agenda (see Saba). It's about making them move, appear alive, fulfill their objectives, have purpose in life.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Not to be mean, but you just aren't understanding the higher upkeep costs, recruitment costs, and large armies that many AI factions start with and what that means for your finances. Without disbanding half of your units starting as Sweboz, Lusotann, or several other one province factions, it doesn't even matter if you can conquer two or three settlements right off the bat. There is no money to develop these towns, retrain units lost in battle, etc.

Take Lusos for example. They start with 3-4 units of their elite cavalry which costs about 900-something a turn to upkeep in addition to their other forces. For the human player, disbanding the cavalry makes sense since they don't really help take settlements and it saves you almost 3000 a turn! The AI can't disband so it stays with them and adds that onto the debt.

Then, taking settlements for us isn't that hard, with starting armies you can conquer one or two pretty easily and start to develop them. However the AI autocalcs against the cities, many of which are led by 6-7 star generals who do very well in autocalc. It would be surprising if the AI took more than one or even 1 settlement. Add on top of this the fact that the AI builds in this order I have found: barracks first, economic buildings second. So, any extra money goes towards building barracks to get access to troops it can't afford...

If the AI was more intelligent, your idea makes sense. However, its not and I would say that the following factions would be doomed from the start.
Lusotann (one province, large starting armies)
Aedui (split provinces, war with Arverni and Rome at start)
Arverni (war with Aedui at start)
Casse (more than already)
Sweboz (one province, large starting armies)
Getai (one province)
KH (at war with Makedon, inferior forces)
Sauromatae (no income in home provinces)
Hai (one province)
Pontos (one province, not much expansion room)
Saka (one province in map corner = barely any trade, poor provinces)
Saba (one province)
Baktria (one province)
Pahlava (going to war with AS in turn 1 almost every time, can't afford that war)

I'd even throw in Eprirus because they start with Elephants so unless they conquer two or three provinces really quickly they will never be able to afford the ellies.

That leaves Carthage, Roma, Makedonia, AS, and Ptolies to contest every campaign. It already seems that is the case with the system the way it is now. I don't see how making things even worse for the poorer factions will help matters.

[Fedor]

The harder the campaign difficulty level, the more money the AI factions get. That's why VH campaign doesn't work for me. I prefer M campaign. The AI only gets extra money if it's broke, and only a relatively small amount. M campaign is perfectly playable for most factions. I might pick E campaign if I was playing a very difficult faction, like Pontos, for example.

Hmm. I have exactly the opposite problem. I carefully run the script each time I load a fully patched-up EB 1.2 game and, as many factions (there are several exceptions!), I just can't get enough challenge on VH campaign settings without nursing the AI along.

My most recent VH/H game, as Macedonia, has so far gone something like this:
1) smash the Greek and Epirote field armies, take the Greek mainland cities. Time elapsed: roughly a year.
2) Sit in my (somewhat enlarged) corner for roughly the next 12-13 years, waiting for the AI empires to get big enough to pose a challange for Makedonian pikes and being careful not to develop my cities too much.
3) Notice Rome not kicking enough tail to satisfy my longing to fight hordes of Scipios and start giving them 10,000 minae/turn from my over-abundant treasury. Also decide to stop using Levy Pikemen (too effective for the price) and insist on Medium Pikemen (not much more effective and significantly more costly) as line troops. Decide to disband all the Scythian Horse-Archers units I recruited (way too powerful for the price for Macedonia). Put limits on combining archers and steep downhill slopes.

It's now 247 BC and a much-enlarged Pontos, the Getae, and Epiros have allied against me. I've just started to take the kid gloves off and now permit myself to actually enter their territory. I might endulge in the conquest of Epiros, or throw Pontos out of Europe, but that might increase my available spending power (after tributes) too much.

Long story short, I've learned that, if you want a challenge, you need to help the AI along. I therefore strongly support giving the AI money. I sympathize with the particular point being made by the OP - that tiny AI-controlled powers ought to be weak - but that would ruin a lot of the historical value of this mod, in which a tiny AI-controlled Parthia can actually form an empire and then send lots of Parthian Horse-Archers to fight you. Good times all around.

You give the AI what it needs, the AI gives you what you want.