One question and a couple of suggestions

[binTravkin]

First the question:
Which one is the right descr_strat.txt and which one is the right map.rwm for ExRM - I have been trying to do some edits, but they never showed up in game even after I deleted all the map files, so the descr_strat.txt in ExRM/Data/World/maps/campaign/imperial_campaign/ seems not to be working (or is there any other cache I should clear? :hmmm: )?

My sightings:
Rome gets gangbanged by Pyrrhus + 2 simultaneous 5 unit sized naval invasions from Greek cities + 1 same size naval invasion from Carthage

Suggestions - the very reason I wanted to make those edits and meant to make the situation in the area more historicaly accurate:

1.Give Rome a chance! The current setup in Italy seems made to give Rome a chance in expansion, at the same time they are in a strange war with the greek cities, which IIRC is ahistorical seeing how Epirus already includes all the enemies of Rome in the Pyrrhic war. In any case, even if some cities of mainlaind Greece participated, for the sake of being historical accurate in that region those cities should rather be given to Epirus then. As it is, Greece, seeing that Rome is the weakest of it's enemies attempts early D-Day on it in every campaign, when it should be focusing on Ptolemaics.

2.Alliance between Rome and Carthage vs Pyrrhus wouldn't hurt historical accuracy at all, neither would giving Syracuse to Pyrrhus, since it was his base of operations vs Carthaginians in his Sicily campaign. Syracuse at the time was more affiliated with itself or Pyrrhus than cities of mainland Greece anyway.

3.Make the situation more stiff. Having read Livius Punnic wars I cannot agree with elephants breaking the walls of major cities (these are represented as "towns" in game, but they are centers of a big area*, so they should be related to major cities in that area in history) when Livius says it took years to siege them because they were all with stone walls big enough to hold out assaults of armies that were not significantly outnumbering defenders. I would even say make the sieges last longer if there exists such a modifier. Remember that Siracuse was sieged for several years in 2nd Punic war before it fell and then it did not mean subduing the whole province at one fell swoop, but one still needed to pick out other, smaller fortresses as well (not so obvious in Siracuse area since it was a real center, more obvious in areas where several smaller, but still fortified cities existed which all had to be taken before one could claim control of that area, e.g. southern Italy).
Same goes for almost the entire world - even gauls had more than just palisades, their biggest centers usually had what they called a "dun" - wood + landfill wall.

* - area here means the in-game province's IRL prototype, consisting of much more than a single city and fields around it.

Anyways, if you don't think what I say should be put in ExRM mod, just give me a hint how to do on my own

[binTravkin]

Oh, come on, at least tell me how to do the edits myself - I actually did them in one of the descr_strat.txt files (path mentioned above), but had no result in-game even after deleting all .rwm files (campaign map reset).

I think my suggestions will also further help by preventing crazy landgrabs sometimes executed by the biggest empires (see Egypt in just the other thread).

[caldarium]

First the question:
Which one is the right descr_strat.txt and which one is the right map.rwm for ExRM - I have been trying to do some edits, but they never showed up in game even after I deleted all the map files, so the descr_strat.txt in ExRM/Data/World/maps/campaign/imperial_campaign/ seems not to be working (or is there any other cache I should clear? :hmmm: )?

If you are using the BI executable then you are modding the wrong folder. Go to Data/world/maps/campaign/barbarian_invasion. When you are done with your changes just run the campaign_map_reset.bat in the ExRM folder. It deletes the map.rwm files for you.

If you are more specific with what you want to change I may be able to point you in the right direction. You covered AI behavior, starting regions, alliances, and structures. You'll need to modify at least three core files to accomplish all that and some things just simply can't be changed due to limitations.

[Quinn Inuit]

Definitely follow Caldarium's advice.

The Greeks are invading Italy? That's cool. Good for them. It's nice to see the AI do something interesting for a change. As for the Carthaginian invasions, I think I'm going to remove their naval invasion preference. I just don't think it works for them.

2) I agree that Syracuse was more of a single city state, but I wanted to leave it in the Greek league for AI purposes. Sicily was a mess for much of that century, and it's just not messy enough if only Rome and Carthage are fighting there. Three factions makes it much more interesting, and I just can't see giving Pyrrhus Syracuse.

3) I don't think we can accomplish any of that, sorry. What you're describing is largely hard-coded.

Here's a good modding resource:
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=77

[Delvecchio1975]

Definitely follow Caldarium's advice.

The Greeks are invading Italy? That's cool. Good for them. It's nice to see the AI do something interesting for a change. As for the Carthaginian invasions, I think I'm going to remove their naval invasion preference. I just don't think it works for them.

i removed it for carthage (gets eaten up too often by numidia and always trounced by the romans in sicily), illyria (always gets professionally nutkicked by the macedonians) and greeks (idem).
carthage goes then goes for africa and spain (good), illyria still gets flogged (not so good), and greeks do fairly well (hold macs at bay in greece, and expend into sarmatian territory from the colonies that revolt to them around the black sea).
big downside is that the sea in itself becomes a largely boring affair, the challenge of torpedoing boats with full stack armies on them disappears .... i'm still thinking if i should revert these changes for my next campaing ...
probably have to as i'm joing a hotseat game ...

[binTravkin]

Thanks, Caldarium for the advice!

The Greeks are invading Italy? That's cool. Good for them.

No, it's really uncool, because:
1. Makes Rome one of the hardest-to-survive factions both for human on VH and AI (I guess on any difficulty since AI-AI difficulties doesn't matter).
2. Makes Greeks open up their backdoor flatly for Macedonia and later Egypt.
3. Is quite ahistorical seeing how the only meaningful military expedition from mainland Greece to the west was during Peloponessian war (if we count Epirus as separate entity).

I wanted to leave it in the Greek league for AI purposes.

Actually it hurts Greek AI really bad. It routinely tries to defend Syracuse from Carthage and Rome and while doing it gets it's ass handed to it by the mentioned + Macedonia and Egypt/Seleucia. Syracuse is really stretching the Greek cities and is a big performance hit.
Removing naval invasions from Greeks here would just mean Syracuse would be lost to Rome or Carthage early on, again, not producing the mess you want there.

Sicily was a mess for much of that century, and it's just not messy enough if only Rome and Carthage are fighting there.

The more ground for making it historically accurate by setting Rome, Carthage and Epirus fight there.

I just can't see giving Pyrrhus Syracuse

How come?
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on the subject:

In 278 BC, Pyrrhus received two offers simultaneously. The Greek cities in Sicily asked him to come and drive out Carthage, which along with Rome was one of the two great powers of the Western Mediterranean. At the same time, the Macedonians, whose King Ceraunus had been killed by invading Gauls, asked Pyrrhus to ascend the throne of Macedon. Pyrrhus decided that Sicily offered him a greater opportunity, and transferred his army there.
Pyrrhus was proclaimed king of Sicily. He was already making plans for his son Helenus to inherit the kingdom of Sicily and his other son Alexander to be given Italy. In 277 Pyrrhus captured Eryx, the strongest Carthaginian fortress in Sicily. This prompted the rest of the Carthaginian-controlled cities to defect to Pyrrhus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhus...uler_of_Sicily

Now, it isn't 280BC, but 278-276BC, so theoretically after start date of the campaign, but certainly, Pyrrhus has more reason to be the ruler of Syracuse than any other entity, except perhaps the Rebels.

Basically the historical setup in the area was Rome and Carthage (they even had alliance for some time) fighting Epirus + Rebels.

Current in-game situation is Epirus fighting Rome plus Carthage and Greece D-Daying Rome on in the 1st two years.
Then Carthage gets into war with Greek cities over Syracuse, which it has no problems getting since Greeks are by then half-dead due to leaving Macedonians free reign - historically Syracuse was mostly independent until Rome got it; and there is no mess in Sicily at all since whole of it is Carthaginian.
In Italy - even if Rome survives it gets further bashed by Illyrians who want their own of the loot while Gauls silently get power in the north, which they do not hesitate to use if Rome ever gets out of trouble and conquers any of those northern Italian cities.

3) I don't think we can accomplish any of that, sorry. What you're describing is largely hard-coded

Upping the castle levels to be historically accurate and then upping them an extra level for a more accurate game dynamic (currently assaults are overpowered and sieges too short) is certainly possible.
I think I saw wall and gate hit points as well, so those can be upped too.

I don't know if making sieges longer by changing something else than castle level is possible, but perhaps there is a modifier for siege length and modifiers for castle attack (the bow attack that comes from towers).

Anyways, thanks for the modding resource.

I like Delvecchio1975's suggestion about naval attacks, but greeks for one wouldn't need them if they had no holdings in Italy and were not at war with Rome. Perhaps Illyrians too, who would have much less trouble with Macedonia if Greeks retain their power - Macedonia usually gets really strong because they can kick the miserable greeks very early and hard due to them fighting wars in Italy.

PS - and this forum really needs it's session_expire_time upped - it's not ok if I can't write a longer post without my session expiring.

[Delvecchio1975]

PS - and this forum really needs it's session_expire_time upped - it's not ok if I can't write a longer post without my session expiring.

i think that must be your browser - i got my session running for the last month or so

[Quinn Inuit]

Thanks, Caldarium for the advice!


No, it's really uncool, because:
1. Makes Rome one of the hardest-to-survive factions both for human on VH and AI (I guess on any difficulty since AI-AI difficulties doesn't matter).
2. Makes Greeks open up their backdoor flatly for Macedonia and later Egypt.
3. Is quite ahistorical seeing how the only meaningful military expedition from mainland Greece to the west was during Peloponessian war (if we count Epirus as separate entity).

After all the modding we've done, it's just nice to see the AI being even a little inclined to actually doing a proper naval invasion. It's pretty hard to get that to happen. FWIW, though, we are trying to get them to concentrate on the Aegean and eastern Med.

Actually it hurts Greek AI really bad. It routinely tries to defend Syracuse from Carthage and Rome and while doing it gets it's ass handed to it by the mentioned + Macedonia and Egypt/Seleucia. Syracuse is really stretching the Greek cities and is a big performance hit.
Removing naval invasions from Greeks here would just mean Syracuse would be lost to Rome or Carthage early on, again, not producing the mess you want there.

I've seen the Greeks do quite well in Sicily and passably elsewhere on a number of occasions. They sometimes reinforce it to the detriment of Greece, but they often do ok in both areas. I think it improves the challenge to the Roman and Epirote players, as well as the Carthaginians.

The more ground for making it historically accurate by setting Rome, Carthage and Epirus fight there.


How come?
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhus...uler_of_Sicily

Now, it isn't 280BC, but 278-276BC, so theoretically after start date of the campaign, but certainly, Pyrrhus has more reason to be the ruler of Syracuse than any other entity, except perhaps the Rebels.

Basically the historical setup in the area was Rome and Carthage (they even had alliance for some time) fighting Epirus + Rebels.

I know that he was there for a few years, but I think it would be a little unbalancing to give Epirus all of Sicily. (It would be more reasonable if the island were in serious unrest.) I'd hate to prejudice the whole game based on a situation that existed for three years after the start of the time period. I'm annoyed enough about having to give Epirus a faction slot, but there's really no way around that. I'm not keen on making them even more powerful.

Current in-game situation is Epirus fighting Rome plus Carthage and Greece D-Daying Rome on in the 1st two years.
Then Carthage gets into war with Greek cities over Syracuse, which it has no problems getting since Greeks are by then half-dead due to leaving Macedonians free reign - historically Syracuse was mostly independent until Rome got it; and there is no mess in Sicily at all since whole of it is Carthaginian.
In Italy - even if Rome survives it gets further bashed by Illyrians who want their own of the loot while Gauls silently get power in the north, which they do not hesitate to use if Rome ever gets out of trouble and conquers any of those northern Italian cities.

I think you're generalizing a little...I've run dozens of test games, and that frequently doesn't happen. Rome usually has a rocky start, but comes out swinging by middle game.

Upping the castle levels to be historically accurate and then upping them an extra level for a more accurate game dynamic (currently assaults are overpowered and sieges too short) is certainly possible.
I think I saw wall and gate hit points as well, so those can be upped too.

They do? I didn't know that.

As for upping the wall levels, I'd rather not. "Siege: Total War" is only slightly more popular in general than "Cops: Total War", and I don't think many people would enjoy that. I don't think sieges are too short at all, since they can last over a year if you don't attack. That's a good chunk of time. I'd like to make the AI behave better, but it does sieges pretty badly.

I don't know if making sieges longer by changing something else than castle level is possible, but perhaps there is a modifier for siege length and modifiers for castle attack (the bow attack that comes from towers).

Anyways, thanks for the modding resource.

I like Delvecchio1975's suggestion about naval attacks, but greeks for one wouldn't need them if they had no holdings in Italy and were not at war with Rome. Perhaps Illyrians too, who would have much less trouble with Macedonia if Greeks retain their power - Macedonia usually gets really strong because they can kick the miserable greeks very early and hard due to them fighting wars in Italy.

The Greeks still need naval attacks if you want them to attack the Ptolies...and besides, I think it makes the game more realistic, in that the Greeks did get around and cause all kinds of havoc in the Meditterranean. They were always more interested in the coast than inland Greece.

For the record, the Macs would stomp the Greeks before I gave them prefers_naval, too. They tend to do that. In fact, they do that less often and later now than they did before we made the changes for 3.3, IMO.

PS - and this forum really needs it's session_expire_time upped - it's not ok if I can't write a longer post without my session expiring.

i think that must be your browser - i got my session running for the last month or so

I usually leave mine up for days at a time, and I've never seen that error.

[Turrosh Mak]

I agree with binTravkin that it makes sense to add Syracuse to the Epriot faction as part of Magna Graecia, even though Syracuse did not call for Pyrrhus' assistance until 278. I would also set the Epriot faction (Magna Graecia faction) at war with Rome and Carthage. This would better simulate the diplomatic situation in Calabria/Sicily than the current setup.

Gamewise:

1. The Greek City States would concentrate their efforts in Greece and Crete and remove their weight from the anti-Rome coalition, reducing the incentive of Carthage and Illyria to launch naval invasions against Rome.

2. Carthage would focus on Sicily where its historic interests lie.

[Quinn Inuit]

Well, Carthage will stop making naval invasions soon enough, once we change their preference. (You can do that too, you know.) That should give Rome the break it needs. As for giving Epirus Sicily, do you realize you're asking me to make the Kingdom of Epirus one of the richest and most powerful factions in the game based on a historical situation that existed for all of three years after the start date of the campaign?

[Turrosh Mak]

I didn't ask for you to give Epirus all of Sicily. I specifically mentioned Syracuse, but not Messana or Agrigente. I don't understand why you have twice (once with me, once with binTravkin) mischaracterized our historically accurate suggestion regarding Syracuse as a full blown handover of the whole island. Syracuse was never a member of the Aetolian league. There is no evidence the Aetolian League ever sent troops west. Epirus DID! Rome was NOT at war with the Aetolian League during this time frame, either. Why the dogged determination? What's really going on here?

[Delvecchio1975]

What's really going on here?

Quinn is a patrician who hates peasants!!!!

[Ramiro]

Maybe make Syracusa an independent City. With its wall and a BIG garrison it will do quite well against Carthage, Pyrrus, and even Rome.

[Quinn Inuit]

Yeah! Optimates rule, plebs drool!

Seriously, I thought you were suggesting I give Epirus all of Sicily, especially when you called them the Magna Graecia faction. Giving them Syracuse is more reasonable, but I don't think it's appropriate for them to have their Italian army simultaneously with holdings in Sicily. Also, if the Greek AI can't handle Syracuse, why could the Epirote one?

(For the record, IME the Greek AI can handle Syracuse.)

Ramiro: I've seriously considered that, but I think it makes Sicily less of a complicated area to play in that it would otherwise have been.

[binTravkin]

Quinn Inuit, your arguments come down to two things:
- you think it's "already ok" there and there
- you don't want to "annoy players"

At the same time this mod is called "extended realism", so me, and I guess other players, are expecting just that from it and the things I noted are exactly about that - historical accuracy of initial setup and tweak of game mechanics to work more like history tells us they did.
Current problems:
- ahistorical siege times
- ahistorical fortress levels in Italy and likely in a couple of other places
- ahistorical diplomatical setup in Sicily / Sout Italy
- ahistorical early AI moves, which can be changed by suggested changes in scenario

Regarding greek naval invasion preference - they never got far away from their own islands in Aegeian during that time frame, while the "naval invasions" as they are seen in-game are in a much bigger scale.

[Lateinshowing]

But the problem for Quin is that the engine was only programed to go so far. He can't change the options for sacking a city, for instance. It's hardwired into the game. He's doing the best he can with what he has, so not everything will be realistic, just as close as he can make it.

[binTravkin]

We're talking about scriptable changes here, mostly concerning historically accurate initial setup.

[Quinn Inuit]

I'm sorry, I'm apparently not explaining myself clearly. Thank you for laying out your four primary concerns, though. Let's address each in order.

- ahistorical siege times [You appear to believe that sieges are too short.]
I think siege times are quite sufficient. If you want Syracuse to last for several years even at 4tpy, just build large stone walls, which is quite feasible before the Romans show up. It probably won't last 7 years, but that's a real outlier for the time period and each wall level has a standardized time it lasts. I just don't think I can effectively model Syracuse in that respect.

In short, I believe that >1 year is quite enough time for your average stone-walled city to withstand a siege. I mean, that's a long time, and higher wall levels let you go even longer. There weren't that many >1y sieges of full cities in antiquity...or in world history, for that matter.

- ahistorical fortress levels in Italy and likely in a couple of other places
I agree that some of the walls may not be high level enough. If you can find me evidence that any of the major cities in Italy featured in the mod had stone walls in 280 B.C., I'll up them. Otherwise, that's what buildings are for.

Barbarian walls, even strong ones, are sufficiently represented IMO. I'm not going to give them stone walls, which I think are substantially too strong. The strong wood walls probably undershoot it, but not to the extent stone walls would overshoot it.


- ahistorical diplomatical setup in Sicily / Sout Italy
I've already said my piece on this. Epirus did not have a large, high quality army in Italy _and_ control of Syracuse simultaneously at any point in time. To give him both would be both ahistorical and unbalancing.

- ahistorical early AI moves, which can be changed by suggested changes in scenario
As I've said, we're working on fixing some of that, but overall I'm pleased with how things are going. I also think you're vastly overestimating the negative effects that control of Syracuse has on the Greeks.

[Ramiro]

Besides Sicily there is a overpowerng of the hellenistic factions. I think that it has not to do with the units or the AI. But in fact it has to do with giving them strong, compact empires.

Greece in fact was a series of leagues (aiatolian, achaen, spartan league). weakened by their constant struggle and the political dominance of Macedonia. In fact the only real GREEK state that deserves that name is Syracusa. I would like to see the Grreck faction split or make half their cities Rebels.

MAcedonia was overrun by gauls in 280 or so. It should be weakened, with many rebels cities to reconquer and rebuild. Half the cities rebels (with gauls garrison) or partially destroyed, with minimun population or even revolutions.

In asia minor there where rising new kingdoms. Bithinia, Pergamun, Rhodes. Thise would in time take away resources that either go to the already big ptolemaic or seleucid empires. New factiosn Here!

Same goes to the ptolemiac and seleucid empires. At least 50% or even 75% of their cities should be rebels. Good income for both of them though.

Maybe this would give the game a more reallistic outcome where Rome does not ends conquered in 180BC by a ptolemaic army (20 or 30 full stacks of egyptians crossing the Alps was a bizarre image).

PLease do not missunderstand me. I love the hellenic world and playing hellenic factions, but their should be a real challenge for players and allow a more accurate play when managed by the AI (with its known limitatons)

[Quinn Inuit]

I know that Greece wasn't unified most of the time, which is why I cut their size down in 3.3. Now it's just part of Crete, Athens, Sparta, Elis, and Syracuse. Syracuse's inclusion I've explained above, and Crete needs to be in there to get Greece and the Ptolemies going at it. Athens, Sparta, and Elis were, I believe, allied at the time or shortly thereafter, and are needed to keep the Macs from gaining quick dominance of all Greece.

Your idea for the Macs is not bad, and I'm seriously considering that. I've been trying to decide if I should make those provinces Galatian or not. Any thoughts?

I'd love to add all of those new factions, but just don't have the room.

As for making the Ptolies and Seleucids empires largely rebel territory, why do you say that? I've seen no evidence for that in any of my research. I mean, take away a couple of cities, maybe, but 50%?