Radically improved game experience(IdillaMZ Submod)

[Piterx93]

You can't play it because the creators are rude.

[moisesjns]

You can't play it because the creators are rude.

All im gonna say. Is there is no need to be rude. The EB 2 team has their vision of the game. And others have their own. Thats why this is a SUB mod. of a Mod. A mod that was created for free, just like the creator here made this for free for us. If he does not like Eb2 team version of the game, Ok thats fine we have his mod now. And we should be grateful to EB team for even having created the mod for us to further modify in the first place.

If i could have the Starting Rebels, with the AI of this mod. I honestly would play that. So when the New version of EB comes out, Im hoping Mod creator can at least give it a TRY. Maybe his AI, and the new Rebels along with the new EB changes will be even better than this current version.

[AnthoniusII]

As an old modder and researcher for mods for more than 10 years allow me to point my opinion.
I personally do not like submods with titles "better AI " or "Better ballanced units" or "radically imroved game expirience".
Not because i doupt the skills of the modders or the quality of their work but because EACH MODDING TEAM when starts to create a mod has a spesific point of view of how their mod should opperate.
As "opperate" we can include event scripts, aggresive or passive AI , certain stats for unique units etc. Each team SHARES a dream and is a huge step when they agree on the basics.
Has anyone ever wonder why this creators team made the mod that way? What they were trying to show with their work?
Even in Third Age Total War mod the hundreds of submods made the game worst from the initial prospective the original creators had for their masterpiece.
I would sugest to avoid such titles.
It would be better a title "my way of how this mod should be played". That way it would be not insulting to original creators that spent years of their personal lives to allow us have this masterpiece.
Just my thoughts. I do not intend to insult anyone.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Each modder may share a dream, but for a pointless commentator of a decade less membership's opinion, not every dream includes balance, AI, or necessarily the experience at particular stages as a priority. It's not my favorite wording, but philosophically, there is a niche to 'improve' upon the essence of a mod designed by a modder - they may only focus/care on the model and battle aspects, the sheer novelty of importing a context, a particular way of playing paired with the rest; and while a modder is very individual in their dreams, they release to a wider audience, and there is merit to identifying what is better design for the wider audience than for something that appeals to a more limited niche.

Still, 'better' and even 'improved' is very subjective, even if one can objectively approach AI behavior - there is no 'best possible ai' in medieval 2, and if a mod doesn't devote considerable time to the subject, they'll be even farther from the maximum that is possible. That is where you can say something is better, when it behaves, well, better - more like an AI, and not prone to inconsequential decision making or a lack of behavior in general. Some of the thread's back and forth was pretty unnecessary. But I'd say the goals in this submod are quite positive.

[Piterx93]

All im gonna say. Is there is no need to be rude. The EB 2 team has their vision of the game. And others have their own. Thats why this is a SUB mod. of a Mod. A mod that was created for free, just like the creator here made this for free for us. If he does not like Eb2 team version of the game, Ok thats fine we have his mod now. And we should be grateful to EB team for even having created the mod for us to further modify in the first place.

If i could have the Starting Rebels, with the AI of this mod. I honestly would play that. So when the New version of EB comes out, Im hoping Mod creator can at least give it a TRY. Maybe his AI, and the new Rebels along with the new EB changes will be even better than this current version.

Unfortunately, this cannot be done. I tried. The rebels are stupid and it can't be changed.


I created the AI ​​used in this submod. The creator changed them minimally. So he doesn't praise himself.



This is not about what the creator wanted to achieve. Diplomacy can be created for various purposes. It is about: operational sea invasions, active movements of the land army, attacks by large armies, fast siege attempts, more effective settlement defense. Eliminate problems that many AI has in modifications and the original. "Radically improved game experience". The same people wrote here.:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...6#post14078426

My only assumption was that AI should not be stupid. He's still stupid, but not so much.

Diplomacy is created so that it is difficult and not everyone can like not very loyal allies. I could set up very loyal allies, but I was bored working on AI. Creating AI I checked all popular AI codes and I think that the one used here is the best. If it were better in another AI, I would use a similar one but I don't have one. All AI uses similar commands. People are guided by TWC guides that blocked some of the opportunities that work best, and the guides say they are the worst and nobody uses them.

In addition, for AI to work well, the game mechanics must be well done. That's all the creator of this submod has changed.

[moisesjns]

I got to say to the Mod Maker. Was it intentional change for skirmishers to be able to kill Line Infantry Facing them easily? Because i just had a battle against 3 skirmishers, and they killed a good amount of my Thorakitai infantry who were facing them with their shields. I guess its just that the Vanilla Mod made them so weak compared to your changes.

[JoeyTM]

You can't play it because the creators are rude.

Well, that's one way people may compete with each other. They do not tolerate other opinion and try to suppress it by any means possible. In this case, I think Mod Creator should've ignored empty quarrels right away and focused solely on his mod development. After all, unique downloads will show better who is right or wrong.

[AnthoniusII]

Each modder may share a dream, but for a pointless commentator of a decade less membership's opinion, not every dream includes balance, AI, or necessarily the experience at particular stages as a priority. It's not my favorite wording, but philosophically, there is a niche to 'improve' upon the essence of a mod designed by a modder - they may only focus/care on the model and battle aspects, the sheer novelty of importing a context, a particular way of playing paired with the rest; and while a modder is very individual in their dreams, they release to a wider audience, and there is merit to identifying what is better design for the wider audience than for something that appeals to a more limited niche.

Still, 'better' and even 'improved' is very subjective, even if one can objectively approach AI behavior - there is no 'best possible ai' in medieval 2, and if a mod doesn't devote considerable time to the subject, they'll be even farther from the maximum that is possible. That is where you can say something is better, when it behaves, well, better - more like an AI, and not prone to inconsequential decision making or a lack of behavior in general. Some of the thread's back and forth was pretty unnecessary. But I'd say the goals in this submod are quite positive.

I disagree...I had the same feeling you have 11 years ago until 10 crazy -like me - guys gathered and agreed to aq common "dream aka how the TGC mod should be done.
I was not easy. Each of us had his own cultural and national background , his own idea what is ballanced and what is not. But step by step we end up with a basic map of desisions that determined the way TGC should be involved (for example a german historian that helped us create teh Ottonian armies gave us the prospective of how germans see that part of history and not how I saw it). It was not easy...That is why after 13 years TGC is under development. This mod that hosts this submod had a large team also that worked together under a certain prospective of how the final result should be. It was their desision , their work and their point of view. Ofcourse nothing is perfect. But -because I am not aware of their prospective- allow me to use my personal expirience. Two days ago someone asked me why peasants are so leathal against heavy cavalry. Out point of view (TGC) is that an axe is still an armor piercing weapon not matter who uses it. The same aply with javelins.
An other one wondered why we d not use the vanilla banners over each units. We answered him that this was intentional because the player must fight from the ground level and feel the chaos of the battle.
That was our choice... I bet similar choices the EBII team had to take.

Unfortunately, this cannot be done. I tried. The rebels are stupid and it can't be changed.


In my opinion, insulting for the title of a submod is crying like a little girl who wants a candy in the store. Are you so sensitive? I created the AI ​​used in this submod. The creator changed them minimally. So he doesn't praise himself.



This is not about what the creator wanted to achieve. Diplomacy can be created for various purposes. It is about: operational sea invasions, active movements of the land army, attacks by large armies, fast siege attempts, more effective settlement defense. Eliminate problems that many AI has in modifications and the original. "Radically improved game experience". The same people wrote here.:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...6#post14078426

My only assumption was that AI should not be stupid. He's still stupid, but not so much.

Diplomacy is created so that it is difficult and not everyone can like not very loyal allies. I could set up very loyal allies, but I was bored working on AI. Creating AI I checked all popular AI codes and I think that the one used here is the best. If it were better in another AI, I would use a similar one but I don't have one. All AI uses similar commands. People are guided by TWC guides that blocked some of the opportunities that work best, and the guides say they are the worst and nobody uses them.

In addition, for AI to work well, the game mechanics must be well done. That's all the creator of this submod has changed.

Rebels are not stupid. Infact the original game was designed to have easy rebels to allow non hardcore players have fun by having constant victories.
But since day one of the game's release there were AI improvement mods that made the game chalenging :
Darth Mod
Ultimate AI for M2TW
XAI
RealyBadAI
and others for Kingdoms.
But the game still keeps many limitations.
Again for my expirience.
TGC uses XAI 4.1 and an other CAI mod merged with RealyBadAI . That merging creating realy chaotic and difficult battles (in one case i have to fight one and a half hour ussng my two armies against AI's 3 ones).
Still in numerus cases AI seams passive for 50-60 turns (not years). In the begining i though that sonething went wrong until i found my self against 4 enemies in the four corners of the map with armies of three or more stacks with both ellite and low quality units. It was a nightmare and I sufaired some serius defeats. But that was the meaning ...to be as realistic as it could be.
Years ago Darth Vader explained to me that AI could become even better but CA had that abillity locked in the hardcore parts that noone allows to touch.

[Piterx93]

I disagree...I had the same feeling you have 11 years ago until 10 crazy -like me - guys gathered and agreed to aq common "dream aka how the TGC mod should be done.
I was not easy. Each of us had his own cultural and national background , his own idea what is ballanced and what is not. But step by step we end up with a basic map of desisions that determined the way TGC should be involved (for example a german historian that helped us create teh Ottonian armies gave us the prospective of how germans see that part of history and not how I saw it). It was not easy...That is why after 13 years TGC is under development. This mod that hosts this submod had a large team also that worked together under a certain prospective of how the final result should be. It was their desision , their work and their point of view. Ofcourse nothing is perfect. But -because I am not aware of their prospective- allow me to use my personal expirience. Two days ago someone asked me why peasants are so leathal against heavy cavalry. Out point of view (TGC) is that an axe is still an armor piercing weapon not matter who uses it. The same aply with javelins.
An other one wondered why we d not use the vanilla banners over each units. We answered him that this was intentional because the player must fight from the ground level and feel the chaos of the battle.
That was our choice... I bet similar choices the EBII team had to take.


Rebels are not stupid. Infact the original game was designed to have easy rebels to allow non hardcore players have fun by having constant victories.
But since day one of the game's release there were AI improvement mods that made the game chalenging :
Darth Mod
Ultimate AI for M2TW
XAI
RealyBadAI
and others for Kingdoms.
But the game still keeps many limitations.
Again for my expirience.
TGC uses XAI 4.1 and an other CAI mod merged with RealyBadAI . That merging creating realy chaotic and difficult battles (in one case i have to fight one and a half hour ussng my two armies against AI's 3 ones).
Still in numerus cases AI seams passive for 50-60 turns (not years). In the begining i though that sonething went wrong until i found my self against 4 enemies in the four corners of the map with armies of three or more stacks with both ellite and low quality units. It was a nightmare and I sufaired some serius defeats. But that was the meaning ...to be as realistic as it could be.
Years ago Darth Vader explained to me that AI could become even better but CA had that abillity locked in the hardcore parts that noone allows to touch.

I know that rebels can be made a little more active. I wrote that they cannot be made like normal AI factions. The fact that rebels are stupid cannot be changed.

I don't know why an ax should be more effective than a sword. The axes were cheaper. Why did people fight with swords if they were more expensive and worse? I think this is a myth that was created in the total war series.

I created this AI a few years ago. I reviewed all the more known AIs to understand how it works.

I created new AI to make it better. A colleague created a submod to make something better. He thinks it's better because he really thinks so. How can you be offended by something like that? any quarrels that it's offensive?


Everyone can have an opinion. Every AI for medieval is stupid because it is limited by the game engine. In my opinion, this is not a history simulator. This submod focuses on more fun and greater challenge. I think it's cool. Everyone can think differently. In my opinion, attacking the creator is sick.


I should have ended this discussion a long time ago. But I am really unhealthy fascinated by this. Which, thinks that the title of the topic is something offensive. This is really abstract to me. Someone thinks it's better. Someone may think not. And what?

Have you ever tried to play it?

[Satapatiš]

I don't know why an ax should be more effective than a sword. The axes were cheaper. Why did people fight with swords if they were more expensive and worse? I think this is a myth that was created in the total war series.

Ineffectiveness of the bladed weapons against shields and body armor is a known fact, not a myth. It's well accounted for and confirmed with destructive tests done with modern reconstructions.

A padded jack or a gambeson can stop a cut from a sharp blade, albeit it gets gradually destroyed upon protecting its wearer. Cutting through a chainmail is very difficult.

Which is why people usually did not use swords as their primary weapons, save for examples like Romans who were often fighting unarmored opponents (also, armor in Antiquity usually did not cover limbs).

Incidentally, for EB2 time period axes and pickaxes like sagaris were very common weapons on the East. Also, people who did expect armored opponents used maces. Cataphracts are often depicted having a mace and a sword in addition to their kontos.

[Piterx93]

Ineffectiveness of the bladed weapons against shields and body armor is a known fact, not a myth. It's well accounted for and confirmed with destructive tests done with modern reconstructions.

A padded jack or a gambeson can stop a cut from a sharp blade, albeit it gets gradually destroyed upon protecting its wearer. Cutting through a chainmail is very difficult.

Which is why people usually did not use swords as their primary weapons, save for examples like Romans who were often fighting unarmored opponents (also, armor in Antiquity usually did not cover limbs).

Incidentally, for EB2 time period axes and pickaxes like sagaris were very common weapons on the East. Also, people who did expect armored opponents used maces. Cataphracts are often depicted having a mace and a sword in addition to their kontos.

Very interesting. In that case, giving the poor "effectiveness against armor" makes soldiers fight in better units are idiots? (if they don't have axes). Maybe it is better to simplify and give this skill only to the best soldiers?

[Satapatiš]

Very interesting. In that case, giving the poor "effectiveness against armor" makes soldiers fight in better units are idiots? (if they don't have axes). Maybe it is better to simplify and give this skill only to the best soldiers?

Because of the gameplay variety it's good to have differently armed units even if it's something unrealistic.

Ideally there shouldn't be any need for two or three almost identical units, but the game engine can't handle well even switching between their main and secondary weapons.

For an example, on an ideal engine thureophoroi, euzonoi and makchairophoroi should be the same unit of men carrying a thrueos shield and switching between spears and javelins, then maybe switching to swords as their sidearms when other weapons are unusable for whatever reason (and as far as them having any kind of torso armor they'd be thorakitai with metal armor being an armor upgrade to spolas). Same for knights in any Medieval-period game. They'd be using whatever else they start the battle with and only drawing their swords when heavier and longer weapons can't be used. But the game can't do well even switching from sarissas to swords, even if people almost never carried only a sword into combat.

[Et DUdes]

Full1.2 version

- very important correction of battlefield balance

Download:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UDQ...ew?usp=sharing

i gave you a shoutout in my video. Amazing job. Took EB2 to a new level. I really don't understand what some of these people are taking about. I tested you mod it is great. I go over how to install your the main mod and yours. Good Job.

https://youtu.be/9Wx2CcHAwrk

[Aper]

Ineffectiveness of the bladed weapons against shields and body armor is a known fact, not a myth. It's well accounted for and confirmed with destructive tests done with modern reconstructions.

A padded jack or a gambeson can stop a cut from a sharp blade, albeit it gets gradually destroyed upon protecting its wearer. Cutting through a chainmail is very difficult.

Which is why people usually did not use swords as their primary weapons, save for examples like Romans who were often fighting unarmored opponents (also, armor in Antiquity usually did not cover limbs).

Incidentally, for EB2 time period axes and pickaxes like sagaris were very common weapons on the East. Also, people who did expect armored opponents used maces. Cataphracts are often depicted having a mace and a sword in addition to their kontos.

Considered that it's very difficult to understand how ancient combat really worked even on the most basic level, and that is even more difficult to implement a realistic battle system in a total war game I think he have a point. One handed axes for both ancient and medieval periods were for the most part the poor man' sidearm, and maces were uncommon anti-veryheavyarmor cavalry weapons. Please take note this are broad generalizations, and that I'm speaking of one handed weapons only. But by far the most cherished sidearms were swords, there must be a reason. I think in most twc mods axes and maces are way overpowered in comparison to their historical counterparts. As an example, in the XIV century when plate armor started to become widespread, according to twc mods logic everyone should have switched to axes and maces as sidearm. Instead they switched to more pointy and sturdier swords (and some axes and maces, like before). Late medieval heavy armor brought a more widespread use of powerful 2-handed weapons of many shapes, but we don't really see one handed swords falling out of the picture as ineffective weapons: again, there must be a reason, don't you think so?

Edit: In my opinion, if some very thin bladed slashing battleaxes are worthy of getting the "armor piercing" attribute just because they are axes, swords with narrow and rigid points are even more worthy, because history tells us they were effective against most armors. Many gaming conventions are quite arbitrary and aimed more at creating an artificial rock-paper-scissor system than at recreating history.

Edit2: about the primary vs secondary weapons argument, for both ancient and medieval period the primary weapons were weapons with reach, this means ranged weapons or spears/polearms. Reach (or the means to negate a reach advantage, like a big shield) was the primary concern, concepts like effectiveness against armor would probably have sounded quite abstract to ancient and medieval people, except in rare cases like facing cataphracts or elite medieval knights. Almost all armors had weak points, it's quite evident people liked more to target those instead of bashing mindlessy the enemy in the head with a blunt weapon. This without counting that not always armors, shields and (mostly) helmets could withstand the impact of a good quality sword or spearhead.

[Piterx93]

Considered that it's very difficult to understand how ancient combat really worked even on the most basic level, and that is even more difficult to implement a realistic battle system in a total war game I think he have a point. One handed axes for both ancient and medieval periods were for the most part the poor man' sidearm, and maces were uncommon anti-veryheavyarmor cavalry weapons. Please take note this are broad generalizations, and that I'm speaking of one handed weapons only. But by far the most cherished sidearms were swords, there must be a reason. I think in most twc mods axes and maces are way overpowered in comparison to their historical counterparts. As an example, in the XIV century when plate armor started to become widespread, according to twc mods logic everyone should have switched to axes and maces as sidearm. Instead they switched to more pointy and sturdier swords (and some axes and maces, like before). Late medieval heavy armor brought a more widespread use of powerful 2-handed weapons of many shapes, but we don't really see one handed swords falling out of the picture as ineffective weapons: again, there must be a reason, don't you think so?

Edit: In my opinion, if some very thin bladed slashing battleaxes are worthy of getting the "armor piercing" attribute just because they are axes, swords with narrow and rigid points are even more worthy, because history tells us they were effective against most armors. Many gaming conventions are quite arbitrary and aimed more at creating an artificial rock-paper-scissor system than at recreating history.

Edit2: about the primary vs secondary weapons argument, for both ancient and medieval period the primary weapons were weapons with reach, this means ranged weapons or spears/polearms. Reach (or the means to negate a reach advantage, like a big shield) was the primary concern, concepts like effectiveness against armor would probably have sounded quite abstract to ancient and medieval people, except in rare cases like facing cataphracts or elite medieval knights. Almost all armors had weak points, it's quite evident people liked more to target those instead of bashing mindlessy the enemy in the head with a blunt weapon. This without counting that not always armors, shields and (mostly) helmets could withstand the impact of a good quality sword or spearhead.

I think that few people were strong enough for a small ax to be effective against armor. If so, after a few blows they could be exhausted and unable to fight for a long time. That poor infantry fights better because they used cheap axes instead of expensive swords makes idiots of soldiers.

Maybe it was harder to defend himself with the ax.

[Satapatiš]

Considered that it's very difficult to understand how ancient combat really worked even on the most basic level, and that is even more difficult to implement a realistic battle system in a total war game I think he have a point. One handed axes for both ancient and medieval periods were for the most part the poor man' sidearm, and maces were uncommon anti-veryheavyarmor cavalry weapons. Please take note this are broad generalizations, and that I'm speaking of one handed weapons only. But by far the most cherished sidearms were swords, there must be a reason. I think in most twc mods axes and maces are way overpowered in comparison to their historical counterparts. As an example, in the XIV century when plate armor started to become widespread, according to twc mods logic everyone should have switched to axes and maces as sidearm. Instead they switched to more pointy and sturdier swords (and some axes and maces, like before). Late medieval heavy armor brought a more widespread use of powerful 2-handed weapons of many shapes, but we don't really see one handed swords falling out of the picture as ineffective weapons: again, there must be a reason, don't you think so?

Edit: In my opinion, if some very thin bladed slashing battleaxes are worthy of getting the "armor piercing" attribute just because they are axes, swords with narrow and rigid points are even more worthy, because history tells us they were effective against most armors. Many gaming conventions are quite arbitrary and aimed more at creating an artificial rock-paper-scissor system than at recreating history.

Edit2: about the primary vs secondary weapons argument, for both ancient and medieval period the primary weapons were weapons with reach, this means ranged weapons or spears/polearms. Reach (or the means to negate a reach advantage, like a big shield) was the primary concern, concepts like effectiveness against armor would probably have sounded quite abstract to ancient and medieval people, except in rare cases like facing cataphracts or elite medieval knights. Almost all armors had weak points, it's quite evident people liked more to target those instead of bashing mindlessy the enemy in the head with a blunt weapon. This without counting that not always armors, shields and (mostly) helmets could withstand the impact of a good quality sword or spearhead.

The most common weapon for a poor man was a spear. Axes and long knives in hands of common soldiers were just taking household utensils into combat because not necessarily everyone could afford a dedicated sidearm.

Total war engine is guilty of a gross generalization of putting all blunt impact weapons into the same armor-piercing universal axe category. A small woodcutting axe is not an armor piercing weapon. A sagaris made for war is. One is a work tool used for combat, the other one is a weapon useful only for war. One is going to be carried by a maybe trained person using whatever they had at home. The other one is going to appear in hands of a trained professional. But in the engine they're all same AP axes.

You're also forgetting about how few people had an armor covering other than a helmet and a torso armor.

Popularity of swords comes from the same place with popularity of pistols in later eras. A rifle is a better weapon than a pistol but a pistol is all-round more convenient sidearm, not just in battles.

Don't take game engine quirks as proof of history. There shouldn't be a unit with a uniform secondary sidearm to begin with. A body of men could carry spears as their primary and ANY smaller sidearm as their secondary.

I think that few people were strong enough for a small ax to be effective against armor. If so, after a few blows they could be exhausted and unable to fight for a long time. That poor infantry fights better because they used cheap axes instead of expensive swords makes idiots of soldiers.

Maybe it was harder to defend himself with the ax.

It's not about punching through the armor plate. That's rarely possible unless under very favorable conditions like using an iron pickaxe against a bronze armor. But if you slash anyone with a sword and they're armored then you might at best give them some painful bruises because swords don't have enough inertia. But if you hit someone in their head or shoulders with a heavier weapon then you might disable them with concussion despite their armor.


It is what it is. The game engine, I mean.

Personally, I believe that AP attribute should be something unrelated to the weapon (except for maybe slingers), but instead tied to the quality of a unit. Because a bunch of levied peasants is unlikely to carry specialised picks. The people drawn with a sagaris on Ancient art are soldiers in body armor. Then the surviving weapons were found in elite burials, with horses and other grave goods.

Realistically, the only people used to and equipped for dealing with armored opponents also wore armor and counted as professionals one way or another. A bunch of levies might be carrying an armor-bypassing weapons, but it doesn't mean that they have a standing chance of being really effective with them. On the other hand, trained fighters have a chance of striking around the armor even if their weapons aren't, technically, bypassing armor.

Those aren't peasant levy weapons:





Edit:
Actually, belay that. AP attribute for slingers also should be linked to the quality of the unit because to achieve this shield and helmet cracking effect they'd have to be using lead missiles. Instead of whatever stones they had lying under their feet.

[Afterman]

HI everyone

Idilla'z why don't you update thread's title with last avaiable version every time you upload a new one?

[Afterman]

As an old modder and researcher for mods for more than 10 years allow me to point my opinion.
I personally do not like submods with titles "better AI " or "Better ballanced units" or "radically imroved game expirience".
Not because i doupt the skills of the modders or the quality of their work but because EACH MODDING TEAM when starts to create a mod has a spesific point of view of how their mod should opperate.
As "opperate" we can include event scripts, aggresive or passive AI , certain stats for unique units etc. Each team SHARES a dream and is a huge step when they agree on the basics.
Has anyone ever wonder why this creators team made the mod that way? What they were trying to show with their work?
Even in Third Age Total War mod the hundreds of submods made the game worst from the initial prospective the original creators had for their masterpiece.
I would sugest to avoid such titles.
It would be better a title "my way of how this mod should be played". That way it would be not insulting to original creators that spent years of their personal lives to allow us have this masterpiece.
Just my thoughts. I do not intend to insult anyone.

All im gonna say. Is there is no need to be rude. The EB 2 team has their vision of the game. And others have their own. Thats why this is a SUB mod. of a Mod. A mod that was created for free, just like the creator here made this for free for us. If he does not like Eb2 team version of the game, Ok thats fine we have his mod now. And we should be grateful to EB team for even having created the mod for us to further modify in the first place.

If i could have the Starting Rebels, with the AI of this mod. I honestly would play that. So when the New version of EB comes out, Im hoping Mod creator can at least give it a TRY. Maybe his AI, and the new Rebels along with the new EB changes will be even better than this current version.

You can do it by implementing only Pieter AI (that is almost the same used by Idillaz) here:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...6#post14078426

[moisesjns]

You can do it by implementing only Pieter AI (that is almost the same used by Idillaz) here:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...6#post14078426

Thanks. I will probably do that if mod creator does not after the next patch. Im so excited to see the new patch changes. I have to say once again i do myself think the AI is better with this mod. but i also used another mod by lusitano to change enemy general HP to be like 2. Enemy Leaders are harder to kill/ rout and with this mod the enemy AI puts up a pretty good fight. Also the CAI is really good. I actually allied with Pahlava + taksashila as Saka, and we all fought baktria and AS for the last 10 + years. Its pretty damn fun. Before this they never allied with me, or really fought each other. At least for the first 50 turns or so they would just struggle with taking any rebel settlement. But now they expand and actually fight each other.

[Piterx93]

By the way, in my opinion it is also very rude that someone spent many hours thinking about something new and better and can not write that it is better because someone else wanted to come up with something else. No, he didn't want to come up with, he just didn't get the idea. AI is not able to besiege cities. This is a problem that someone has decided to fix and is under attack because of it. If you think that artificial intelligence may besiege the settlement, play on the new AI and you will see that the old one could not. I worked for a long time to achieve an effect that is not present in other AIs, and now someone writes to me that there are no better and worse AIs and someone can be offended, because after many hours I came up with something new and you can't write that it's better. I do not greet you.