Parthia + Bactria = Insta War?

[Caledonian]

I started my Bactrian campaign last week and on the first turn parthia attacked?Now i've noticed that when i play Parthia, Bactria attacks very early into the came as well.But whilst playing as another faction they always seem to ally up against the selucids.
Anyone else notice that?

[Delvecchio1975]

problem is that with any faction you play, you are the prime target for the AI. it's (and this won't be the last time you'll hear this one around here) hard-coded.only when you're not playing either of those two, the AI will have the sense to gang up on the Seleucids.

[Quinn Inuit]

I've noticed that, too. I think it's because Parthia doesn't have any other good options as far as whom to attack (small country or huge country).

Would it help to put Parthia north of where they are now and make them invade Seleucid Hyrcania first, do you suppose?

[Delvecchio1975]

I don't think the position of the parthians is the problem. I think it's the bit of coding that makes the AI go after the human first. I don't think moving the Parthians around will help much ...

[dharos]

unless there's a buffer state, the map has to be redrawn. or put a rebel province between them, which would probably still have to be redrawn. plus, as everyone says, it's hard coded.

since it's early in the game, a huge garrison is not feasible.

what about putting the beginning armies of both factions closer to a Seleucid city each?

[Caligula Caesar]

You could put a strip of terra incognita (if you are using it) in between the two nations. Of course, if you play on very hard, you have to expect the AI to want to attack you...

[Quinn Inuit]

Nah, I think I'd like them to fight. The Bactrians should be able to take the loss of Margiana early in the game (their new westernmost province), and I'd like to stretch out the time before they invade the Seleucid Empire. I mean, Parthia shouldn't conquer much before the mid-200s, really.

I'm not sure what to do about that. Should I move Parthia to a new region north of their current ones and make them build up to invade?

Similarly, should I make Bactria start with just Alexandria Eschate and make them build up?

[Scutarii]

Seeing as Parthia and Baktria shouldn't even exist in 280 BC, starting them with minimal settlements (1-2) and setting them apart from each other by either TSE or rebels would be good. Force them to build up an empire before picking fights with each other/TSE.

[Iskandar]

Seeing as Parthia and Baktria shouldn't even exist in 280 BC, starting them with minimal settlements (1-2) and setting them apart from each other by either TSE or rebels would be good. Force them to build up an empire before picking fights with each other/TSE.

I like this idea. You could also make them friendly to each other as base attitude and allied as starting diplomatic stance.

I hope we will finally have an ultimate Rome vs. Parthia showdown....

[Pat89]

I think it could be a good idea to split them by some Seleucid provinces... Though leave a little room for Parthia to expand in rebel territories...

Has it been suggested before to let them start as a horde? Is this even possible?

[decimator22]

May be as Patricians said make the Parthian start as a Horde and give them a selucid target, although I don't know if we are making it easier for us the players and harder for Bactria as Parthia may decide to invade it regardless.

[C-Rob]

Isn't there a thing in the files that are on your comptuer that changes the origional relationship between factions? Like, a lot start at 600, and then I noticed that between thrace and dacia it was 300(and they always go to war)

Maybe I'm wrong in this affecting anything. Modders, englighten the newb, please.

never mind, iskander already posted what I meant.

[Quinn Inuit]

I'm pretty sure the starting stances are ok.

For the record, these changes will probably go in 3.5. 3.4 is too close to shipment now for something of this magnitude.

Bactria: what province should I give them to start? I'm thinking Bactria, but there's something to be said for Ferghana. Either one leaves Big Blue with a solid line of provinces. Bactria seems to make sense, but if you start the AI in Bactria, it'll move for India first and only hit the Seleucids afterward.

Parthia: How did they come into the area? We can work from that. I can start them as a horde, but should I?

[Pat89]

I'm pretty sure the starting stances are ok.

For the record, these changes will probably go in 3.5. 3.4 is too close to shipment now for something of this magnitude.

Bactria: what province should I give them to start? I'm thinking Bactria, but there's something to be said for Ferghana. Either one leaves Big Blue with a solid line of provinces. Bactria seems to make sense, but if you start the AI in Bactria, it'll move for India first and only hit the Seleucids afterward.

Parthia: How did they come into the area? We can work from that. I can start them as a horde, but should I?

Weren't you going for ExRM 4 instead of 3.4?
(Because of the many huge changes you made)

[Quinn Inuit]

I think the Parthians were one of the Dahae tribes (called the Parni). They invaded from directly to the north of Parthia 42 years after RTR starts, 9 years after the Seleucid satrap Andragoras asserted his independance. The Bactrians became independant at a similar time to Parthia. I think that giving them Bactria and maybe Alexandria on the Orus (if that exists on your map) makes sense.

That city is now Alexandria Eschate (and has all new surroundings).

So do you think Parthia should start as a horde, or start with a single region to the north of Hyrcania?

Weren't you going for ExRM 4 instead of 3.4?
(Because of the many huge changes you made)

I was going to, but I figured I'd release piecemeal instead of making everyone wait 6 months for everything.

[Caligula Caesar]

I think the Parthians were one of the Dahae tribes (called the Parni). They invaded from directly to the north of Parthia 42 years after RTR starts, 9 years after the Seleucid satrap Andragoras asserted his independance. The Bactrians became independant at a similar time to Parthia. I think that giving them Bactria and maybe Alexandria on the Orus (if that exists on your map) makes sense.

[AqD]

I started my Bactrian campaign last week and on the first turn parthia attacked?Now i've noticed that when i play Parthia, Bactria attacks very early into the came as well.But whilst playing as another faction they always seem to ally up against the selucids.
Anyone else notice that?

I use ai_do_not_attack_factions (alexander only) for bactria & parthia, and it usually works at least for the first 40 or 50 years - 4tpy.

Maybe bactria should be turned to a super faction too? They were not peaceful, but most of their wars have nothing to do with any of the factions on RTR map.....

[Quinn Inuit]

That's a neat trick with the command. I wish we had that.

You know, you're probably right about Bactria, but they're too cool to leave out.

[Auvar]

I'm bumping this thread because Parthia got eliminated in 274 BC in my latest game (as the Romans, so it wasn't my fault!). Part of the problem was that they were at war with both the Bactrians and the Seleucids, which resulted in them getting squashed like a grape while I was still trying to kick the Epirotes out of Italy.

I think some kind of separation between Bactria and Parthia would be extremely helpful, and would prevent the kind of immediate two-teaming that I just saw. The larger problem, however, is the tension between 1) wanting the Parthians to be historically accurate and not conquer for some time, and 2) wanting the Parthians to be historically accurate and still be around when the Romans (or whoever) reach them. Unfortunately, I think these are mutually exclusive. The Parthians just don't have the land to sit around for generations and still be viable. They need to start out with more or they'll never get any more. Every other small power in the game starts with some potential rebel conquests; Parthia alone has none.

Starting the Parthians out as a horde might be a good way to strengthen them in the early game. They might start fighting too early to be historical, but that's the price you're probably going to have to pay if you want them to be viable in the long term. My experience with the Horde AI is mixed; sometimes it works rather well, other times they just mill about and are gradually ground down to nothing. Even if you don't decide to make them a horde at the start, they should probably be given the ability to do so, as it provides them with a last-ditch play if they are on the brink of early destruction.

The only real solution that preserves both historical accuracy goals is to do what BI did - make them an emergent faction, either appearing at a certain time (like the BI Slavs) or when a certain event happens (like the BI Romano-British). The obvious downside there is that you couldn't play as the Parthians, but perhaps you could offer two "scenarios" for download - one scenario that starts in 280 and has the Parthians emerge in 42 years, and one that starts 42 years later and allows you to play the Parthians, with the map changed to reflect the later time.

That might be too much work, however, in which case your best bets seem to be to consider Hording and/or a barrier between them and the Bactrians.

[Quinn Inuit]

That's not a bad idea, but I'm worried that things will quickly spiral into unmanageability if I start creating different versions. Maybe after we finally get everything settled for 4.0 and tested, we can do 4.0 Gold with different versions for different factions, so we won't have to worry about making any new upgrades to the whole game.

In the meantime, what may work is to give Campus Massagetae to the Parthians instead of their current holdings and making them fight their way in (and also closing the hole there that leads to Bactria). That will also be compatible with plain RTW installations, a compatibility I'd like to preserve as long as possible for those who don't have BI.