Europa Barbarorum 2.08e is released!

[Hummer]

The rank of most advanced economy counts money surplus, so if you lose two stacks of troops on one turn, you can sweep ahead of Rome and Seleucids in an instant. Others make sense.

Too bad it wasn't sophisticated enough to keep a rolling average of the last 10 turns. Or is it? I assume that's hard coded M2TW. I regularly don't construct anything, then recruit a ton of troops in winter and spend a lot of my money in one turn so the advanced nation clip pops up 2 turns in a row as it goes from one nation back to mine. It would be better if it kept a rolling average.

[QuintusSertorius]

Our current thinking is to re-assign Indian Tribal (rel_i), and re-base Taksashila around Eastern Imperial (rel_c), which would make it the only faction that starts with that "religion" (lots convert to it, but start with something else).

We'd then re-name ETS to North European Tribal and Indian Tribal to South European Tribal. Celtiberia, the Balkans (Thracians, Getai, not Illyrians) and parts of Anatolia become rel_i, as do Arevaci and Getai.

[parthian8]

Cohors Evocta,

Thank you for your very thoughtful response to my earlier points.
I am very much on the side of historicity. I obviously don't not wish the game to be deterministic in the sense of trying to ape the historical timeline to perfection, and there is plenty of room for what ifs.
However, neither do I want a game with an equally deterministic alternative timeline based on other preferences and assumptions.
For example, it seems to me strange with regard to Pyrrhus to argue that a series of events that did happen historically are somehow vastly more implausible than an outcome that didn't happen. You cannot simply say Makedon deserved to die in the state it was in at the time therefore it SHOULD die, and that no-one should mind because that's what you think.
This is the danger with trying to recreate a "what-if?" scenario based on the possible alternative career of a dead man. It seems to me totally at odds with what I have always believed to be the modus operandi of the EB project.
Everyone is reporting the Makedon is dying early, and I agree with Quintus that this represents a failure. The devs have every right to produce the game they want. It will be a slightly solipsistic process ( a Pyrrhic victory of sorts) if it leads to people abandoning the game.

No-one argued when I stated that Liguria and Massalia should not be an early game grab for the Romans. So it is again odd that no-one on the devs side particularly minds if they are an early game grab for the Arevaci. All the historical arguments about how the provinces should be balanced in there "free" state pale to nothing if they are a docile, under-garrisoned adjunct to the Arevaci Empire by 260BC.
As I have said before, the game is behaving like a struggle between rival religions rather than between rival empires. When the Arevaci seize southern France, the lightly garrisoned Arverni towns across the border look the other way in a spirit of "It's okay lads, we are all Celts together, eh?"
I love that Cisalapine Gaul has been made a tough buffer zone for the Romans. I like the way any Latin meddling in Venetia is likely to bring a Boii army down the Brenner Pass.
The Arevaci seize the province and the Boii are offering them a piggy back on to Tylis.
There are problems here. Suggestions like the one that the Balkans are Celtic "after a fashion" don't suggest everything is being thought through with such a rigorous eye to historicity.
I wonder, for example, what sort distance to capital penalties apply Arevaci to conquests on the edge of the Steppes?
My interest is in preventing the game turning into a joyless mid-game slog between empires that are no-where near where they should be on the map, with vast tracts of land far away from the armies of the occupying power simply behaving as though nothing has changed. At the moment that process gets underway around turn 20.
I would like to see an explanation of why it is Samson's ideas to make those unaligned pockets last longer and be more rebellious when overrun won't work.

[QuintusSertorius]

Actually, the most recent issue behind the Arevaci's sudden rush into France is the more mobile Rebels. I've repeatedly seen the armies near Edeta, Emporion and Massalia wander off and leave the garrison there by themselves, making Arevaci expansion much easier. The issue is not the level of Rebel resistance there, but that it doesn't stay put.

[parthian8]

Quintus,

Is there not an argument for redrawing the map of the Balkans slightly and creating a Hellenistic state like the Odrysian Kingdom with one of the spare slots? Its lifespan covered the period of the game, and while it is true Getic-Dacian cultures, plus tribes like the Scordisi could by well covered by a second Eastern Tribal faction, the area south east of the Danube was not "more or less" Celtic. The OK was unstable with lots of rebellions, so there is plenty of room for debatable lands lying between a Hellenistic faction with strong Celtic elements to control and a more north westerly Getic faction with an eye set on those territories.
Converting Indian Tribal to a new Southern Tribal bloc is fine, but it still creates a potential belt of Celtic lebensraum stretching from the tip of Spain to the Dardenelles. If the aim is still to create an a priori pan-European Celtic cultural bloc, I'd rather things stay the way they are.

[delra]

Maybe Scordisci would stop Rome from pouring into the Balkans through Pannonia...

Also, I'd bump rebels everywhere to the Cisalpine levels. Full stack in each city, maybe even a garrison script. Let independents breathe and live longer. :-(

[QuintusSertorius]

The distribution of South Tribal prevents any easy pan-European Celtic bloc you suggest, since it will only exist in northern Europe (and Galatia). Spain and the Balkans aren't North Tribal, the Arevaci and Getai will no longer share a culture with that Celtic bloc, that problem is averted.

We're redrawing the northern part of the Balkans anyway, because it's current layout doesn't make any sense. There's no plan for an Odrysai Kingdom faction, though.

Also, I'd bump rebels everywhere to the Cisalpine levels. Full stack in each city, maybe even a garrison script. Let independents breathe and live longer. :-(

We did that with a earlier version of 2.02, and it paralysed the AI factions. Everyone complained about how little the map changed as a result. Raising garrisons makes for tedious sieges, adding new armies led by FMs is a much better solution to increasing difficulty, as long as they don't wander off as they currently do.

We're not going to a garrison script, that's been pretty categorically ruled out.

[parthian8]

Quintus

My fear is that under the cultural system this entire southern tribal area will be dominated by the Arevaci. That is not based on a wild guess, but on the way the Arevaci already expand through a meek Cisalpine Gaul and into the Balkans.
The solution to the complaints about Makedon being wiped out led to alterations in which KH was by far the major beneficiary. By sorting out its problems with Krete, it altered the city balance even further in its favour, and led to reinforcements from Krete making it even harder for Makedon to hold Demetrius and Korinthos. The net effect being the Makedon is being crushed earlier still.
So you see, I am wary of "solutions" that appear to make the status quo yet more set in concrete.

[QuintusSertorius]

Quintus

My fear is that under the cultural system this entire southern tribal area will be dominated by the Arevaci. That is not based on a wild guess, but on the way the Arevaci already expand through a meek Cisalpine Gaul and into the Balkans.
The solution to the complaints about Makedon being wiped out led to alterations in which KH was by far the major beneficiary. By sorting out its problems with Krete, it altered the city balance even further in its favour, and led to reinforcements from Krete making it even harder for Makedon to hold Demetrius and Korinthos. The net effect being the Makedon is being crushed earlier still.
So you see, I am wary of "solutions" that appear to make the status quo yet more set in concrete.

They're going to have a hard time doing that when their path to the next bloc of South Tribal - the Balkans, is filled with North Tribal provinces that will clash with their own culture.

Again, a bigger problem with the Arevaci is the tendency of the Rebel armies in their path (and there are a lot of them - Edeta, Emporion, Tolosa, Massalia, Segesta, Felsina, Patavium) to abandon the province they're supposed to be protecting, which should hopefully now be fixed with an alteration of their priorities.

[parthian8]

I hadn't actually reported the increased aggression of the rebel AI stacks in these areas that I noticed in the last Romani game I played.
The stacks in Edeta, Emporian and Massalia all got themselves wiped out prosecuting foreign wars.
For the first time, three stacks from Patavium and Felsina entered Umbria and eventually besieged Ariminum and laid waste to Apulia. In this time Segesta fell to the Arevaci, who then took Patavium before ending up in Tylis. Segesta and Patavium were left defended by one unit each. and remained green. The AI rebel armies now in Italy made no effort to return.
I can see how the changes you envisage may work, and welcome them.

[adun12345]

Also, I'd bump rebels everywhere to the Cisalpine levels. Full stack in each city, maybe even a garrison script. Let independents breathe and live longer. :-(

We did that with a earlier version of 2.02, and it paralysed the AI factions. Everyone complained about how little the map changed as a result. Raising garrisons makes for tedious sieges, adding new armies led by FMs is a much better solution to increasing difficulty, as long as they don't wander off as they currently do.

We're not going to a garrison script, that's been pretty categorically ruled out.

Honestly, AI factions that expand super-slowly sounds desirable to me, but I guess to each his own.

Once the level of mobile rebel armies is set, however, the team should consider their balancing impact on player-controlled factions. I am currently working on a Sweboz playthrough (about which I will have more to say later), but one of the biggest issues was that on Turn 3, the player Sweboz's starting province is devastated down to zero income by four full rebel stacks. Fighting and destroying those stacks one after another with my starting army was a lot of fun; sitting and waiting 20 turns to get out of the red was not.

I understand that that level of rebel army is necessary to constrain the AI's expansion; however, the AI doesn't have to worry about devastation effects in the way that the player does. It is one thing for a Roman player to have some devastation on two of their four starting provinces, especially since they can expand rapidly to the south to gain further income. For some of the single-region starting factions, however, the level of devastation may be too high for the player to deal with in the early turns.

[z3n]

2.02 had AI stagnation which is completely undesirable by everyone.

[adun12345]

2.02 had AI stagnation which is completely undesirable by everyone.

Having not played 2.02, I'll have to take your word for it. Obviously, the AI standing still and never moving is simply poor gameplay, and in no way desirable. That said, as it stands the AI expands very rapidly in historical terms.

I do I think that it comes down to preference at a certain level. A game with four turns a year where factions expand "historically" is going to be very, very slow. Historically, it took the Romans ~92 Turns to conquer Sicily (lol n00bs ). The subsequent conquest of Cisapline Gaul would have occurred between Turn 180 (Telamon) and Turn 360 (Placentia/Mutina). That is really slow in game terms. Some people (like me) enjoy a slower game; others prefer a faster one. While no one wants total stagnation, there is a large margin within which reasonable people can disagree concerning speed of AI expansion.

[delra]

Divide and Conquer has certain factions (like the Elves) deliberately stay on the defensive for the most of the game. So rather than pouring all over surrounding areas with their elite units, they just focus on keeping what they start with, while other AIs have very tough time dealing with them, mostly get chased away or leave on their own not wanting to storm a city with a full stack of elven units defending it. Wouldn't this be desirable for KH, Bosporans, Baktra AI?

[z3n]

Not particularly, I do not see the need or reason for that. With the seleukids it was necessary to nerf their CAI to slow down 'grey death' but I can't see a reason to do so to any others at present.

[adun12345]

I should also add that I think the way the team seems to be approaching the issue, by working on longer-term solutions like culture, rebellions, faction balancing, etc., will probably lead to a more fun and dynamic campaign experience than simply boosting every rebel settlement at the beginning of the game. There are still plenty of options available to keep the campaign fluid into the endgame. Keep up the good work!

[Samson224]

Few notes, and some data from my Pritanoi H/M Campaign (2.04a) after 160 turns (MAPS & EVENTS):

-Something shortly about factions: Macedonia pulled the shortest straw again. Well, Rome is still Rome. There's no divide in their strategy, just plain and straightforward conquer. Nice to see Sakas still fighting and kicking against Baktria for a change. Arverni decided to block the wrong port, and the red beast annihilated them. It took a long time for Carthaginians to deliver the "final" blow on the Numidians. Perhaps they didn't want to unleash the horde...

-At first, I thought there might be more truces between AI factions, but it has been just the opposite. Only 3 truces have been made, and two of those in the very beginning, and only one faction has accepted vassal state status. It seems that the wars will be long and fought to the bitter end...not very good in my opinion.

-There's currently 28 wars being fought by 22 factions (avg 2.5 enemies per faction), 4 factions are peaceful atm, and 2 has been wiped out. In the beginning of this campaign, I felt that the AI factions were waging their wars against other factions slower than before (against the eleutheroi they acted fast and decisive), and there was long calm periods in the wars, but after most of the "free" regions were conquered, the rythm of the wars has been much faster.

-As well known, the increased naval activity is a double edged sword. I like the fact that there's more naval invasions (example: Ptolemies conquered Syracusa...couldn't keep it though), but on the other hand there's those nonsensical port blockades (at least 5 in this campaign), which cause endless wars (no ceasefires) between distant factions. I haven't yet decided if it's the pros or the cons that weight more in this matter.

-There has been 16 civil revolts so far, and 3 of them caused war between factions. Table:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(Turn - City - From - To - owner/creator faction) caused WAR
4 Margiane AS ELE PAH
19 Tarsos AS ELE PON
28 Tylis MAK ELE GET
35 Tarentum ROM EPE EPE
51 Side AS ELE PER
59 Kyrene QH PTO PTO
67 Tarentum ROM EPE EPE
68 Kutatisi SAU HAY HAY
79 Alexandropolis TAK AS AS
84 Marakanda BAK ELE PAH
86 Prophthasia TAK AS AS
102 Massalia ROM KH KH
129 Lixus QH ELE MAS
148 Patavium ROM ARV AED
148 Mleiha SAB ELE SAB
153 Kondate ROM ELE AED

- The Patavium revolt was an interesting incident (at least for me ), because the city didn't rebel to the owner/creator-faction or to the eleutheroi, but insted to the Arverni. Aedui were vassals of Rome when it happened, so that explans why they didn't get the province, but why Arverni instead of eleutheroi? Can't answer that...yet.

- Like I said in my last feedback post, the Pritanoi campaign start was nicely challenging, because all the "mobile" rebels came to spread devastation near my borders, but after I got rid of them it's been very quiet on the island. Altough I'm expanding slowly, the mines keep grinding loads of money, and without real threat it's easy to collect hundreds of thousands of mnais. Still, I don't think I'll get to the 1,5 million like someone else had...

There's my brass obols this time.

[Sylon]

Thanks for the feedback.

Could revolts be tied to the culture of the city? Or, in this case, the city walls building? Kyrene starts out as East Greek, Ankara starts out as 'Barbarian', and Kutatisi starts out as Eastern, thus matching the culture of their defined faction_owners. Tarsos starts out as Eastern Greek, but Pontos, its faction_owner, is Eastern, thus it does not revolt to Pontos.

Not sure if it this is correct, but it's something to consider.

[z3n]

It might be based on a combination of factors, or even based on in game events. For example to prevent factions from resurrecting (which would be great/interesting) it might be tied to a) culture and b) which faction is viable/closest (not a vassal and near the borders) but also prefer its faction creator if things fall into line

[Samson224]

Thanks for the feedback.

Could revolts be tied to the culture of the city? Or, in this case, the city walls building? Kyrene starts out as East Greek, Ankara starts out as 'Barbarian', and Kutatisi starts out as Eastern, thus matching the culture of their defined faction_owners. Tarsos starts out as Eastern Greek, but Pontos, its faction_owner, is Eastern, thus it does not revolt to Pontos.

Not sure if it this is correct, but it's something to consider.

Well, it indeed was something to consider! After a few tests, I'm pretty sure the culture of the wall building plays a part in civil revolts. In my current campaign I was pondering why Tylis didn't rebel from Macedonia to the Getai (creator faction), but instead to the eleutheroi. I loaded the old save and noticed the Macedonians had build the wooden wall in Tylis, and the building was now of western greek culture (the original wall was of Barbaric culture). Then I tested with the Macedonians what would happen if the wall wasn't upgraded. I captured Tylis quickly, let it revolt and voila! Getai took the city under their wings. Just as it should go. I cheked more wall buildings of cites that had rebelled in my campaigns, and few other cases were also solved.

My current theory is that these two factors play major part in civil revolts:

1.) Relations between the current owner of rebelling city, and the province's creator-faction: (allied/vassal - neutral - war)
2.) Culture of province's creator-faction, and the culture of the wall building of the rebelling city. (This culture is not to be confused with the "religion-culture" used in EBII).

These rules seem to work in most situations:

- If the factions are allied, or the other one is vassal, the rebelling province goes to the slave faction.

- If the factions are neutral, or at war, & the creator-faction and the wall building have same culture, the province goes to the creator faction.

- If the factions are neutral, or at war, & the creator-faction and the wall building don't have same culture, the province goes to the slave faction.

edit. Of course if the creator faction has been eliminated, the province goes to the slave faction.

There are some exceptions and other factors too, especially when the factions are at war, but this is a good foundation to build on. Big thanks for you Sylon!!!