Balancing the Eastern powers

[Carados]

In this thread I put forward my observations of what happens to Parthia, in particular with relation to the Seleucid Empire, in the first 5 years of gameplay. What I found was that the Seleucid Empire typically combines its armies and attacks Phrasspa with them, leaving a weak Parthia completely open to attack. I proposed that we could manipulate the starting location of the more powerful armies at the SE disposal. Today I did a quick test manipulating this.

Antiochus was moved to the location "x 180, y 65", whilst Euthydemus was moved to where Antiochus used to be. The result was interesting. As I suspected, Antiochus made short work of all the settlements belonging to the Ptolemaic Empire in Asia Minor, including half of Cyprus. The most telling observation was that the Seleucid Empire STILL tried to take Phrasspa, but pooled together troops from nearby settlements to produce its armies. Phrasspa fell in the summer of 278, which is a few turns later than usual. Parthia was soon under seige but they managed to hold on. What happened next was that Armenia lost Armavir to the Seleucids... and the Seleucids lost Epiphaneia to the Parthians...!!! This was 276 and 274 respectively.

Based on this, I'm going to move that Armenian spy and see if that makes Armenia more of a power. Secondly, I will beef up the garrison in Phraaspa. Finally, I may move some Ptolemaic troops into Asia Minor so they can at least put up a fight with Antiochus.

Does anyone have any other ideas on boosting the survival of Parthia?

[slayer8908]

an idea is lets kepp everything the same. but give parthian settlements more trade bonuses so they can have a large enough economy, hence large enough army to beat back the Seleucid Empire.

or you can just take away the starting armies in mespotamia that they use to take pharasspa

[Carados]

The problem with removing the armies full stop is that it reduces the upkeep for the SE, meaning they'll generate a lot of money and can then build armies in places closer to where we don't want them (Media, Syria, Asia Minor).

Not that it matters because I can declare this experiment a complete success!! Parthia has survived on 3 occasions out of 3 to 10 years, and for 2 of them to beyond 20 years!!! (the 10 year one stopped because of a CTD so...).

There is, however, one very serious problem. For the first two tests the Seleucid Empire totally and utterly destoyed the Ptolemaic Empire. For the 3rd test, I had modified the garrisons for some of their eastern settlements (specifically, taking away one unit of the gold shield pikeman from most holdings) as well as moved Rusa to "x 220, y 94". In this instance the SE didn't quite get into the position to steamroll everyone. What I did notice though was the Ptolemaic Empire somehow having a large stack on Rhodes most of the time (this applies to test 1 and 2 as well), I suspect a general has been adopted there and he's recruited a load of mercenaries. I'm thinking of either making Rhodes rebel or part of the Greek Cities to combat that.

[Quinn Inuit]

I recommend against making Rhodes part of the GC, since it and Athens didn't get along. I think I've seen that stack pop up in Rhodes, too.

I'm surprised the Seleucids are destroying the Ptolies so thoroughly. Can you reduce the number of anti-unrest buildings in Transoxiana? I'm trying to make that area revolt more rapidly and cause the Seleucids problems. I'd also like to see Bactria attack Samarkand, but it really doesn't seem to want to.

[Carados]

I'll just leave Rhodes with a single unit of slingers for a garrison then? Or maybe not, because I've had a few more tests and now the Seleucids are getting murdered. I think the major reason for this is that I've since given them Bithynia. Is this acceptable? With them being rebels I find the Galatians go take it and then get bogged down trying to keep it from revolting and then very little else ever happens. Since I've given it to the Seleucids, the Galatians really do cause a riot in Asia minor. Pessinus is lost in a turn or two and a few more typically follow, whether the Galatians last long enough to form an empire or not depends on whether the Seleucids sends another army up there or not. Sometimes they'll get put down after a few years, at other times they'll take the majority of Asia minor and duke it out with Pontus. Either way, the distraction allows Parthia to flourish and for the Ptolemaic Empire to kick start the first Syrian war. I'm not sure how else to stop Galatia from mucking about with Bithynia - might try making an uber rebel garrison for it.

I'll see what I can do about that area. I'm also struggling to get Pyrrhus and the Romans to fight straight away - Publius' army still likes to bugger off and do their own thing leaving Publius himself right next to Pyrrhus and his huge army...

[Irenaeus]

You could also try having the Seleucid lands in Transoxiana and the areas near Parthia start with high unrest, no walls and hardly any infrastructure or population. This is what EB do to check the Seleucids, and even on Easy/Easy I lose a fair few of the eastern territories to the Parthians or rebellions.

[Carados]

Well I've managed to get this to happen:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think I'm getting there.
This is with an uber-garrison for Nicomedia and it has only recently fallen to Pontus. The greeks did start off with a few places around the black sea (to marginally boost trade in the area), I may have to cut back on some of those however. The Romans/Epirus/Gauls issue is currently wip so don't worry about all that green .

I'll go muck about with Transoxiana now, and also see if I can convince Bactria into doing something...

[Quinn Inuit]

I'll just leave Rhodes with a single unit of slingers for a garrison then? Or maybe not, because I've had a few more tests and now the Seleucids are getting murdered. I think the major reason for this is that I've since given them Bithynia. Is this acceptable? With them being rebels I find the Galatians go take it and then get bogged down trying to keep it from revolting and then very little else ever happens. Since I've given it to the Seleucids, the Galatians really do cause a riot in Asia minor.

Fascinating. I never thought of that.

Hmmm...I don't like the idea of giving the Seleucids Bithynia just because they didn't control it historically. OTOH, I hadn't realized that keeping control of Bithynia was what was hamstringing Galatia. That's extremely good to know.

*pauses* I'm an idiot. Bithynia is Thracian, but it starts with Greek culture, doesn't it? I totally missed that. Try changing the default culture tag to dacia in descr_regions, maybe give them a temple of some sort, and see if that helps. My guess that'll fix all of the problems.

Pessinus is lost in a turn or two and a few more typically follow, whether the Galatians last long enough to form an empire or not depends on whether the Seleucids sends another army up there or not. Sometimes they'll get put down after a few years, at other times they'll take the majority of Asia minor and duke it out with Pontus. Either way, the distraction allows Parthia to flourish and for the Ptolemaic Empire to kick start the first Syrian war. I'm not sure how else to stop Galatia from mucking about with Bithynia - might try making an uber rebel garrison for it.

I see. I do like the idea of the Seleucids needing to fight off the Galatians, though. Maybe we can even give the Seleucids another army, or more starting cash, so they can defend themselves more effectively.

I'll see what I can do about that area. I'm also struggling to get Pyrrhus and the Romans to fight straight away - Publius' army still likes to bugger off and do their own thing leaving Publius himself right next to Pyrrhus and his huge army...

That's odd. What does his army do? Attack the rebels in the north? Does Pyrrhus besiege Corfinium immediately, and does Rome control that area at the start?

You could also try having the Seleucid lands in Transoxiana and the areas near Parthia start with high unrest, no walls and hardly any infrastructure or population. This is what EB do to check the Seleucids, and even on Easy/Easy I lose a fair few of the eastern territories to the Parthians or rebellions.

This would've been my next step, too.

Well I've managed to get this to happen:

Nice work. I like the cut of Armenia's jib.

I think I'm getting there.
This is with an uber-garrison for Nicomedia and it has only recently fallen to Pontus. The greeks did start off with a few places around the black sea (to marginally boost trade in the area), I may have to cut back on some of those however. The Romans/Epirus/Gauls issue is currently wip so don't worry about all that green .

Interesting. How did Galatia react to the uber-garrison there? Did it totally confuse the AI, or did they find other stuff to plunder?

I recommend keeping the Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus together, either as rebel or Greek. Otherwise, your call.

Hmmm...I wonder if we could have a minor Hellennic states faction? Pergamum, Bosporus, Emporiae, Rhodes, Sinope, and Syracuse. I was going to do a Pergamum faction, anyway, and this might be cool. And it frees up one of the building tree slots in the Greek barracks, which I could use for a phalanx upgrade for Greece. (None of the others used Mac phalanxes AFAIK with the exception of Pergamum, and that could be explained quite well by giving them access to others' basic phalanxes, since that's basically what they did.) Then again, this might be the Vicodin talking.

I'll go muck about with Transoxiana now, and also see if I can convince Bactria into doing something...

Good luck. I can't tell if this is a line of sight issue or what. I tried cutting off the road from Alex/Cauc. to Alex/Arach. with some squares from another province and it screwed things up even more, so I don't think that's it. I thought I'd created a nice chain of cities down the Indus (and tributaries) for them to take, but it just didn't work out like that.

And I can't figure out why they won't take Samarkand even if it's rebel. Line of sight?

[Carados]

Fascinating. I never thought of that.

Hmmm...I don't like the idea of giving the Seleucids Bithynia just because they didn't control it historically. OTOH, I hadn't realized that keeping control of Bithynia was what was hamstringing Galatia. That's extremely good to know.

*pauses* I'm an idiot. Bithynia is Thracian, but it starts with Greek culture, doesn't it? I totally missed that. Try changing the default culture tag to dacia in descr_regions, maybe give them a temple of some sort, and see if that helps. My guess that'll fix all of the problems.

Interesting. How did Galatia react to the uber-garrison there? Did it totally confuse the AI, or did they find other stuff to plunder?

I changed it to an uber-garrison, it isn't right being in the hands of the Seleucids as you quite rightly say. How they reacted to it? Well, every faction close to it completely ignored it. They didn't try to attack it or anything except until a few turns before that screenshot. This might be interesting knowledge to have.

That's odd. What does his army do? Attack the rebels in the north? Does Pyrrhus besiege Corfinium immediately, and does Rome control that area at the start?

What I've done is moved Quintus so he was in between both Arretium and Arrimium. Publius was put one point below Pyrrhus, they are in Bruttium to the side of that narrow passage. Rome has Corfinum, Paestum and Rhegium. What the stupid Romans do though is have the whole army leave Publius and garrison Rhegium (I left Rhegium without a garrison, I'll quickly go put something there and see if that helps). Quintus ignores both of the Northern Cities and heads down to Campania. I don't know what is going on. Pyrrhus attacks Publius, forces him to retreat and errects a watchtower in Bruttium. After that he then attacks Rhegium and takes it a few turns later, Paestum and Corfinum usually get attacked sometime later. The Romans do usually win in the end mind but they take so long in doing it Gaul sometimes start to nibble away at them.

I recommend keeping the Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus together, either as rebel or Greek. Otherwise, your call.

Hmmm...I wonder if we could have a minor Hellennic states faction? Pergamum, Bosporus, Emporiae, Rhodes, Sinope, and Syracuse. I was going to do a Pergamum faction, anyway, and this might be cool. And it frees up one of the building tree slots in the Greek barracks, which I could use for a phalanx upgrade for Greece. (None of the others used Mac phalanxes AFAIK with the exception of Pergamum, and that could be explained quite well by giving them access to others' basic phalanxes, since that's basically what they did.) Then again, this might be the Vicodin talking.

I was actually going to propose we do this . Would solve the Greek/Ptolemaic/Rebel issue with a few places. Generates trade and would prevent some factions from getting too powerful. I fully support it .

Good luck. I can't tell if this is a line of sight issue or what. I tried cutting off the road from Alex/Cauc. to Alex/Arach. with some squares from another province and it screwed things up even more, so I don't think that's it. I thought I'd created a nice chain of cities down the Indus (and tributaries) for them to take, but it just didn't work out like that.

And I can't figure out why they won't take Samarkand even if it's rebel. Line of sight?

So I took away a few temples in the Transoxiana region -and- reduced the size of a garrison. Guess what?! The Sarmatians did several raids on Maracarda and Alexandria Eschate but, more crucially, Bactria started to expand!! Not only that but they actually became seriously powerful, taking all of immediate surrounding territories, they then went straight down the river Indus taking any and all Indian provinces and then started moving westwards taking the far eastern Seleucid settlements, before the Ptolemaic Empire finally kept them in check.

I'm thinking garrison strength is critical in determining whether a computer is likely to have a crack at taking it - regardless of it being a rebel city or not. I made the garrison for Phraaspa bigger a while ago and it usually delays the Seleucids from taking it, but take it they will. It isn't strong enough to deter them. With Nicomedia, not only did I double the size of the garrison, but I gave half of the units 4 experience points, and the other half 2 - it took more than 30 years before someone was strong enough to have a crack at it. I'm not sure which garrison I slightly reduced for the Saka rebels, but I suspect it was the closest to the Bactrians. This would have resulted in fewer casualties, and hence a stronger army for them to think about tackling other things. This would require more testing, naturally.

[Quinn Inuit]

I changed it to an uber-garrison, it isn't right being in the hands of the Seleucids as you quite rightly say. How they reacted to it? Well, every faction close to it completely ignored it. They didn't try to attack it or anything except until a few turns before that screenshot. This might be interesting knowledge to have.

Definitely, thanks.

What I've done is moved Quintus so he was in between both Arretium and Arrimium. Publius was put one point below Pyrrhus, they are in Bruttium to the side of that narrow passage. Rome has Corfinum, Paestum and Rhegium. What the stupid Romans do though is have the whole army leave Publius and garrison Rhegium (I left Rhegium without a garrison, I'll quickly go put something there and see if that helps). Quintus ignores both of the Northern Cities and heads down to Campania. I don't know what is going on. Pyrrhus attacks Publius, forces him to retreat and errects a watchtower in Bruttium. After that he then attacks Rhegium and takes it a few turns later, Paestum and Corfinum usually get attacked sometime later. The Romans do usually win in the end mind but they take so long in doing it Gaul sometimes start to nibble away at them.

Wow. The AI is bizarre. Try leaving Paestum rebel and cutting off Bruttium and Tarentum with a few squares of Corfinium. That might force Pyrrhus to stay in Corfinium, since the AI doesn't seem to like jumping provinces.

I was actually going to propose we do this . Would solve the Greek/Ptolemaic/Rebel issue with a few places. Generates trade and would prevent some factions from getting too powerful. I fully support it .

Awesome. I think I may go for that, then, unless we have some die-hard Pergamene people in here. Anyone have any comments on that?

So I took away a few temples in the Transoxiana region -and- reduced the size of a garrison. Guess what?! The Sarmatians did several raids on Maracarda and Alexandria Eschate but, more crucially, Bactria started to expand!! Not only that but they actually became seriously powerful, taking all of immediate surrounding territories, they then went straight down the river Indus taking any and all Indian provinces and then started moving westwards taking the far eastern Seleucid settlements, before the Ptolemaic Empire finally kept them in check.

Really? That's all it took? That's definitely interesting. So all you did was take away the temples in Transoxiana and reduce the garrison size? I'd already left that pretty low. FWIW, I cut the Indus garrisons substantially in late beta testing, but I guess it wasn't enough.

I'm thinking garrison strength is critical in determining whether a computer is likely to have a crack at taking it - regardless of it being a rebel city or not. I made the garrison for Phraaspa bigger a while ago and it usually delays the Seleucids from taking it, but take it they will. It isn't strong enough to deter them. With Nicomedia, not only did I double the size of the garrison, but I gave half of the units 4 experience points, and the other half 2 - it took more than 30 years before someone was strong enough to have a crack at it. I'm not sure which garrison I slightly reduced for the Saka rebels, but I suspect it was the closest to the Bactrians. This would have resulted in fewer casualties, and hence a stronger army for them to think about tackling other things. This would require more testing, naturally.

That makes sense. I guess the question, then, is how much we want to slow down the conquest of rebel areas. I'm not inclined to do so, but what does everyone think?

[Carados]

Really? That's all it took? That's definitely interesting. So all you did was take away the temples in Transoxiana and reduce the garrison size? I'd already left that pretty low. FWIW, I cut the Indus garrisons substantially in late beta testing, but I guess it wasn't enough.

I have seen Bactria and the Samartians take some provinces in that area before I started messing about with them but they were really hit and miss suggesting there was a very fine margin in the computers calculation. If what I say about garrison strength is true, then the random nature of autoresolve could mean that sometimes the remaining strength of the army is enough to push it into attempting to conquer something else, but at other times just puts it under that threshold and they won't do anything. Also, the Seleucid Empire would lose some troops during a riot and that would tempt the Sarmatians to have a stab at them.

That makes sense. I guess the question, then, is how much we want to slow down the conquest of rebel areas. I'm not inclined to do so, but what does everyone think?

I don't think slowing down the conquest is the right way to put it. I prefer to see it as manipulating the order of conquest, because the computer will attack those rebels eventually - but only if they are strong enough to do so. Super strong garrisons at Bylazora and Tylis, for example, would stay rebel for a long time because no one would have the power to attack them. As such, Macedon will take Phillipi and may decide Maronia/Byzantium are softer targets and go for them next. Because they are rebels though, the Dacians won't attack Macedon and vice versa. Probably a bad example because we want Dacia to do raids into Macedon, but it demonstrates what I mean.

Awesome. I think I may go for that, then, unless we have some die-hard Pergamene people in here. Anyone have any comments on that?

I think if anyone really wants to play as just Pergamon then they can easily ship the necessary units and have all the other cities revolt. We get the best of both worlds then.

I know it's a lot of work, but we could introduce a barbarian superfaction as well? The same applies for these as above, if they want to play as a specific barbarian group they can make all the others rebel.

And if we want to be even more radical... how abouts we introduce the Mauryan Empire as part of the Numidians to form a kind of psuedo-superfaction, and help Bactria by having them weaken some of those rebel garrisons and give them another target? Once again, if they want to just play as a single faction they can disband and make one half go rebel.

[Quinn Inuit]

I have seen Bactria and the Samartians take some provinces in that area before I started messing about with them but they were really hit and miss suggesting there was a very fine margin in the computers calculation. If what I say about garrison strength is true, then the random nature of autoresolve could mean that sometimes the remaining strength of the army is enough to push it into attempting to conquer something else, but at other times just puts it under that threshold and they won't do anything. Also, the Seleucid Empire would lose some troops during a riot and that would tempt the Sarmatians to have a stab at them.

I see. So I really was pretty close to the right balance, but wasn't quite there yet.

I don't think slowing down the conquest is the right way to put it. I prefer to see it as manipulating the order of conquest, because the computer will attack those rebels eventually - but only if they are strong enough to do so. Super strong garrisons at Bylazora and Tylis, for example, would stay rebel for a long time because no one would have the power to attack them. As such, Macedon will take Phillipi and may decide Maronia/Byzantium are softer targets and go for them next. Because they are rebels though, the Dacians won't attack Macedon and vice versa. Probably a bad example because we want Dacia to do raids into Macedon, but it demonstrates what I mean.

Agreed, although I think the Dacians may be strong enough now to face the Macs without help.

I'm not sold on the idea of a super-garrison at Nicomedia. I think I'd rather turn it into a barbarian city to start with, which will help the Galatians keep it under control (they did conquer it IRL pretty quickly). Maybe a super-garrison at Byzantium, though, to keep the Galatians in Asia Minor for awhile.

Any other super-garrison suggestions?

I think if anyone really wants to play as just Pergamon then they can easily ship the necessary units and have all the other cities revolt. We get the best of both worlds then.

Makes sense. That's what I'd do, or just force-diplo them off to the Greek Cities. Speaking of which, we should probably put Crete in there, too, and rename the main GC faction The Chremonidean League. Actually, scratch that. Take Elis, Athens, and Sparta _out_ of the GCs and give them the new faction. That way, we don't have to rename more than necessary.

Of course, I originally cut down the size of the GCs because it wasn't being very effective, but a nice money script should fix that problem. And the goal with a superfaction is more to give the player a challenge and a diplomatic opportunity than to actually make it competitive.

I know it's a lot of work, but we could introduce a barbarian superfaction as well? The same applies for these as above, if they want to play as a specific barbarian group they can make all the others rebel.

Already considering that. I was thinking it should be Celtic in nature and comprise the Belgae, Britons (using their faction slot), Lusitanni, Illyrians, Insubres, and Bastarnae. I know those aren't all Celtic, but they all historically had at least substantial Celtic influence, so I think that's good enough.

And if we want to be even more radical... how abouts we introduce the Mauryan Empire as part of the Numidians to form a kind of psuedo-superfaction, and help Bactria by having them weaken some of those rebel garrisons and give them another target? Once again, if they want to just play as a single faction they can disband and make one half go rebel.

I've thought about that a lot, especially given CC and Antonov's plans. However, I just can't see my way clear to making them a faction when they never really had expansionist goals in our map area. If we make them a faction, then theoretically at some point they're going to conquer a substantial fraction of the map, and I'd feel silly if people started talking about their epic Carthaginian-Mauryan battle at the gates of Jerusalem.

One more idea: I have a spare region sitting around right now (the one north of Denmark). I could easily add that to Ireland, put cliffs around the whole place and deep forest down the middle, then add each side to one of the superfactions. That way, they could never be killed off. Population growth would have to be kept artificially low, and recruitment there would have to be prevented so the AI didn't build huge armies it couldn't use.

[Carados]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well on the way now. Romans are still being a pain though

Point taken with Nicomedia, I've weakened the garrison now. I've already given Byzantion to the Greek Cities, didn't seem to have any serious effects on the local powers in the last couple of playtests.

Already considering that. I was thinking it should be Celtic in nature and comprise the Belgae, Britons (using their faction slot), Lusitanni, Illyrians, Insubres, and Bastarnae. I know those aren't all Celtic, but they all historically had at least substantial Celtic influence, so I think that's good enough.

Excellent
Should we start a new thread about the greek/barbarian superfactions (or ressurect one of the old ones)?? I'll let you get the ball rolling if you want.

I've thought about that a lot, especially given CC and Antonov's plans. However, I just can't see my way clear to making them a faction when they never really had expansionist goals in our map area. If we make them a faction, then theoretically at some point they're going to conquer a substantial fraction of the map, and I'd feel silly if people started talking about their epic Carthaginian-Mauryan battle at the gates of Jerusalem.

Fair enough. It was more an idea of trying to keep Bactria from getting way too powerful by making them fight for some of them. Incidently, since you mention Jerusalem - maybe we could introduce a few middle eastern "rebels" instead? I say this because the Ptolemaic Empire only have the Seleucids to worry about and hence take proper advantage of the situation and eventually grow enourmous - plenty of examples out there. If you could move Dhofar and move it to Ireland too (see below) we can then make them a persistant pest that they can't always ignore. Carthage won't be too affected by this becuase the culture is exactly the same, so revolts won't happen.

One more idea: I have a spare region sitting around right now (the one north of Denmark). I could easily add that to Ireland, put cliffs around the whole place and deep forest down the middle, then add each side to one of the superfactions. That way, they could never be killed off. Population growth would have to be kept artificially low, and recruitment there would have to be prevented so the AI didn't build huge armies it couldn't use

Sounds good to me. This is practically terra incognita, yeh? You could take a few of the peripheral provinces away and have them as areas for "tara" and "sveaby" freeing up some more regions for whatever else (What I mean is that e.g. the Aden area is given to one of these incognita regions, and Aden can then be used elsewhere). Er, how does this work with a human player? there won't be any problems in that regard?

EDIT:
I knew it!! Publius Cornelius Scipio was the problem! I put him in Rome, and created a new general (Publius Valerius Laevinus - who else?). Laevinus attacks Pyrrhus on the first turn, victory is mine!! huzzah!! We now have our own battle of Heracleia without the need for script .

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quintus comes down still, and then attacks Pyrrhus when he besieges Corfinium (usually turn 3). Rhegium is also typically lost to Pyrrhus too.

On a final note, look what Bactria have done .

[Quinn Inuit]

Well on the way now. Romans are still being a pain though

Lookin' good. They aren't ignoring India now, though, are they?

Point taken with Nicomedia, I've weakened the garrison now. I've already given Byzantion to the Greek Cities, didn't seem to have any serious effects on the local powers in the last couple of playtests.

Cool. They'd be a good superfaction addition, then.

Excellent
Should we start a new thread about the greek/barbarian superfactions (or ressurect one of the old ones)?? I'll let you get the ball rolling if you want.

Done. I thread-surrected something about that. It's not the best thread on the topic, but it's a good one, I found it quickly, and I love the title.

Fair enough. It was more an idea of trying to keep Bactria from getting way too powerful by making them fight for some of them. Incidently, since you mention Jerusalem - maybe we could introduce a few middle eastern "rebels" instead? I say this because the Ptolemaic Empire only have the Seleucids to worry about and hence take proper advantage of the situation and eventually grow enourmous - plenty of examples out there. If you could move Dhofar and move it to Ireland too (see below) we can then make them a persistant pest that they can't always ignore. Carthage won't be too affected by this becuase the culture is exactly the same, so revolts won't happen.

Do you mean have Dhofar revolt to the barb superfaction? That would be interesting. Constant Arab attacks and all that.

What I'd like to do is get the bloody southern map expansion to work and give Egypt a constantly revolting Syene to deal with, but I didn't have much luck with that. Maybe we should just give the Seleucids another starting army or something. I figure a well-balanced game is one in which the Seleucids beat on the Ptolies until they have to turn around to fight off Pontus, Armenia, and Parthia, while Bactria chops off the rich Transoxiana region and then wanders down the Indus.

Sounds good to me. This is practically terra incognita, yeh? You could take a few of the peripheral provinces away and have them as areas for "tara" and "sveaby" freeing up some more regions for whatever else (What I mean is that e.g. the Aden area is given to one of these incognita regions, and Aden can then be used elsewhere).

Oh, good point, that would save a couple of provinces from the outskirts.

Er, how does this work with a human player? there won't be any problems in that regard?

That might make them a little less playable for humans, true. I guess we'd have to put a caveat about that...or maybe just say they're for advanced players only and advise the player to force diplo their Tara area to the other superfaction.

I knew it!! Publius Cornelius Scipio was the problem! I put him in Rome, and created a new general (Publius Valerius Laevinus - who else?). Laevinus attacks Pyrrhus on the first turn, victory is mine!! huzzah!! We now have our own battle of Heracleia without the need for script .

Quintus comes down still, and then attacks Pyrrhus when he besieges Corfinium (usually turn 3). Rhegium is also typically lost to Pyrrhus too.

On a final note, look what Bactria have done .

Nice work! The AI must want to protect certain characters.

If it's all right, let me know when you're done, send me the changes, and I'll post them (along with a few bugfixes) as 3.5.2. Quinn_Inuitatyahoo.com I'll credit you as the patch author.

[Carados]

Lookin' good. They aren't ignoring India now, though, are they?

It's still a close thing over there. Sometimes the Seleucid holdings revolt early and let Bactria in, sometimes they stop them rebelling and Bactria go into India. India still seems to be a target regardless.

Do you mean have Dhofar revolt to the barb superfaction? That would be interesting. Constant Arab attacks and all that.

I actually meant Numidia because the culture -looks- the same, but revolting to the barbarian superfaction would achieve the same thing, if not more (won't tempt the Ptollies to ship troops over to West Africa).

What I'd like to do is get the bloody southern map expansion to work and give Egypt a constantly revolting Syene to deal with, but I didn't have much luck with that. Maybe we should just give the Seleucids another starting army or something. I figure a well-balanced game is one in which the Seleucids beat on the Ptolies until they have to turn around to fight off Pontus, Armenia, and Parthia, while Bactria chops off the rich Transoxiana region and then wanders down the Indus.

Perhaps Cyrene could revolt to the barbarian superfaction as well??
I'm thinking of moving the Seleucid armies around again to help with this, as well as adding another army. At the moment the Seleucids just get killed all the time and thats no good. By the way, are the Ptolemaic pezoi supposed to be better than the Seleucid gold shields??

If it's all right, let me know when you're done, send me the changes, and I'll post them (along with a few bugfixes) as 3.5.2. Quinn_Inuitatyahoo.com I'll credit you as the patch author.

Awesome. It should be done by the end of the weekend, if not the end of the day (but with me living in England that could equate to middle of the day for some ).


One last thing, I'm struggling to get Nicomedia to turn into a barbarian settlement, it always remains greek. I also noticed that Ancrya starts off with Roman buildings apparently. Where exactly is the file(s) located and do I have to change anything else outside of that file?

[Quinn Inuit]

It's still a close thing over there. Sometimes the Seleucid holdings revolt early and let Bactria in, sometimes they stop them rebelling and Bactria go into India. India still seems to be a target regardless.

Eh, good enough. Total predictability would be boring.

I actually meant Numidia because the culture -looks- the same, but revolting to the barbarian superfaction would achieve the same thing, if not more (won't tempt the Ptollies to ship troops over to West Africa).

Oh, I see what you meant now. Either of those would definitely work.

Perhaps Cyrene could revolt to the barbarian superfaction as well??
I'm thinking of moving the Seleucid armies around again to help with this, as well as adding another army. At the moment the Seleucids just get killed all the time and thats no good. By the way, are the Ptolemaic pezoi supposed to be better than the Seleucid gold shields??

Not Cyrene, Syene. It's a city in southern Egypt that could represent the native revolt potential. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the map extension that included it to work.

They are? They should have higher defense skill and better stat_heat, but be balanced by having substantially less armour.

Awesome. It should be done by the end of the weekend, if not the end of the day (but with me living in England that could equate to middle of the day for some ).

Cool, thanks. Would you mind including a changelog of at least the major changes so I've an idea what you've done? I have a general idea from this thread, but specifics will help, too.

One last thing, I'm struggling to get Nicomedia to turn into a barbarian settlement, it always remains greek. I also noticed that Ancrya starts off with Roman buildings apparently. Where exactly is the file(s) located and do I have to change anything else outside of that file?

Ancyra starts with Roman buildings? Oops. That's probably because the Galatians were originally a Roman faction.

Ok, set the faction creator of "Galatia" in descr_strat to romans_brutii, then set the faction creator of "Bithynia" to dacia, then go into descr_regions and change the word macedon to dacia. That should do the trick.

[Carados]

They are? They should have higher defense skill and better stat_heat, but be balanced by having substantially less armour.

Gold shields have defence values of: 4.17.3 total 24
Egyptian pezoi have defence values: 3.21.3 total 27

I'm not talking about the native egyptian or libyan phalangites, they are fine. Something doesn't quite seem right about the pezoi though, and they don't have substantially less armour either, mind you I haven't actually messed around with the Seleucid/Ptolemaic powers relative to one another so I don't know if they are equal in practice.

Ancyra starts with Roman buildings? Oops. That's probably because the Galatians were originally a Roman faction.

Ok, set the faction creator of "Galatia" in descr_strat to romans_brutii, then set the faction creator of "Bithynia" to dacia, then go into descr_regions and change the word macedon to dacia. That should do the trick.

Somehow it's worked with Bithnia, I gave up and didn't realise until a fair while later today that it had actually changed.

Ancrya still has Roman walls and farms, the rest are actually barbarian. Will muck some more and see what happens.

Other than that, it's just a case of getting some minor bits and pieces done .

[Quinn Inuit]

Ok, I've made a note to rebalance Ptolemaic phalangites. That definitely looks wrong.

Hmmm...I can't think of anything else that could be causing that to happen in Ancyra. Have you tried deleting map.rwm and starting a new campaign?

[Carados]

I tried that and it still didn't work. Sent you an e-mail with all the files so you can have a look at it yourself and see what I'm doing wrong. I've also left a little note about Bithynia in there too, doing my head in that place . Other than that though it -should- be ok .

I'll go read up on these superfactions now.

[Quinn Inuit]

Thanks! I'll check it out promptly. The real question now is, "Am I on too much Vicodin to mod?"