Announcement: Europa Barbarorum II 2.35A R3.5 released!

[QuintusSertorius]

Here are my thoughts after playing two campaigns (one AS one Epeiros) on H/M
The new battle changes seem better, the ground terrain has changed making it smoother with less steep hills etc. which makes the ai take better positions. But what i see is if you move a single unit on the ai's flank (before engaging with the army) the ai moves their entire army just to face this unit (meaning they pay no attention to the rest of your army).
Also, I’m not sure if it’s true or not but I feel like cavalry takes much longer to kill a broken unit and they just walk/run alongside the broken unit which is frustrating.

You're probably playing the wrong factions to notice the missile changes (though you could use horse archers as a mobile reserve for internal security as the Seleukids), but they're pretty significant. Nothing has been changed on the melee side.

Campaign:
As the Seleucids I thought the ptolemies were a bit harder to deal with due to the 3 spawned armies and lack of income (I’ll talk about that later). Only two of the armies came up to Syria koile and one at a time, making it easy to defeat them. One army went to Upper Egypt doing nothing while the other for some reason went to dedan (the ptolemies have a weird fixation with dedan, something I hadn’t seen in 2.35). Also they moved their capital to diospolis in the first few turns, leaving Alexandria and Memphis with a small garrison. The best change about the Seleucids is the satrapy system, mostly just for roleplaying purposes. I wish there was a mechanic for disloyal satraps that reduced movement to zero (can’t move him away from settlement) and decreased public order to the point of revolt.

Glad the scripted Ptolemaic response makes them less of a pushover.

Can't speak to the AI behaviour. Weird that it's chosing to move it so far south and ignoring the far more important and richer city to the north.

The economy:
I think the economy reduction that the player gets is a bit too much. As the seleucids, after taking asia minor, Cyprus, Syria koile, petra I barely made 2-3k a turn in this patch (when I’d make at least 5-7k last patch). It seems a bit ahistorical for me and makes expansion not worth it. The whole reason of controlling Syria koile was income and trade from the coastal cities but I barely saw any income difference. Plus, the seleucids were known for having money (antiochos supplied Pyrrhus with funds apparently and agis said that seleucus kallinikos’ servants have more money than Spartan kings if im not mistaken). Most of it went to the army, not to corruption. Maybe make settlements require more troops to increase happiness, so the player will spend more money on garrisons that will reduce player income.

There's far too much money far too easily available in the game. A lot of the changes to that balance have been aimed at stopping the snowball effect in the mid- to late-game where you don't even have to think about money. You also probably have a higher level of military mobilisation than you did in 2.35, because of the raids and revolt spawns.

Can't change the garrison requirements without making some settlements impossible to hold, it's already at the limits now. You should be spending more on garrisons in 2.35A anyway, so the revolt spawns don't take settlements off you.

The raids:

Again, not the biggest fan of the 8 unit random spawn stacks. It is not threatening or difficult to deal with imo, but it’s really annoying more than anything. Fighting the same battle every time becomes a chore and the autoresolve is sketchy. As the seleucids you know get: Pisidian raids (already fought them 4-5 times in 60 turns), Arab raids in Syria Koile, Arab raids in Mesopotamia, Upper satrapy raids, random 8 stack spawn revolts (which will happen every few turns because you have a lot of settlements and I’m not sure what they represent). I’d rather have less revolts but stronger than many little revolts. Maybe scripted revolts on particular turns. Or something tied to the authority of the king.

They should be both threatening and difficult to deal with if you aren't taking measures to ward them off. If you don't garrison settlements appropriately, the Rebel AI will take them off you with the 8-unit spawns.

The revolts (the 5- and 8-unit spawns) represent local dissent (highlanders who resent the central authority or the like) or cross-border raiding. They replace the hardcoded "bandit" spawns that used to throw out 3 units of Akontistai and pointless stuff like that. They also remind you that no matter how secure you might like to think your hold is on conquered territories, it's not possibe to suppress all dissent and make everyone respect the central authority.

As the Seleukids, you also hold quite a few of the "Troublesome Regions" which spawn those revolts more frequently. And yes, the more territory you hold, the more of them you have to deal with by simple chance. They're random (with a cooldown - so they can't happen turn after turn) but frequent enough that with enough provinces you'll be dealing with them somewhere. Big empire problems.

There's no way to make any of those nuanced changes you suggest without making the whole thing a lot more complex than it is. As soon as you start making things conditional on things like FL Authority, or have them tailored to specific factions, you're talking a lot more code than the present.

The ai:

I haven’t seen much difference in ai v ai aggression. The romans still don’t go for rhegion, messana hasn’t been taken in 70 turns etc. But I see more aggression against the player, which is kind of fun, but at times stupid. Eg. I (seleucids) am at war with the ptolemies (who also fight the Carthaginians) and the Carthaginians declare war on me one turn after I declared war on the ptolemies. You’d think that we would want to cooperate to fight them but no.

Not much has really changed here, besides increasing the maximum treasury AI factions have have from 30k to 50k. We're looking at increasing the cap on the recruitment limitation script for R2 to see if that makes them a little more aggressive.

Also looking to close off the land route between Carthage and Egypt, to stop the "sand wars".

[Rad]

Also looking to close off the land route between Carthage and Egypt, to stop the "sand wars".

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeey! Hey, hey, hey! As a Carthage player, I really liked those. They were a fun change from the Western Mediterranean wars and they forced me to keep a full stack garrison in Cyrenaica. Sometimes I even needed to send an extra army to help fend off Ptolemaic attacks. They're a good thing for Carthage players.

It was similar when I played as Ptolemaic Egypt - gotta watch out for those Carthaginians.

[Kaskad]

EBII is completely modfolder, so it can be installed togheter with other mods for MedII inside "mods' because every mods has its own folder. I have EBII with others 6 or 7 mods .... Maybe you had the same problem I had with steam. For me new patch 2.35A only works when installed inside Program Folder ×86 and not outside (as per instruction).

Thanks for the information

[QuintusSertorius]

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeey! Hey, hey, hey! As a Carthage player, I really liked those. They were a fun change from the Western Mediterranean wars and they forced me to keep a full stack garrison in Cyrenaica. Sometimes I even needed to send an extra army to help fend off Ptolemaic attacks. They're a good thing for Carthage players.

It was similar when I played as Ptolemaic Egypt - gotta watch out for those Carthaginians.

They're totally ahistorical, it was not a viable route to march armies. Between the climate and the hostile locals, no one ever did it. The way you moved between them was by sea.

Even then, the Carthaginians and Ptolemaioi respected each other's geographical sphere's of influence. So when both are controlled by the AI, they should do so.

[Rad]

Fair point about the land route not being historically viable. AI won't be able to launch committed naval invasions, though. Maybe a raid every now and then. The result - more of the player's resources will be free.

About the spheres of influence - weren't both countries fairly busy elsewhere? You're not gonna poke the hornet's nest while you're fighting the bear

[bordinis]

I think stacks spawning in the game are a good thing. Makes a player "involved" and many fights keep units into experience, not sure about the seleukids though maybe it s too much for player to deal with. I m playing Pergamon and those stacks dissapeared now but Seleukids betrayed me at turn 333. Also noticed that my farming income is low and all settlements have "famine" but most income I do is trade and I think it is a good thing. It s nonsense to have unlimited funds in mid-late game i like it, it s more challenging- really good changes. I do not have much problem with "famine" since I keep troops as a strong garrison. TBH the CAI is a lot better in this patch and overall. Pritanoi now at the lands of Aedui and Sweboz, they are kicking ass. Yes the romans don t have Rhegion but then again, all bunch of greek factions fight for that and Sicily. Overall a very good and involving Campaign I just love that CAI does not have 50 stacks like it used to have for example what was happening with Seleukids or Indians mid to late game, man that was disastrous.
Really good good things for the campaign that changed :
Less stack spam in mid to late game by the CAI
Rebellions ! It keeps a player involved and vorried and slows him down ! He can t blitz the map easily !
CAI is actually aggresive and the generals are jus better for them this time arround also battles are a bit harder but could be more harder with even more resilient generals for the BAI.
CAI factions after loosing two big battles and engaging into new wars offer for the player a peace treaty this time arround.
BAI units are more resilient at VH/VH a very good change!
Carthage CAI does not die in every campaign! It s powerful ! And Romans have problems dealing with them!
Sabean Faction holds all of Arabian Peninsula and Factions like Pritanoi and Nabatu truly expands into map!
Still no Tribalii and ktistai in the game !! arrrggg
Very good changes. The EB2 campaign is oficially playable!

[QuintusSertorius]

Fair point about the land route not being historically viable. AI won't be able to launch committed naval invasions, though. Maybe a raid every now and then. The result - more of the player's resources will be free.

About the spheres of influence - weren't both countries fairly busy elsewhere? You're not gonna poke the hornet's nest while you're fighting the bear

I'm more concerned about the AI wasting it's resources on ahistorical and pointless fights. AI-Carthage and AI-Ptolemaioi not fighting each other means more effort spent in their respective regions. It means, for example, the player of the Seleukids might have to worry about the AI-Ptolemaioi attacking them, instead of being distracted by AI-Carthage. Or the player of Rome finding AI-Carthage is more focused on taking Sicily and Spain, rather than trying to conquer Egypt.

Both had a healthy understanding of their limitations and where to apply their resources, which was why they survived so long.

I think stacks spawning in the game are a good thing. Makes a player "involved" and many fights keep units into experience, not sure about the seleukids though maybe it s too much for player to deal with. I m playing Pergamon and those stacks dissapeared now but Seleukids betrayed me at turn 333. Also noticed that my farming income is low and all settlements have "famine" but most income I do is trade and I think it is a good thing. It s nonsense to have unlimited funds in mid-late game i like it, it s more challenging- really good changes. I do not have much problem with "famine" since I keep troops as a strong garrison. TBH the CAI is a lot better in this patch and overall. Pritanoi now at the lands of Aedui and Sweboz, they are kicking ass. Yes the romans don t have Rhegion but then again, all bunch of greek factions fight for that and Sicily. Overall a very good and involving Campaign I just love that CAI does not have 50 stacks like it used to have for example what was happening with Seleukids or Indians mid to late game, man that was disastrous.
Really good good things for the campaign that changed :
Less stack spam in mid to late game by the CAI
Rebellions ! It keeps a player involved and vorried and slows him down ! He can t blitz the map easily !
CAI is actually aggresive and the generals are jus better for them this time arround also battles are a bit harder but could be more harder with even more resilient generals for the BAI.
CAI factions after loosing two big battles and engaging into new wars offer for the player a peace treaty this time arround.
BAI units are more resilient at VH/VH a very good change!
Carthage CAI does not die in every campaign! It s powerful ! And Romans have problems dealing with them!
Sabean Faction holds all of Arabian Peninsula and Factions like Pritanoi and Nabatu truly expands into map!
Still no Tribalii and ktistai in the game !! arrrggg
Very good changes. The EB2 campaign is oficially playable!

The Galathraikes represent peoples like the Triballi. There can't be a Ktistai unit, they are the highest nobility of the Getai. Your FMs might be Ktistai and there's a trait associated with that status.

[Rad]

I'm more concerned about the AI wasting it's resources on ahistorical and pointless fights. AI-Carthage and AI-Ptolemaioi not fighting each other means more effort spent in their respective regions. It means, for example, the player of the Seleukids might have to worry about the AI-Ptolemaioi attacking them, instead of being distracted by AI-Carthage. Or the player of Rome finding AI-Carthage is more focused on taking Sicily and Spain, rather than trying to conquer Egypt.
Both had a healthy understanding of their limitations and where to apply their resources, which was why they survived so long.

While land invasions via Cyrenaica are implausible, wars between Carthage and Ptolemaic Egypt are not implausible and they shouldn't be stymied via some land blockade - if we had completely functional AI naval invasions, I would not argue about this at at all. Sadly, we don't.

The limitations and spheres of influence you mention are the result of those countries' power. Historically, neither was in a good position to invade the other (that I know of). However, if one had means and opportunity to expand against the other, it would do so. Rome is a good example of a country with means and opportunity - Rome eventually ended up swallowing both Carthage and Egypt. Distance was not a problem for Rome. Rome kept expanding its sphere of influence.

What I want to say is that we should keep the possibility of a Carthage-Ptolemaic war... bearing in mind the sad, silly limitatons of Med2's engine - and that means keeping a land invasion route open.

Playing as Carthage/Egypt, the "sand wars" only ever started in the later part of the game, so I don't think that the AI's resources would be wasted too much.

On the other hand, I do want to see what would happen if those factions were pushed even further towards their historical zones of interest - maybe it would make for a better campaign, artificially imposed as it is.

[Trarco]

About the spheres of influence - weren't both countries fairly busy elsewhere? You're not gonna poke the hornet's nest while you're fighting the bear

Some written sources suggest that they had good relations, so I think that this change will be good even if from a gameplay point of view those sand wars could be fun

[QuintusSertorius]

Which would make sense given their natural spheres are non-competing and they could make serious money from trade.

Has anyone tried the new historical battle series?

[Broreale]

I say when it comes to Rome's aggression, at least, I agree with ptolemaios. However, in my Saka campaign I noticed a fairly aggressive AI out in Iran and Syria as Armenia, Egypt, the Parthians, and the Seleucids duked it out. Baktria took out Nisa for a bit which forced the Parni to migrate west into Hyrkania and invade, and as I took out the Baktrians the Parthians swarmed over Persia. It wasn't until turn 200 or so that I saw Rome take Messana, though they'd also managed to grab some of Cisalpina.

[Rad]

Some written sources suggest that they had good relations, so I think that this change will be good even if from a gameplay point of view those sand wars could be fun

Rome and Carthage used to have good relations. Then things changed... somewhat
In any case, a land blockade is not a problem for the human Carthage/Ptolemaic player. The unfortunate thing is that maintaining a large garrison in the border region will now feel superfluous.

[Sarkiss]

Rome and Carthage used to have good relations. Then things changed... somewhat
In any case, a land blockade is not a problem for the human Carthage/Ptolemaic player. The unfortunate thing is that maintaining a large garrison in the border region will now feel superfluous.

i wouldnt be so sure. from what i see in the latest patch the AI is quite active with naval invasions. in my 200+ turns Nabatean campaign Cyprus changed hands several times.

[QuintusSertorius]

I say when it comes to Rome's aggression, at least, I agree with ptolemaios. However, in my Saka campaign I noticed a fairly aggressive AI out in Iran and Syria as Armenia, Egypt, the Parthians, and the Seleucids duked it out. Baktria took out Nisa for a bit which forced the Parni to migrate west into Hyrkania and invade, and as I took out the Baktrians the Parthians swarmed over Persia. It wasn't until turn 200 or so that I saw Rome take Messana, though they'd also managed to grab some of Cisalpina.

This is the other thing to note: the CAI can vary somewhat from game to game, which is a good thing.

Rome and Carthage used to have good relations. Then things changed... somewhat
In any case, a land blockade is not a problem for the human Carthage/Ptolemaic player. The unfortunate thing is that maintaining a large garrison in the border region will now feel superfluous.

The problem there is Rome: they were not "normal" as far as the conduct of nations in this period went.

Look at the "Greco-Punic Wars" on Sicily. They went on in a fairly consistent and relatively stable pattern for three centuries as various communities switched allegiances back and forth between Carthage, Syrakousai and whichever city-state was temporarily in the ascendant. Not even Pyrrhos' intervention meaningfully changed that dynamic.

Then the Romans got involved and in just over two decades they conquered the whole island and overthrew what had been going on all that time. The same happened in every conflict they inserted themselves into.

Other powers of the age didn't see every war they embroiled themselves in as an existential crisis that could only end when the other side had been utterly humiliated and defanged. Which is why I see no issue with AI-Carthage and AI-Ptolemaioi persisting with an essentially peaceful co-existence.

[Rad]

What is normal in a strategy video game? The stage is set in 272BC, things should move with a degree of freedom from then on. British cataphract archers? A bit too much. Egypt exploiting rising opportunities and moving into the western Mediterranean, or Carthage going east? Seems fine to me.

The main issue is that you keep looking at the situation from a third-party perspective, you're not looking at it as a player who plays Carthage or Egypt. You're not seeing the rewarding challenge of the Carthage-Egypt frontier.

[QuintusSertorius]

What is normal in a strategy video game? The stage is set in 272BC, things should move with a degree of freedom from then on. British cataphract archers? A bit too much. Egypt exploiting rising opportunities and moving into the western Mediterranean, or Carthage going east? Seems fine to me.

The main issue is that you keep looking at the situation from a third-party perspective, you're not looking at it as a player who plays Carthage or Egypt. You're not seeing the rewarding challenge of the Carthage-Egypt frontier.

EBII is very much intended to be a mod where historicity comes ahead of other considerations, including influencing gameplay. What's "normal" in international relations of the period and the distinct character of certain powers matters a lot more than what's normal in a strategy video game. As I've said many times, freeform alt-history is not one of those goals. Player-controlled Egypt going west is fine, AI-controlled Egypt going west at the expense of the east is not.

I'm looking at it from a whole-mod perspective. The balance of the AI factions as well as the challenge they pose to players of multiple factions matters more to me than the two very specific instances of the player of Carthage being challenged by AI-Ptolemaioi or vice versa.

[Rad]

i wouldnt be so sure. from what i see in the latest patch the AI is quite active with naval invasions. in my 200+ turns Nabatean campaign Cyprus changed hands several times.

Oh, this is good news. I still haven't started a campaign in 2.35A, due to fear of bugs. I am waiting for the 2nd release. In the previous version, the only island I had to defend was Sardinia, and attacks on it were so rare that I eventually felt compelled to invade Italy in order to have a steady stream of fights. Islands like Crete and Rhodes were never invaded, and most of us have seen the terrible Pritanoi build-up in Dooz's campaign.

[bordinis]

I have a couple of generals who are age 25 + in my campaign which they do not have any ethnicity whatsoever and no negative traits at all, one has flaccid trait,and when I put them to govern any province, population dislikes them also they are not client rulers and they are not Attalids or anyone really..so no ethnicity.., also I am at war with Seleucids and the "Seleucid Tithe" is still coming up I am at war with them for 60 turns or so ( turn 387 Pergamon campaign ).

[bordinis]

Oh, this is good news. I still haven't started a campaign in 2.35A, due to fear of bugs. I am waiting for the 2nd release. In the previous version, the only island I had to defend was Sardinia, and attacks on it were so rare that I eventually felt compelled to invade Italy in order to have a steady stream of fights. Islands like Crete and Rhodes were never invaded, and most of us have seen the terrible Pritanoi build-up in Dooz's campaign.

On the contrary , I am playing a third campaign now well into mid game and Pritanoi has expanded near BOII and CAI is fighting for islands like mad and invading them often I have full stacks guarding Knossos and Rhodos. Campaign difficulty VH/VH. Maybe CAI agrresivness belongs to campaign difficulty.

[QuintusSertorius]

also I am at war with Seleucids and the "Seleucid Tithe" is still coming up I am at war with them for 60 turns or so ( turn 387 Pergamon campaign ).

I don't know about the traits, but did you once accept becoming a Seleukid vassal? Looking at the script, there's no way to stop the tithe if you did, until the Seleukids are down to 7 or fewer provinces.

Hmmm, need to add some more counters to the "breaking alliance" monitor.