About too fast conqering nations by AI

[A_I]

Like all ppl we like and we are happy when AI is hard and agressive... but in other hand we don`t like when after 100 turns on map is left only few nations we can fight with. And till that time we don`t have even time to build strong our nation take reforms and compete with others.

Is possible too very hard to take a cities? for example

In real life in fight on walls etc... many ppl dies... enemy need to have big advantage in number to take a city witch is defending...

Maybe if we do smth like this...

1 stack defending need to be attack by 3 stacks of enemys too ahve chanse to take a city...

[BunnyPoopCereal]

Try Yukishiros Historical development submod. Note there are specific verisons for the faction you are playing.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=205887775

[Meneros]

We're beefing up Garrisons for 0.95, which should hopefully slow down AI expansion somewhat.

[Cope]

We're beefing up Garrisons for 0.95, which should hopefully slow down AI expansion somewhat.

Hopefully.

Every game I play on Divide et Impera always ends up with the vast majority of the factions being destroyed by the AI. The Suebi tend to sweep across the whole north east of the map, destroying everyone and becoming very powerful. Usually, there are 3 or 4 superpower factions (aside from the player) like this, who then go on to form World War I style block alliances which split the map in half. Normally the superpowers of the West ally together as do the superpowers of the East. Seems more likely that powerful nations adjacent to one another would fight rather than make alliances. It would be like if Carthage and Rome had allied to make a super block in the central Mediterranean instead of fighting each other. What happens then is that you get an ancient World War when you attack one of these superpowers because all their allies dog-pile you. Of course you can always circumvent this problem by simply joining someone else's war against them, but that's basically glitching. Shame that CA have no concept of third party politics.

The problem of 'relocation' still persists. By this I mean that factions become displaced way to often. For instance, I noticed in my latest game, Pergamon had captured the whole of the Middle East from Mesopotamia to Baktria. Interestingly they had no provinces in Greece, Asia Minor or anywhere else. The problem with this and the AI building massive Empires - aside from it looking kind of ridiculous - is that you are deprived the chance to fight against different culture types. There was no opportunity to test myself against the eastern horse archer factions because they had all been swallowed up by Greek hordes.

[Mithridates II the Great]

We're beefing up Garrisons for 0.95, which should hopefully slow down AI expansion somewhat.

Hi .

Is there an approximate date for 0.95 release ?

[Meneros]

Hi .

Is there an approximate date for 0.95 release ?

No, it'll be released when its ready. We've finished implementing almost all of the planned features for it, though, so we're beginning to enter the testing and polishing phase. How long this will take I cannot say. The 0.95 release holds more new things now than our 0.90 release, so it is likely that testing will take a while.

[Cavalier]

Until this is resolved, you'll just have to extern your influence and manage the world. If some nation close to you is becoming too powerful, and are sitting on 5+ cities, declare war on them and liberate the conquered faction(s). That way you can keep some nations from being all-powerful. By this method I've successfully kept the Suebi from conquering everything, same with Pontus, Galatia and all the others who tend to become too powerful.

Interestingly enough, Massalia became very powerful in my Roman Campaign, in which I had to extern some influence on them. I think I liberated like 10 factions from them before they slowed down.

This method tend to keep the world map somewhat balanced until late game.

[Cope]

Until this is resolved, you'll just have to extern your influence and manage the world. If some nation close to you is becoming too powerful, and are sitting on 5+ cities, declare war on them and liberate the conquered faction(s). That way you can keep some nations from being all-powerful. By this method I've successfully kept the Suebi from conquering everything, same with Pontus, Galatia and all the others who tend to become too powerful.

Interestingly enough, Massalia became very powerful in my Roman Campaign, in which I had to extern some influence on them. I think I liberated like 10 factions from them before they slowed down.

This method tend to keep the world map somewhat balanced until late game.

This is a viable solution under certain circumstances, however it certainly has some downsides and limitations.

- It is impossible to control factions which are out of your reach: if you play as Rome, for example, you cannot influence the east until it is too late. Likewise, if you played as Parthia, it would not be possible to stop the Suebi horde until the late game.

- When playing on the harder difficulties it is not always so simple to curb the expansions of an AI faction. Since on the harder settings, the AI virtually never agrees to peace, you will have to utterly destroy them or they will keep you occupied for the whole game.

- Liberated factions are not usually useful thanks to the poor diplomacy. First of all, they usually get you dragged into unwanted wars because they are stupid and decide to attack powerful neighbors. Secondly, they are easy targets for other AI factions.

I understand your position and the idea of playing the world police, but this game is not really good for it. The diplomacy is just far to limited for it to be beneficial. If I'm going to attack the Suebi, I might as well just take all their land for myself, it will serve me better in the long run. I thought the liberate mechanic in Napoleon was much much better because you could transfer settlements over to the liberated faction to maintain them. Ergo it was possible to build powerful nation states - such as Catalonia or Italy - to serve as allies. Since that is no longer possible, you really do have to babysit them loads. In any event, since they are liberated, and therefore not under your governance, you will just have to conquer them later to win anyway. I'm not going to empower a faction I later have to destroy. This could be fixed if a faction could be liberated and subjugated at the same time, as paradoxical as that sounds.

As I said before, because the third party politics in this game are virtually non existent, acting as a mediator between AI factions is virtually impossible. This is why client states are so pointless because you can't control them at all.

[Cavalier]

This is a viable solution under certain circumstances, however it certainly has some downsides and limitations.

- It is impossible to control factions which are out of your reach: if you play as Rome, for example, you cannot influence the east until it is too late. Likewise, if you played as Parthia, it would not be possible to stop the Suebi horde until the late game.

- When playing on the harder difficulties it is not always so simple to curb the expansions of an AI faction. Since on the harder settings, the AI virtually never agrees to peace, you will have to utterly destroy them or they will keep you occupied for the whole game.

- Liberated factions are not usually useful thanks to the poor diplomacy. First of all, they usually get you dragged into unwanted wars because they are stupid and decide to attack powerful neighbors. Secondly, they are easy targets for other AI factions.

I understand your position and the idea of playing the world police, but this game is not really good for it. The diplomacy is just far to limited for it to be beneficial. If I'm going to attack the Suebi, I might as well just take all their land for myself, it will serve me better in the long run. I thought the liberate mechanic in Napoleon was much much better because you could transfer settlements over to the liberated faction to maintain them. Ergo it was possible to build powerful nation states - such as Catalonia or Italy - to serve as allies. Since that is no longer possible, you really do have to babysit them loads. In any event, since they are liberated, and therefore not under your governance, you will just have to conquer them later to win anyway. I'm not going to empower a faction I later have to destroy. This could be fixed if a faction could be liberated and subjugated at the same time, as paradoxical as that sounds.

As I said before, because the third party politics in this game are virtually non existent, acting as a mediator between AI factions is virtually impossible. This is why client states are so pointless because you can't control them at all.

I'm playing on medium and while this method isn't perfect, it's working pretty well. But it'd be way easier if you could just swap territories through diplomacy, though.