Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[QuintusSertorius]

If it's something that can be changed (especially if it's just a number someone that determines the ratio) I'm not opposed to it in principle. Critical thing is I don't know how you'd do that - so if anyone does then it's certainly something we'd look into.

[Fabio_Scevola]

Hi.
About the teutonic system I had the same issue and then a different one. I have been playing with Aedui for 60 or so turns on version 2.04 and when my FL died the supposed to be next FH took the place as FL, because my FH was a low influence drunkard (but I had train him as a great warrior, and have some authority when he woult take command of the faction) he continued to be faction Heir and I had a Carnute FL (that's fine we are a democratic confederacy), but then as I got 8 provinces and just 4 characters my FH started to pick adoptions and all of them are Auedui (I have 3 of them now), but my older characters have more than 50 and no kids whatsoever (no other tribe younger characters) so I am concerned there will be just Aedui and no other tribe represented in 40 turns. As far as I remember the adopted characters are assigned to the older character until he gets 4 children and the the system goes to fill the next older character with 4 guys, etc...
So the proposal/question: Is it possible for the initial guys to have some children of their own (at least daughters) so not only the older characters gets adopted kids and that way have a more diverse confederacy? It is a shame to see the effort put in creating the tribal traits to be lost in the first generation...

[rovert]

Later AI army composition is about 75-90 % levies with no FM , if anything can be done about that to get to a 50-50 ratio.
Most armies in the Greece area no matter who you fight field 5-10 Psiloi 2 Thureporoi maybe 1-2 Hoplites & Skirmisher Cav.
Not exactly ideal for attacking cities yet that's what they do . Carthage & Rome along with the Iberian Area field pretty decent armies , actually most of the west for that matter but the east just becomes 90 % levies.

[QuintusSertorius]

Later AI army composition is about 75-90 % levies with no FM , if anything can be done about that to get to a 50-50 ratio.
Most armies in the Greece area no matter who you fight field 5-10 Psiloi 2 Thureporoi maybe 1-2 Hoplites & Skirmisher Cav.
Not exactly ideal for attacking cities yet that's what they do . Carthage & Rome along with the Iberian Area field pretty decent armies , actually most of the west for that matter but the east just becomes 90 % levies.

Is the AI mostly building Allied Governments? Because that would explain the ratio, especially if they never bother upgrading to the second tier.

It may also be a consequence of the new money script; if they're poorer they may splurge on levies when they have money. Though it shouldn't be overriding the recruit_priority_offset.

There is also the issue that most of the eastern roster is levies (apart from cavalry); we don't have units like Kardakes or Galatianised Infantry in the test build.

[rovert]

Is the AI mostly building Allied Governments? Because that would explain the ratio, especially if they never bother upgrading to the second tier.

It may also be a consequence of the new money script; if they're poorer they may splurge on levies when they have money. Though it shouldn't be overriding the recruit_priority_offset.

There is also the issue that most of the eastern roster is levies (apart from cavalry); we don't have units like Kardakes or Galatianised Infantry in the test build.

My guess would be the Governments , they almost always have Allied built when they take territory & from what ive seen there is alot more levies to come .

[Deinomenides]

As much as I would like to see another Hellenic faction (Syracuse, by preference), I would rather if you implemented the Etruscan faction. They were a fascinating people and fought much in the style of the Hellenes so the roster would be similar as the Hellenic one with some minor additions, such as the Etruscan chariots and axemen.

[Laser101]

Can we please get rid of the AI having infinite free money? It's unbalancing and leads to extremely unrealistic situations like a two province Saka being able to afford much larger armies than a much wealthier player-controlled Baktria.
Additionally, it means that they are able to spawn endless supplies of replacements regardless of their economic situation, which is incredibly unrealistic.

[QuintusSertorius]

Can we please get rid of the AI having infinite free money? It's unbalancing and leads to extremely unrealistic situations like a two province Saka being able to afford much larger armies than a much wealthier player-controlled Baktria.
Additionally, it means that they are able to spawn endless supplies of replacements regardless of their economic situation, which is incredibly unrealistic.

It doesn't have "infinite free money". It has:
1) Debt relief to push it back out of negative (when below -5k they get +8k)
2) A small kings purse bonus when they shrink below a certain size (topping at 3k a turn if they have only one settlement)
3) A "spring bonus" (ie every four turns) of 12k-25k - but only if they have less than a minimum number of settlements (usually 5).

There are limits to what we can do with the AI, it is hardcoded to prioritise recruitment above all else. That means it spends almost all the money it makes on recruiting and going into debt. The alternative is AI factions that go passive when they run out of money. That isn't an alternative - do you really want them doing nothing? That's pretty unrealistic too, with the added bonus of making for a dull game.

As for the Saka, for example, we don't have a good way of representing the fact that steppe peoples were self-sustaining for the most part. You can't make units have lower upkeep for some factions and not others.

[z3n]

It's unbalancing

I should point out that every single mod out there that I've ever played (even in RTW) has something like this implemented simply because it is in fact balancing rather than unbalancing. EBII's is actually pretty gentle compared to some I've seen which feature continuous help no matter the circumstance.

There is literally nothing we can do in regards to the AI and how it interacts with its financial state, all of that is hardcoded behaviour except for a few 'minor' changes to its personality i.e. what building types it prioritizes over others and even then that often gets overridden by unit recruitment priorities and an inability to handle or control debt. Keep in mind the AI just like you starts off in debt often, and since it won't ever disband its units etc etc... It will simply drop straight into endless debt while choosing to defend its cities and never really take opportunity to expand.

[Laser101]

It doesn't have "infinite free money". It has:
1) Debt relief to push it back out of negative (when below -5k they get +8k)
2) A small kings purse bonus when they shrink below a certain size (topping at 3k a turn if they have only one settlement)
3) A "spring bonus" (ie every four turns) of 12k-25k - but only if they have less than a minimum number of settlements (usually 5).

There are limits to what we can do with the AI, it is hardcoded to prioritise recruitment above all else. That means it spends almost all the money it makes on recruiting and going into debt. The alternative is AI factions that go passive when they run out of money. That isn't an alternative - do you really want them doing nothing? That's pretty unrealistic too, with the added bonus of making for a dull game.

As for the Saka, for example, we don't have a good way of representing the fact that steppe peoples were self-sustaining for the most part. You can't make units have lower upkeep for some factions and not others.

The problem with this is that it means that AI factions can recruit a large group of units every year and never have any issues with maintenance, regardless of their economic state. It also means that they can easily replace their entire army immediately after it is completely wiped out. This makes battles rather unrealistically pointless.
My specific issue is with AI factions being able to afford multiple full stacks in situations where a player would be unable to afford any. This breaks game balance.
The nomadic and barbarian factions should probably get a large number of free-upkeep units in settlements/camps to represent that their troops are not consuming supplies while not on campaign.

[CenturionMarius]

The problem with this is that it means that AI factions can recruit a large group of units every year and never have any issues with maintenance, regardless of their economic state. It also means that they can easily replace their entire army immediately after it is completely wiped out. This makes battles rather unrealistically pointless.
My specific issue is with AI factions being able to afford multiple full stacks in situations where a player would be unable to afford any. This breaks game balance.
The nomadic and barbarian factions should probably get a large number of free-upkeep units in settlements/camps to represent that their troops are not consuming supplies while not on campaign.

I have to disagree on that, according to my latest play in 2.05c the AI does recruit massive armies but if those stacks were destroyed within the first 12-30 turns, depending on the units replenishment rate, the AI would field fewer and fewer armies. Although they have income their manpower certainly isn't unlimited. It is true that due to this small factions can maintain relatively large armies but once they are defeated it will be hard for them to recover the losses and in the mean time you still could recover your monetary losses due to the campaign. Battles become frequent yes, but not pointless. Utilizing strategical points to block enemy advances and unit preservation breaks those AI advantages.

[QuintusSertorius]

The problem with this is that it means that AI factions can recruit a large group of units every year and never have any issues with maintenance, regardless of their economic state. It also means that they can easily replace their entire army immediately after it is completely wiped out. This makes battles rather unrealistically pointless.
My specific issue is with AI factions being able to afford multiple full stacks in situations where a player would be unable to afford any. This breaks game balance.
The nomadic and barbarian factions should probably get a large number of free-upkeep units in settlements/camps to represent that their troops are not consuming supplies while not on campaign.

As CenturionMarius said, the caps on unit refresh are the same for player and AI, unless the AI has lots of settlements (and even then it's constrained) they don't have unlimited manpower, even if they never go bankrupt. Furthermore, most of the slots to recruit are available in winter, and they don't have lots of money til spring (that's deliberate). The mercenary pools are similarly constrained in size and refresh, no matter how much money you have, there are no infinite sources of troops.

We are not going to get away from the AI being able to afford units in situations where the player cannot. There is no way around that besides letting the AI go into debt, which is it unable to manage its way out of. The AI has no economic management skills whatsoever, no matter what AI "personality" you choose every single one of them will bankrupt itself by spending every penny it has on recruiting units, as long as it has units available.

As for your last point, the AI never stations it's units in its settlements, so free upkeep slots are largely irrelevant.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

If attainable, one idea that might be interesting is the follow: only a blockade by land and sea would starve a coastal city. It would enhance the importance of the navy and would in accordance to the EB team guide lines.

Thx

[QuintusSertorius]

If attainable, one idea that might be interesting is the follow: only a blockade by land and sea would starve a coastal city. It would enhance the importance of the navy and would in accordance to the EB team guide lines.

Thx

If it's technically possible in the M2TW engine, I'd be in favour. Though it is something that would benefit the player since the chances of the AI properly co-ordinating navies and armies is slim.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

If it's technically possible in the M2TW engine, I'd be in favour. Though it is something that would benefit the player since the chances of the AI properly co-ordinating navies and armies is slim.

I agree, this is why i believe the AI should be exempt from coordinating in such a fashion...

Thx

[V.T. Marvin]

Unfortunately this is AFAIK not something we can in any way track in the script, therefore alas impossible on M2TW:K engine.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Unfortunately this is AFAIK not something we can in any way track in the script, therefore alas impossible on M2TW:K engine.

That's unfortunate. Very well, house rules it is . Thank you V.T. Marvin

[Laser101]

As CenturionMarius said, the caps on unit refresh are the same for player and AI, unless the AI has lots of settlements (and even then it's constrained) they don't have unlimited manpower, even if they never go bankrupt. Furthermore, most of the slots to recruit are available in winter, and they don't have lots of money til spring (that's deliberate). The mercenary pools are similarly constrained in size and refresh, no matter how much money you have, there are no infinite sources of troops.

We are not going to get away from the AI being able to afford units in situations where the player cannot. There is no way around that besides letting the AI go into debt, which is it unable to manage its way out of. The AI has no economic management skills whatsoever, no matter what AI "personality" you choose every single one of them will bankrupt itself by spending every penny it has on recruiting units, as long as it has units available.

As for your last point, the AI never stations it's units in its settlements, so free upkeep slots are largely irrelevant.

My main problem is with the issue that I frequently see AI factions with only one or two provinces who nevertheless have several full stacks of troops. The reason why this is an issue is that it leads to 1-2 province factions having larger armies than the Seleukids, Rome or Carthage, which doesn't make sense. The other point is that they never seem to do anything with them; e.g. I frequently see Makedonia lose its southern provinces to KH, yet not bother trying to retake them despite having a huge army sitting around near Pella. However, this is probably an inherent AI behaviour problem...

[Minrog]

two province Saka being able to afford much larger armies than a much wealthier player-controlled Baktria.

Saka was sending more troops against me when I was Baktria than any other AI opponent I played against. Pahlava, even though they only had 2 and then 3/4 cities, never produced the sort of military power that Saka did.

I think rather than looking at the overall AI scripts for small powers that it might be worth looking at Saka specifically because they were much harder to fight than anyone else. I had to routinely kill half and full stacks every few turns against them even when i knocked them back down to the two cities they start with. I actually assumed when playing that Saka was getting a special bonus due to the fact that human controlled Baktrians have been known to rush them down so as not to deal with the horse archers. With the horse archers being better in EB II I can only assume the motivation to erase Saka is higher than in previous EB.

[QuintusSertorius]

My main problem is with the issue that I frequently see AI factions with only one or two provinces who nevertheless have several full stacks of troops. The reason why this is an issue is that it leads to 1-2 province factions having larger armies than the Seleukids, Rome or Carthage, which doesn't make sense. The other point is that they never seem to do anything with them; e.g. I frequently see Makedonia lose its southern provinces to KH, yet not bother trying to retake them despite having a huge army sitting around near Pella. However, this is probably an inherent AI behaviour problem...

The only reason those 1-2 province factions have larger armies is because they're not using them. Bigger factions have much higher recruitment capabilities, but if they're using their armies then they'll use up units and have to recruit more.

Not using it's armies properly is a CAI issue which is ever-evolving.

Saka was sending more troops against me when I was Baktria than any other AI opponent I played against. Pahlava, even though they only had 2 and then 3/4 cities, never produced the sort of military power that Saka did.

I think rather than looking at the overall AI scripts for small powers that it might be worth looking at Saka specifically because they were much harder to fight than anyone else. I had to routinely kill half and full stacks every few turns against them even when i knocked them back down to the two cities they start with. I actually assumed when playing that Saka was getting a special bonus due to the fact that human controlled Baktrians have been known to rush them down so as not to deal with the horse archers. With the horse archers being better in EB II I can only assume the motivation to erase Saka is higher than in previous EB.

Saka has no special bonuses. They start with a Royal Clan building, which has six recruitment slots. But so do lots of other top-tier government buildings that other factions start with.