Incredible strong Georgia

[Nikator]

I am playing a Khwarezm campaign at "very hard difficulty" at the moment, and something strange happened. The Georgians got incredibly powerful... even before the Mongols arrived, they conquered nearly everything from their homelands over to India, with just my own Central-Asian provinces being left over. It's quite strange to see Georgian provinces in the Middle East. ;) Anyway, what I am really wondering about is the size of their military... they are fielding dozens of full-stack armies composed nearly exclusively of their best troops. I just cannot imagine how they finance all that stuff, as they already had those troops before they owned all those Middle Eastern provinces...

Another strange thing is that nearly all factions were already using loads of the best troops available to their faction when I was just lurking around some first second-level units. And I don't think that my management is too bad. ;) How do they get those upgrades for their castles so fast? Or is that a feature of "very hard difficulty"? Anyway, does anybody know what the differences between the different levels of difficulty are?

Thanks and greetings... the mighty Shah of Khwarezm. :)

P.S.: Sorry for the double post. Admins, you may delete the first one.

[Pallantides]

Georgia is always getting pwnd in my campagins,but in my current Khwarezm campaign the Rajputs rule roughly half the campagin map , they have already destroyed the Ghorids, Ghazni, Sindh and are currently at war with the Seljuks, Abbasid and myself!

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Diffculty wise, I haven't noticed. I play on H/H, and it is pretty much the same from when i used to play on M/M. I think that the AI is modified so it has a large King's purse and growth rates. Anyway, In my campaigns...Georgia always gets steamrolled by the Great Seljuqs.

However, I am the ERE and am a gigantic world power, so I fund them with thousands of florins every turn. I have also given them Rhodes...

The Rajputs are well on their way to becoming what Pallantides said they are on his file...Ghorids are lurking in Peshawar and the Ghaznavids are about to get rocked.

[Bull]

In BC 1.05 the AI characters get a trait which promote population growth and hence they level up their cities/castles a lot faster than human players; that's why half the cities I've conquered are in negative population growth (their pop growth was propped up by AI general's traits). The upside is that you get a ton of cash when you sack an AI town!!!

BC team seemed to have stated that they'll remove the trait(s) in BC 1.5 or 2.0.

[byzantineklibanophori]

My Abbasid campaign is the most balanced, most faction seem to own territory within their vicinity with exception to the GHorids who were ambitious enough to try and invade Iran.

[Nikator]

Thanks for the info, Bull, seems like that's why the AI gets the best units so soon. Maybe that's also the reason why they are able to sustain such a large military with relatively few provinces.

Pallantides: In my campaign, the Rajputs are very strong, too. So far, they have conquered all of India and destroyed the Ghorids, leaving only 2 or 3 provinces for the Malikits. Right now they are on their way to waste the Ghaznavids. ;)

Mr. Cursed: Well, in my campaign, the mighty Great Seljuks were more or less humiliated by Georgia, they eliminiated them within a few years, conquering all of their lands in no time. So the Great Seljuks went down from being the most powerful faction to being no faction in something like 5 years. ;)

Seems like in a few years, there will only be the ERE, the Rajputs, the Georgians and me left on the map. :)

[redz27m]

funny..:hmmm: in my campign as koj those rajput too also own half the left side of the map.. question is are they supposed to historically build an empire like that? they are more of a horde than the mongols, they have armies all over plus if you happen to meet them head-on they have elephants which by all means you have knockdown first problem is only jav and archers can put them down.. bummer

anyway for VH difficulties i just hope the damn ai doe'snt spawn so much and so many armies that are nearly impossible to defeat..

[Samariten]

Also Georgia doesnt really have any weakness only its position but when u have access to all troops they are deadly thats why i play them...

[Tail End Charlie]

In BC 1.05 the AI characters get a trait which promote population growth and hence they level up their cities/castles a lot faster than human players; that's why half the cities I've conquered are in negative population growth (their pop growth was propped up by AI general's traits). The upside is that you get a ton of cash when you sack an AI town!!!

There is problem when you do sacking though, your reputation sinks massively..to the point where diplomacy is useless. And everybody attacks you..

Superpower Geogia appears a lot in my games, maybe the BC team should stagger the A.I money scripts a bit more so that its based on whether that faction truly became powerful or not. Although historically BC covers the Georgian Golden Age with King David and Tamar.

I like having kick little factions, in my Abbasaid Campaign I'm doing the Armenians have almost completely restored the Byzantine Empire of Heraclius... Without Africa and Italy of course.

[Nikator]

Those Georgian elite-spearmen (forgot their name) are really a pain in the ass. But once your troops manage to fight them down, the jubilations and the glory are even greater. :)

But yeah: I was asking myself several times what objectives the AI-factions are following. Do they try to conquer the provinces which I as a human player had to conquer if I would play that faction (campaign goals)? Do they try to conquer something like a historically correct realm? Or do they simply try to conquer as much as they can?

So far it seems to me that the last version is the right one... although I like powerful AI factions, I am not so much into the seight of having Georgian provinces in India, for example.

[Faris ad Din]

Also Georgia doesnt really have any weakness only its position but when u have access to all troops they are deadly thats why i play them...

There is a weakness, lack of any armor-piercing weapons! No maces, no axes, no javelins even. Correct me if I'm wrong (I think the cavalry lack armor-piercing weapons also). Along with Oman they're one of the only two factions without native armor-piercing troops, which is what I consider key to cracking open heavily armored infantry and especially cavalry.

[Bull]

There is a weakness, lack of any armor-piercing weapons! No maces, no axes, no javelins even. Correct me if I'm wrong (I think the cavalry lack armor-piercing weapons also). Along with Oman they're one of the only two factions without native armor-piercing troops, which is what I consider key to cracking open heavily armored infantry and especially cavalry.

Is AP really that important? All units with AP properties have reduced attack, like Nakharar knights' attack of 5 vs similar units' 8 or 9.

I find that the only way to defeat heavily armoured foes is to out-flank them or attack from the rear (that include shooting). Even with AP weapons taking these guys head on (e.g. Nakharar knights vs mamluk infantry) would just take ages, not to mention the heavy casualties you'll suffer.

[Normanknight47]

Yes, of course. It's all in the descr_faction_standing.txt
All standing is on a scale of -1.0 to 1.0, extermination gives -0.05, sacking gives -0.02, occupation gives 0.05 to global standing (reputation). There's more but that's the answer to your immediate question

.


so thats why Im hated thanks for this info + rep

[Faris ad Din]

Is AP really that important? All units with AP properties have reduced attack, like Nakharar knights' attack of 5 vs similar units' 8 or 9.

I find that the only way to defeat heavily armoured foes is to out-flank them or attack from the rear (that include shooting). Even with AP weapons taking these guys head on (e.g. Nakharar knights vs mamluk infantry) would just take ages, not to mention the heavy casualties you'll suffer.

Aye. And this is just about the only way I'd advocate the use of armor-piercing units (unless all you have is AP units) - think about it this way, they are "attack" units rather than "defense" units, where would you maximize their impact? Certainly not from the front, it makes intuitive sense to apply them on the flanks or rear where their power is magnified.

Then there's the shield mechanic to take into consideration - shields since Shogun (I think) add their armor factor only to the front and to the left side of each soldier. We all should have enough experience to see how much more damage any kind of attack does against shield units from the rear, especially with ranged attacks. At that, enemy units take a much higher morale hit from being outflanked.

Two-handed units are horrible in defense... I'd never use them alone standing in a battle line to face off toe-to-toe with any enemy, only if I have no other melee units at my disposal. But when they are not the (main) recipients of attacks, a la flanking when the target is already focused on another sturdy unit, even the cheapest tier 1 two-handed units like Caucasian Mountaineer Axemen (310 cost 120 upkeep!) still shine.

[Samariten]

Yes that is true the cavalry do lack it aswell, but still they have a fine choice of archers and monaspas and well working spearmen that make up for it.

[Normanknight47]

well in my games(VH/VH) Georgia starts out strong until the 1220s then ether the Seljuk's or the Kpycek wipe them out(sometimes me) thus they all ways last as long as they historically did

[iksterminator]

lol, sounds realistic. I don't know about AI Georgia, but when I play with it, it has just one of the weakest economies, so I can never maintain large and elite army. And I don't have that problem with abbasids or ayubids. By the time I unite transcaucasia with tiny army of what I can maintain both seljuks, abbasids and kypchaks attack me from north and south, making a burger out of my realm. Then it's a bloodshed. Fighting every turn and all the time, virtually stalling and killing economy, as you always need any mercenaries you can get while fighting that much with small army instead of spending money on development. I also noticed that christian nations rarely attack each other and maintain stronger alliances.

P.S.
By the way, I know that sacking reduces reputation, but does sacking of rebel city do the same?

[Faris ad Din]

P.S.
By the way, I know that sacking reduces reputation, but does sacking of rebel city do the same?

Yes, of course. It's all in the descr_faction_standing.txt
All standing is on a scale of -1.0 to 1.0, extermination gives -0.05, sacking gives -0.02, occupation gives 0.05 to global standing (reputation). There's more but that's the answer to your immediate question.

[cristophe el perno]

Yes, of course. It's all in the descr_faction_standing.txt
All standing is on a scale of -1.0 to 1.0, extermination gives -0.05, sacking gives -0.02, occupation gives 0.05 to global standing (reputation). There's more but that's the answer to your immediate question.

wow, thats why everyone hates me............

[sirfiggin]

The problem with total war is that you get no serious divisions in your empire, even tiddly kingdoms like England suffered several serious civil wars...as the player or AI conquers more of the map, they should face more rebelling cities, corruption and usurpers. Not that I'm suggesting that someone should try to modify these problems out of the game... just hope they won't be in Empires