Superpowers fix 2.1 available

[Teodosio]

Hello fellow players,
following our talks in the Super powers thread, and thanks to feedback and suggestions from the community, I have developed a
Superpowers fix 2.1
A mini-mod aimed at avoiding the emergence of super powers and helping smaller factions to survive.
The idea behind this is very simple. Every faction depends on its income to field armies and build protections; as soon as this income depends simply on the cities, a faction with double territory will approximatively have double military power. The first factions that gain advantages tend naturally to grow stronger and eat their smaller enemies. Corruption mitigates this a bit, but it's not an optimal solution, bacause it has only a linear effect.
We will fix this behavior by introducing a decreasing returns concept for income: in short, income will not only depend on number of cities, but every faction will be provided a fixed income too (this income is 10000, variable income is slightly decreased). This will help smaller factions stand up against larger ones.
Furthermore, when a AI faction extends too much its income will receive a severe blow. In this way we are sure AI factions will never move too much from their original holdings.
The following chart will make clear what the fix does:

Basically, for low number of cities income is increased, in order to help small factions and make more of a challenge for human player. But after a certain treshold (different for each faction) income drops severely and further conquests are impossible -> no more superpowers.

Instructions:
1- Decompress the attached "Superpowers fix2.1.zip" file and move its content in your "Rome - Total War\Data\" directory. 3 files will be overwritten, make backup copies if you wish.
2- Load your campaign (the fix is savegame compatible) or begin a new one; be careful to start the garrison script every time you load (the fixed income is provided by some code added to the script).
3- Enjoy.
Version 2.1 makes the fixed income available for Senate, slaves and Scipii, plus other minor tunings.
Instructions to merge this fix with tai4ji2x's Scripted Rebellions Add-on.

Help me to test this. What you could do:
The mod works fine but we should fine-tune it for best gameplay. I would much appreciate your feedback on it.

Btw, the Senate was given a fixed income too, now if you start the civil war you are going to regret it!

Many thanks to lt1956, GaussSoldier, tai4ji2x and other helpful players for useful suggestions and support.

[lt1956]

I seriously doubt this will work and what is more it will most likely Ruin Gameplay of SPQRs Huge battles. I suggest next time you ask permission before releasing mini-mods which normally arent allowed for SPQR.

[el_dude]

I suggest next time you ask permission before releasing mini-mods which normally arent allowed for SPQR.

ouch, a little snappy today are we? i don't think the poor guy meant any harm

[GaussSoldier]

I suggest next time you ask permission before releasing mini-mods which normally arent allowed for SPQR.

With all due respect Lt1956, I understand that you don't want anything drastic done with this mod but you should try and see this fix for what it really is: a solution that will benefit the S.P.Q.R. community as a whole (all hoping that it works properly, stability is assured from what I see so far).

It was in no way meant to undermine your work. The need for a different endgame other than a Greek standoff led to the idea. And about the big battles taking a hit, there will still be huge battles but less of them. I have to say that frequent 11,000 man battles is not fun.

[Kaweh]

I seriously doubt this will work and what is more it will most likely Ruin Gameplay of SPQRs Huge battles. I suggest next time you ask permission before releasing mini-mods which normally arent allowed for SPQR.

With all due respect, why shouldn't he be allowed to post a file of which he thinks it improves the gameplay? Of course it's more than ok when you tell us your fears about it being unbalanced etc., but I for one am curious and would like to try it out.

Apart of that, it's not like it will be connected to your awsome mod, in case a mini-mod/fix/whatever screws the gameplay!

K.K

[ramsesii]

I will try it out but I think lt has a valid point about the loss off battlecappacity off the ai faction in mid and late game. but i think its always better than having to fight only the greeks in the end game.

ps: how did you cut income?

[Teodosio]

I will try it out but I think lt has a valid point about the loss off battlecappacity off the ai faction in mid and late game. but i think its always better than having to fight only the greeks in the end game.

ps: how did you cut income?

There's no worry about losing huge battles. If you look at the chart you will see that it is very simple indeed: factions lose battle capacity when they have more than 11 settlements, i.e. when they are superpowers (Greece in my campaign has 17 cities, wiped out Macedonia and Thrace).
Quite the contrary, you will face more epic battles when facing small factions.

About cutting income, I found I couldn't work on taxes and farming. So I reduced mining and trade in such a way as to get a 30% reduction to gross income. It's just what you see in the chart, really. All the figures were obtained through careful observation and calculations.

I suggest next time you ask permission before releasing mini-mods which normally arent allowed for SPQR.

I'm very sorry to have bothered you lt1956.
I didn't want to be disrespectful, it's just that this thing was being discussed in the other thread, where I made clear I was working on this solution. Since you didn't post I thought it was OK for you. Sorry for having misunderstood.
I should say that this is not really a mini-mod, but rather a proposed fix to an issue that is bothering all of us. Anyway, I'll be more careful in the future.

Let me say that I would appreciate comments from you

[jegui]

Teodosio,

A good suggestion I'd give to test your potential superpower balance before releasing it for testing with LT's permission is to use the '-AI' option available in RTW... You will be able to test several campaigns in AI mode and check if the powers expand well or not and how the money/army balance is getting along in the campaign. You will be able to better fine tune your parameters with no need for other's input until you have confidence that is working as expected I believe

[Teodosio]

Teodosio,

A good suggestion I'd give to test your potential superpower balance before releasing it for testing with LT's permission is to use the '-AI' option available in RTW...

That sounds good, it seems I missed the obvious
Ok, I tested it by running 4 games. Of course I had to change the script from a "show me how script" to a "campaign script" in order to use it for AI campaign.
I should say I am quite satisfied with what I saw: it seems the fix is producing good results.

In fact, in my tests factions tend to disappear less frequently and no superpowers emerge. Only Germania got quite large in one test. Greece seems to satisfy itself with 2-3 cities in Greece and others in Turkey.
AI testing gave me useful insights to implement some small tunings that make the fix more efficient (ver. 1.01). Further testing is needed of course; I will much appreciate human feedabck, I'd like people to tell how the fix "feels".

teodosio: i've glanced at your script, but i don't see how it adjusts for when a faction goes above or below a certain number of settlements?

I see what you have done you made trade weak etc and then just script money, but like was said i dont see any Commands that would effect the superpowers at all, as there is NO syntax that says when a factions reaches this level do this. I am afraid this script as is doesnt really work escept to reduce overall money.

Ok people, there seems to be a bit of confusion, I clearly was rush and didn't explain me well enough in the first post.
All the idea is plainly depicted in the chart, please look at it carefully. It shows total income depending on number of cities; red line is standard SPQR and green line is my fix. You will see immediately that factions with 10 cities get approx. the same aggregate income. Smaller factions get higher income with my fix (they get more resources to protect themselves and survive); factions with more then ten cities get a penalization (this aims to avoid strong factions to become superpowers). Let's do an example: using my fix, a faction with only 3 cities get an income of approx. 21000. It means it can spend 7000 denarii in each city to raise a strong defensive force. By contrast, a faction with 30 cities can spend approx. 3000 denarii for each city: in this way its armies spread thin, and it's more difficult to attain superpower status.
So, my target was to modify the total income function from red line to green line. This is done simply by adding a fixed income and reducing variable income, and that's exactly what the fix does. There's no need for a 500 lines-script when mathematics can provide an easy solution
Anyway, the values can be changed. By playing with them, I could get another function even less steep, and always with the even point at 10 cities. This will give still more bonuses to small factions and penalties to large ones. It's only a matter of balancing.

Let me add, in order to avoid misunderstanding, that my proposed solution is not a wild guess, but comes from my training. I am an economist, I know that decreasing returns make wonders in many settings and can do the work here. It's only a matter to find the right figures and balancing; when properly done, superpowers are DEAD.
If you still have doubts I can write the function and go into some simple mathematics to explain the details.

I would really love to help make the game better for all of us.

[tai4ji2x]

teodosio: i've glanced at your script, but i don't see how it adjusts for when a faction goes above or below a certain number of settlements?

[luoguy]

I fixed the super Greek problem by attacking it right after taking Sicily. I now have all 5 major cities on southern Greece and Cretan. Greek had to stop its continuous attack on other nations. The time is 200 BC now. I am playing with mm and garrison, but used spy to take Sparta by accident which was a shame.

[lt1956]

Its not that Gauss, its I like to be asked first. ;-)

As for the solution I havent downloaded it and its being tested open right now. If you notice I didnt say he had to remove it, just to ask first.

Anyway, I am trying to work on a Port for Alexander that will allow me to use the AI factions not attacking eachother command which is in Alexander. My only problem right now is I cant play the campaign or custom battles without going back to the Menu. Its the same issues that happen when porting to BI except a little different. I am hoping I will find all the files needed. Right now Its saying it can find the Names of the cities in the regions file. lol

I'm sure they are simple changes assuming the Map isnt in conflict, maybe CA changed something they usually do which makes likea pain for modders.

-AI switch wont work with Scripts, they dont activate. I dont think you can activate it through the description_strat which would be about the only way if you can, its been a while.

I see what you have done you made trade weak etc and then just script money, but like was said i dont see any Commands that would effect the superpowers at all, as there is NO syntax that says when a factions reaches this level do this. I am afraid this script as is doesnt really work escept to reduce overall money.

Lt

[lt1956]

But where is the text that says more than 10 cities and less than 10 cities? How would the game KNOW if you have more or less than 10 cities unless you state in a script of some sort? I didnt any mention of numbers in the strat file, so where are you placing these restrictions?

I think that was the point we were making, you have ot spcify somewhere when you are under or over 10 cities otherwise its random.

[Teodosio]

But where is the text that says more than 10 cities and less than 10 cities? How would the game KNOW if you have more or less than 10 cities unless you state in a script of some sort? I didnt any mention of numbers in the strat file, so where are you placing these restrictions?

I think that was the point we were making, you have ot spcify somewhere when you are under or over 10 cities otherwise its random.

The problem is that you think of my solution as something different of what it is. Of course, if you are looking for something that isn't there you won't find it
ramsesii understood well. Btw, I decreased not only trade but mining too. If some factions get an advantage it will show in testing and I'll simply reduce fixed income for them. I did so for Germania in 1.01.
I think it's time to explain some details.
Sorry for the long post, read only if interested in understanding the mechanism, otherwise just download and enjoy

The mathematics behind the fix
I'll try to explain in a simple way the basic mathematics that powers my fix. What we are concerned here is avoiding superpowers and saving small factions from extinction. Our approach tries to do this by working on income only. Income will be adjusted in order to help the weak and to make the strong less formidable. This could be achieved with a long, complex and clumsy script. We'll rely on mathematics instead to provide a more elegant solution.
If we define the number of cities a faction controls as x, we'll be interested in working on 2 figures:
y = f(x) faction's income per city;
y*x = f(x)*x faction's aggregate income.
What we want to do is to shape these functions in such a way as to make them more equitable by introducing decreasing returns. A more equitable economy means that a faction with double number of cites gets more income, but less than double. The small faction gets more income per city so it can protect itself. Without decreasing returns, an economic sector tends to natural monopoly: the first that gets larger than its competitors has too strong an advantage and eats them all (talking about Greece).
Let's examine the details and see how income per city works.
In standard SPQR (and vanilla) f(x) is a function that depends negatively on x. This is because of corruption that makes it so that the more cities you have, the less you get in average from them.
We can specify the function in this way:
y = f(x) = -a*x + b
Where b is average income gross of corruption for a developed city, and -a*x represents the effect of corruption. The more cities you have, the more corruption you will suffer. The specification for corruption is not very precise but it's a fair approximation and keeps calculations simple.

The problem here is that we have to re-define the income per city function in order to make it more equitable. In plain words, if a faction with 15 cities earns 5 times more than a faction with 3 cities, the latter is dead. We have to make sure that income per city decreases with number of cities in order to make small factions competitive.

What happens in standard SPQR: some figures
I used data from a couple of campaigns to estimate values for a and b.
I found that average income (gross of corruption) for a developed city is about b=5000. The effect of corruption is such to make a=24. You can see that corruption provides a kind of decreasing returns effect, but it does so in a linear way.
So the estimated income per city function is:
y = -24*x + 5000
This function is showed in the chart, green line.

If you have a single city you will earn 5000. If you have 10 cities, you will earn -24*10+5000= 4760 for each of them. Of course every city is different, there are rich ones and poor ones, but here we are interested in aggregates and averages.

Why corruption is unable to avoid superpowers, and how to fix this
Decreasing returns are the key to make the game's economy more equitable. Corruption is unable to provide effective decreasing returns because it has only a linear effect, i.e. it enters in the function in the form a*x. This creates a big problem in RTW: in fact, if corruption is low (as in SPQR), it won't be enough to prevent superpowers; if it is high (vanilla) it will eat up the entire income for far-away cities, making their conquest pointless. It's always the green line, just with different slopes.
We need a different solution: we want a strong equitable effect, but we want to keep far-away cities profitable. We can't achieve this by modifying the function's slope: we must change its shape outright. No more a straight line, but a curve.
Please look at the chart again. The blue and purple lines are two examples of the idea: curve lines. They provide a strong advantage compared to the linear effect (corruption): they take very high values for small levels of x (cities), then decrease quickly for increasing number of cities, approaching a small but non-zero income.
To get a similar curve, we have to redefine the income per city function in this way:
y = f(x) = -a*x + b + c/x
If you plot this in a mathematical software you will get the blue/purple curve in the chart. The term c/x modifies the shape and creates the curve. Now let's look at aggregate income and see what happens.
Aggregate income: y*x = (-a*x + b + c/x)*x = -a*x^2 + b*x + c
In short, to achieve the desired effect I just need to add the +c part. I choosed to set c=15000, so:
y*x = -24*x^2 + 5000*x + 15000
This is not complete yet, because in this way the new function will have higher values for y for all x's compared to the old function. Instead, I want the curves to intersect, like in the chart. I choosed to make them intersect at x=10. In order to do that, I only have to reduce b=5000 to b=3500.
This explains why factions with 10 cities are indifferent (approx.), while smaller factions get more, and larger factions get less income per city.
In game terms, the c=15000 term (fixed income) is provided by the script and variable income is reduced by the desired amount (5000 to 3500). As simple as that.

This ends the explanation. Keep in mind that the figures provided here are estimations and can be made better with testing and balancing. What's important here is the concept.
Hope now is finally clear, enjoy and take revenge on the Greeks

[ramsesii]

But where is the text that says more than 10 cities and less than 10 cities? How would the game KNOW if you have more or less than 10 cities unless you state in a script of some sort? I didnt any mention of numbers in the strat file, so where are you placing these restrictions?

The game doesnt need to know that. its just an economical law.
Lets say each city has an fixed income (coming from trade, taxes and farming) of 5000 So with having 10 cities you have an income of 50.000

Now the script adds 15.000. And by reducing trade in E_D_B (NOT SCRIPT but just edditing a textfile) your income per city wl be reduced to 3.500
10*3500 +15.000 is again 50.000 income as you see only a script is needed to add money a script is not needed to cut other incomes.

I do have some critical things with idea because only trade is used to cut income.
This will hit greek/ persian nations more then barbarians. This because trade is a much smaller part of their income. So the penalty they receive is smaller then for civiliced factions.

[tai4ji2x]

i'm guessing you guys are basing the number of cities a faction has simply by what they start out with? because E_D_B wouldn't be able to track any changes in that number which may happen later.

[Alatar]

LT has a point, I rember when the EB script was changed, and it was massive, but it had variblesd to give factions with x number of provinces x amount of money.


A alexander port would be ideal

[lt1956]

Still in the end all your doing is removing money from trade etc. There is no positive fact that 10 cities are the marker and since each city can produce at a different rate there is no way to control what you are saying. The reason why your getting less superpowers is because there is less money period.

EB has some of the best script writers and alot of us understand RTW mechanics, your changes are what some did a while back that like EB or RTR style of Less armies and less income. All your doing is not effecting superpowers but making the game more like RTR and EB in gameplay. The only true way to prevent superpowers would be a complex scripting that monitored all factions that obtained more than 10 cities etc. This you could control how a faction would play out.

Basically the changes you made are just remove the money and thats its.

How does the computer or game know when to give the bonuses is it income based example would be if a nation has more than 10k it doesnt get the bonus? Without some sort of specification the game will not produce the results you state, what you are producing and you can ask ANY RTW modder is a SIDE EFFECT of reducing Income overall.

The fancy mathematics doesnt mean much on the way the engine uses the information, there are several other side effects to producing less icome overall. and without a specified controlled income increase specified in a script there is no way to control just one aspect the game engine calculates alot more than you think and doing so basically just slows down the AI to produce less armies which means its less likely to attack. Its also means when the player Really starts to attack the faction, the AI will not be able to produce a challenging defense against the player.

See I think the problem is your style of play is similar to RTR and EB, SPQR is not designed to have just 1-4 legions, its designed to use 28 legions plus auxillia legions when your empire is bigger. This allows for more realistic battles for Legions rather than Saying each legion is an Army.

Just my opinion, your welcome to reduce income I just disagree on the result, I think its a side effect and not the result. All the charts etc mean nothing to the game, its has Hardcoded AI that is effected by changes that you havent even imagined later in the campaign.

[Teodosio]

The reason why your getting less superpowers is because there is less money period.

It sounds unlikely that reducing income by itself can stop superpowers. What really matters is relative strength. If my income is 10000 and your is 20000, you have twice my power and you will crush me. If money is decreased 50% then I will have 5000 and you will have 10000. You will still be twice stronger and you will still crush me. There is something else that we must add: the fixed income.

See I think the problem is your style of play is similar to RTR and EB, SPQR is not designed to have just 1-4 legions, its designed to use 28 legions plus auxillia legions when your empire is bigger.

Nope I can assure you I spend almost all my income to keep legions in the field
35 cities controlled, 16 legions in arms. But I spend a lot of money for garrisoning VERY rebellious cities.

How does the computer or game know when to give the bonuses is it income based example would be if a nation has more than 10k it doesnt get the bonus?

The bonus is always given, to all factions. It's the same as king's purse in M2TW. They took 4 games to understand the importance of decreasing returns.

I would humbly suggest you to read my previous post and to look carefully at the functions and at the chart, and try to understand the concept. I have strong respect for you as SPQR's creator and I will keep to explain better any point you find unclear. I'm curious too about whether other players have something to say. ramsesii understood the idea and produced a good example, I think GaussSoldier understood too.
But please try to understand the idea behind my fix and ask me about doubts.
Don't worry about the figures and the estimations, remember that average values are what matters here and that we can adjust the figures with testing and balancing (after the concept is clear).

[tai4ji2x]

Nope I can assure you I spend almost all my income to keep legions in the field
35 cities controlled, 16 legions in arms. But I spend a lot of money for garrisoning VERY rebellious cities.

this is with 6.4? just the other day you said you were still playing on your old 6.3 campaign... how have you managed to get 35 cities and 16 legions? what game year is it?