AI inactivity against rebels

[4th Regiment]

I have noticed many people report AI inactivity against rebel settlements , even deep into the game and even with the latest version.

Why you guys simply do not ask Stainless Steel team for their solution of the problem. AI was very aggressive against rebels there , trying to first conquer near by rebels before going to war with some faction.

Although, there is war less rebel held territory in SS than in EB, it worked very well, and very quickly in the game most of the rebels settlements would be taken in SS

Now you still waste precious time and energy on this, while there are still bunch of other gameplay problems which need to be fixed which are unique for EB

[General WVPM]

Is this really a problem?
Imo it can be fun and realistic to see some rebels survive in places like north africa, gaul, brittania, germania and even krete.

[Hummer]

Is this really a problem?
Imo it can be fun and realistic to see some rebels survive in places like north africa, gaul, brittania, germania and even krete.

I completely agree. The rebels represent many smaller factions like the galations in Anatolia and the kingdom of Bythnia. They should be around for a little while. It's immersion breaking to see factions gobble up every single rebel province first and early. I've played some M/M play throughs and seen some rebel provinces at 200 turns. I like this. Good work zn3. edit: z3n.

I might give H/H a go. Is that the official recommended settings by the EB2 team?

[QuintusSertorius]

There's a balance, and while no aggression towards the Rebels is an extreme I don't enjoy, so is the AI factions ignoring each other until all the Rebels are gone, too. Sorry, but a game where all the Rebels go first, then factions address each other is just as dull as where they aren't touched. Thus I'll continue to let z3n do his thing learning more about what CA put in their code, yet chose not to implement.

What other, higher priority gameplay problems do you think need to be addressed? Bear in mind there is more than one person on the team, and we're looking at lots of things at once.

[z3n]

Indeed there are three ways of writing the code for that.

1) Making factions focus only on other factions
2) Making factions focus on both slave and other factions (our way)
3) Making factions focus only on rebels for first part of game (which in fact is creative assemblies way and SS)

The 2nd makes the most sense in my opinion.

[4th Regiment]

Thanks for kind answer.

First, I do not remember solution in SS was odd at all. Overall AI behavior (diplomacy as a prelude to war, included) was the "smartest" for all mods I have played. Factions did went to war and focused on each other, but also opportunistically conquered, easy picking rebel (smaller states in real life) factions.

What people experience in the EBII for now is that many factions are passive. So, why they are passive...my guess is because there is simply too much rebel held territory around and most of the factions can not focus on them as they are also looking to "focus" on other factions..and in many cases they do not even border one.


Why there is so much rebels at the first place is another story and discussion I gave up in beginnings of EBII, as team stubbornly sticked to old EBI map and factions. (back that when was mod was about to start, I have suggested that due to the gameplay and realism we should limit the map and kick out some factions from edge of the map. All suggestion were both historically and geographically based.

First I have suggested not to include any faction in Britain, no matter how some people think cool it is, as Britain was very edge of the world, and no organized bigger state was historically made there by the end of the mod time frame. Even when Romans moved out, it had dissolved to bunch of tribal small states again. For gameplay point of view , factions there are isolated on island, and player playing it will be sole "power" on island totally unchallenged to make British "empire" etc etc. And map itself should be cut in level on border with Scotland which would also cut Scandinavia and parts of norther Russia now included. Why..well..come on..should I explain it why..there was no people there and even in 21 st very very little compared to rest of the Europe.

Than, southern tip of Arabian peninsula is again to dam far away and isolated, especially in those days to be included on the map. Player there, will also have free will to expand unchallenged.

I mean, map edges should be made on geographically sane places. Arabian desert is very sane place to make a cut. If we cut it there, than of course India, and Indian faction is out. Why..well..border of the map should be in some natural place and not already in India...What is better place to make it on deserts of Baluchistan and Afghan and Hindukush mountains..I know, I know Alex made it trough..but it is more natural to put it there then already in India..why not include wholee India then..

Other two was optional - Sarmatians and whatever name is now for other far eastern horse archer culture. It is also geographically sparely populated region, no real "faction" ever emerged there but various short lasting confederation of tribes and again gameplay issue - I am experienced player and I consider EBII mod for serious players. Playing horse archer faction is cheating on steroids. No way can AI learn how to deal with player horse archer army and I routinely had heroic victories (on H or VH)

I have also suggested that instead of those factions and bit map shirking some nice scripting could be put in place where occasional full or multi stacks will pump out and challenge the player on those border regions...some powerful tribal leader emerged and asking tribute..if not in next turn you have multiple stacks in Gaul from invading Britons, or more often horse archer nomad army coming south..Or occasionally some ambitious Indian ruler crossing Hindukush with his elephant army trying to expand west..Also, especially steppe region will be by scripting or lot of wondering full stacks around, made very hard,if not impossible for non steppe faction to concur..which was also historical truth...And not in this game..

That would be much more fun and more challenging gameplay, as core of the map, which is historical would be more "dense" with lesser empty rebel space


Sorry for huge off topic...as it can not be changed now and map is for long time done deal

Anyway, this is killing gameplay if you ask me, as player is facing lot of easy picking rebels, even deeper into the game, as factions are not expanding. What other players are reporting is that rebels do not even renew their stacks and renew weakened garrisons (after failed siege for example), which is adding to the problem. Just by fixing this, will make it more historically accurate (as rebels will behave as real factions to renew their armies) and more challenging.

Thanks if you red it

[z3n]

Go here for more in depth information but I can say the latest versions of EBII (2.03 onwards) already have the problem solved.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...responsiveness

Here's a few screenshots

Turn 1
http://i.imgur.com/iesECdi.jpg

Turn 31/32
http://i.imgur.com/fYu5LAD.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/cFKd1sY.jpg

And in fact another screenshot of where things stand right now with what I'm testing
Turn 5 AI vs the player
http://i.imgur.com/dZEH86k.jpg


In regards to your other parts of your post about map etc, I believe you may just get your wish that the subcontinent of India will be featured, likely as an EBII submod. A friend and I have spoken about it and they are in fact interested in that after my enthusiastic remarks in regards to that.

[LusitanianWolf]

Have you tried playing the last version 2.03c in Hard/Very Hard campain mode?
Because in my Sweboz campain every single faction is expanding well and the Eleutheroi near my domains are recruiting new units and acting kind of like mini factions.

[General WVPM]

Have you tried playing the last version 2.03c in Hard/Very Hard campain mode?
Because in my Sweboz campain every single faction is expanding well and the Eleutheroi near my domains are recruiting new units and acting kind of like mini factions.

Same for me in my Koinon Hellenoi campaign, rome took south italy and part of sicily, the gauls took 3/4 of gaul and ptolemaioi conquered pergamon.
Also the seleucids are expanding pretty nicely.

(sorry if i wrote the faction names wrong)

[4th Regiment]

Thanks for the kind answers ans sorry, I was out of the mod and forum due to real life duties.

So, what is the recommendation for reality game play feeling than?

Hard/Very hard? I thought on very hard AI is very aggressive to the player and we are loosing much needed brake from Total war, let's attack human player feeling vanilla game have

What is an experience of other players on activity of AI against rebels?

And what is experience of rebels activity, are they aggressive against player, are they replenishing weekend garrisons after failed sieges? That was really lame in old EB

And question/suggestion I have explained in above post - what about idea about that active script which will mimic occasional rebel offensives (barbarian, nomad, Indian invasion and similar ), asking for tribute or attack will follow, which will keep player concerned about now very "secure borders" on the ages of the map like India, or facing big rebel nomads in steps, or barbarian tribes in central Europe, where no enemy attack can come now, while in real life was VERY different with occasional smaller or bigger attacks or invasions. This will add lot of flavor and make things more harder and realistic for the player

[Sylon]

Hard/Hard are the recommended difficulty settings.

[QuintusSertorius]

Hard campaign difficulty, yes. We're not in agreement over whether battle difficulty should be Medium or Hard.

[Sint]

We're not in agreement over whether battle difficulty should be Medium or Hard.

I always play on VH and I notice no difference compared to medium.

[QuintusSertorius]

I always play on VH and I notice no difference compared to medium.

I find the enemy have higher morale and die slower on Hard compared to Medium. Which makes battles where you outnumbered and using balanced armies impossible.

[Sylon]

I always play on VH and I notice no difference compared to medium.

Are you sure? I found the jump between H and VH battle difficulty quite big. On VH 2.03c, I fought a captain-led Seleukid stack as the Nabateans. The Seleukid force was significantly harder to rout, with their Phalangitai fighting even after half their unit had died, their Ioudaioi Taxeis fighting on despite being surrounded and down to ~20 men, etc. They had about 1 silver chevron on average, which might have made the difference, though.

[4th Regiment]

Battle difficulty was always minor issue to me. In almost all TW mods I have played, I have usually decreased moral by -2 for all units to get it bit closer to reality (still far away from it, as in real life, route in melae battles for most of the units would happen roughly at 10-15% casualties..unit still fighting after loosing more than half of the men, with route to escape was extremely extremely rare occasion.)

It is bit off main topic anyway

[QuintusSertorius]

Battle difficulty was always minor issue to me. In almost all TW mods I have played, I have usually decreased moral by -2 for all units to get it bit closer to reality (still far away from it, as in real life, route in melae battles for most of the units would happen roughly at 10-15% casualties..unit still fighting after loosing more than half of the men, with route to escape was extremely extremely rare occasion.)

It is bit off main topic anyway

If you do that to the EDU in 2.03e, you'll get mass-insta-routs with great regularity. That's not realistic at all.

[Sint]

I find the enemy have higher morale and die slower on Hard compared to Medium. Which makes battles where you outnumbered and using balanced armies impossible.

Honesty no I win battle after battle with outnumbered units using mass routs and I even tested it some time ago with ST 6.4 they die just as fast as with medium settings since they don't get stat boni like in Rome 1.

[4th Regiment]

Actually no instant routs, but this is off-topic anyway

So, it is not possible for rebels to replenish depleted garrisons?

No plans for scripting those rebel "invasions" as I suggested and explained above?

[V.T. Marvin]

So, it is not possible for rebels to replenish depleted garrisons?

They can as long as they have money for it...