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

[Rad]

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.

Making sure that AI factions play in their respective little boxes and not beyond them does not equate to maintaining historical accuracy in a strategy game ( games should have some fluidity in them). It's more akin to "History of X: every year" videos one finds on Youtube.

Player-controlled Egypt going west is fine, AI-controlled Egypt going west at the expense of the east is not.

I never said that AI Egypt should go west at the expense of the east. I said that AI Egypt should have the freedom to go west, and that that freedom is maintained via an African land route - due to the limitations of the game engine.

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.

You're heavily influenced by your own hegemon-like play style and you're trying to insert the tug of war with no clear winners status quo you like as much as possible into the game. That only results in a less challenging and far less rewarding game for the player. Fighting smaller factions, factions that are exhausted by constantly squabbling with each other is far less interesting than fighting a strong faction.

[postm00v]

I'm not even going to attempt to update the changelog thread until R2 has gone.

If you'll excuse my ignorance, what's R2?

[QuintusSertorius]

Making sure that AI factions play in their respective little boxes and not beyond them does not equate to maintaining historical accuracy in a strategy game ( games should have some fluidity in them). It's more akin to "History of X: every year" videos one finds on Youtube.

There is some fluidity; that's the action of the human player and the way that influences the AI decisions. I'm afraid we're simply not going to agree on this. I have no desire in seeing AI-Sauromatae, left to it's own devices, migrate to Britain for example. That level of "fluidity" makes everything invested in the game by the team utterly pointless. None of the governments, scripts, or anything else are designed to accommodate them being there. Factions are very deliberately designed to have natural geographical spheres in which they fit and they will find it easiest. As well as a zone outside that in which nothing is easy and they'll struggle to operate.

I never said that AI Egypt should go west at the expense of the east. I said that AI Egypt should have the freedom to go west, and that that freedom is maintained via an African land route - due to the limitations of the game engine.

That's what the end result is. The AI is terrible at multi-pronged expansion, they can do one direction with focus, or many with incompetence. AI-Ptolemaioi trying to expand into the west is going to leave it's east unattended and likely be swamped by AI-Nabatu.

AI-Ptolemaioi doesn't need the freedom to go west, it needs incentive to keep hold of it's heartlands, which means defending attacks from the east.

You're heavily influenced by your own hegemon-like play style and you're trying to insert the tug of war with no clear winners status quo you like as much as possible into the game. That only results in a less challenging and far less rewarding game for the player. Fighting smaller factions, factions that are exhausted by constantly squabbling with each other is far less interesting than fighting a strong faction.

There's a simple reason for this perspective: it prolongs the game. The sooner that "clash of a half-dozen superfactions" mid- to late-game stage arrives, the sooner the game is basically over for a lot of players. All of the support provided to the AI factions is to ensure they don't get "exhausted" by all the internecine conflict with other factions, while still being able to challenge the player.

I don't see how an AI-Ptolemaioi losing it's eastern holdings because it's trying to instigate an essentially pointless and ahistorical war with the human player of Carthage is for the betterment of the game.

If you'll excuse my ignorance, what's R2?

Release 2 of the patch, the one where all these bugs are resolved.

[Rad]

There is some fluidity; that's the action of the human player and the way that influences the AI decisions.

Yeah, you haven't figured out how to limit that one yet

I have no desire in seeing AI-Sauromatae, left to it's own devices, migrate to Britain for example.

That's a gross over-exaggeration and extremely unlikely to happen during a campaign and you know it. I have no such desires as well. Two neighboring African power houses duking it out for a bigger piece of the market? That I'd like to be able to see.

That level of "fluidity" makes everything invested in the game by the team utterly pointless. None of the governments, scripts, or anything else are designed to accommodate them being there.

That's not true, it's not pointless. The governments, scripts etc set the stage and give it depth and value. Both the human player and the AI should be able to use the props with a degree of freedom. Otherwise we don't have a game, we have reenactment.

Factions are very deliberately designed to have natural geographical spheres in which they fit and they will find it easiest. As well as a zone outside that in which nothing is easy and they'll struggle to operate.

Challenges are one thing and are welcome, outright blockade is another beast entirely.

That's what the end result is. The AI is terrible at multi-pronged expansion, they can do one direction with focus, or many with incompetence. AI-Ptolemaioi trying to expand into the west is going to leave it's east unattended and likely be swamped by AI-Nabatu.

AI-Ptolemaioi doesn't need the freedom to go west, it needs incentive to keep hold of it's heartlands, which means defending attacks from the east.

It's not the experience I had. As Carthage, I found myself facing a ferocious, mega-Seleucid Empire in Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt. Were the Seleucids threatened on their northern and eastern frontiers? Absolutely not. The fighting got so attritional that I found myself inciting rebellions in their far-away cities just to get enough time to cycle enough fresh troops to keep the fight going.

There's a simple reason for this perspective: it prolongs the game. The sooner that "clash of a half-dozen superfactions" mid- to late-game stage arrives, the sooner the game is basically over for a lot of players.

This is a made up issue. I played over 700 turns in my last Carthage campaign, I still had plenty of factions to fight and plenty of drive to do so. A 700-turn campaign is very long campaign, it's as long or longer than most players play, save for a few glorious madmen (looking at you Roma ; ).

All of the support provided to the AI factions is to ensure they don't get "exhausted" by all the internecine conflict with other factions, while still being able to challenge the player.

Maintaining a status quo will make it easy for the player to pick off and absorb factions one by one. Even funnier/sadder, the more factions the player defeats, the easier time he will have defeating new enemies - the player will grow stronger, while the small AI factions will stay the same.

I don't see how an AI-Ptolemaioi losing it's eastern holdings because it's trying to instigate an essentially pointless and ahistorical war with the human player of Carthage is for the betterment of the game.

Because the game is created for the human and the human is getting a kick out of it. While I have learned many things playing EB, I don't play to learn. I play to have fun.

[Rad]

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.

What version are you playing, 2.35 or 2.35A? I played on VH/VH as well.

[bordinis]

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.

While playing I accepted to pay them those Tithes and I was a vassal up to turn 333. At that particular turn The Seleucids betrayed me and an army of them spawned and besieged Sardis. Scipted message appeared that Seleucids were not pleased by my control of Western Anatolia. So I was at war with them up until now and was still getting "Seleukid Tithe" and paying them even if I was fighting them.

[bordinis]

What version are you playing, 2.35 or 2.35A? I played on VH/VH as well.

I am playing version 2.35 A with a fix patch on it. And can confirm CAI is very good this time arround. I remember playing 3 years ago and campaign was awful. Stacks and passive CAI crushed it. Now even Pritanoi is really migrating and expanding. Right now I am at a turn 400 and will see one thing I want to look for. If Romani gets Marian reform early and whether they do build required government building outside of Italy to recruit roman legionaires. I m hoping to check that out. Bezause 3 years ago there was a problem that CAI would only build legions in Italy and that s it. On VH/VH CAI is really agrresive now I love it. And it actually invades and lands it s armies to islands and Anatolia.

[Rad]

Good, it sounds like an improvement. The CAI was aggressive in 2.35, but it didn't launch many naval invasions.

[Trarco]

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 can't agree, you will still need that garrison due to the rebel script that in this case, it represents raids of some nomads and inland peoples.

[Rad]

The new rebel script now spawns 8 unit armies, right? Yeah, I will still need a garrison, but if above discussed changes are introduced, I will need around 10 units, instead of 20 units and the occasional relief army coming to the rescue.

[QuintusSertorius]

While playing I accepted to pay them those Tithes and I was a vassal up to turn 333. At that particular turn The Seleucids betrayed me and an army of them spawned and besieged Sardis. Scipted message appeared that Seleucids were not pleased by my control of Western Anatolia. So I was at war with them up until now and was still getting "Seleukid Tithe" and paying them even if I was fighting them.

Thanks for spotting that, it's definitely an oversight. One with a simple fix (two additional lines of code), thankfully, so that won't happen in R2.

The new rebel script now spawns 8 unit armies, right? Yeah, I will still need a garrison, but if above discussed changes are introduced, I will need around 10 units, instead of 20 units and the occasional relief army coming to the rescue.

Mostly 5 units, more rarely 8 units (which comes with unrest as well). The real significance is they have a proper character leading them (not a Captain) and their composition isn't random trash, like the "bandit" spawns usually were.

The Rebel CAI treats them differently to Captain-led stacks, and will besiege poorly-garrisoned settlements.

[Rad]

That means that the rebel script won't influence the size of my garrisons. Most of them were around 10 units anyway, with newly conquered, distant, rebelious and border regions sporting a full stack. However, it will give nice practice targets to my FMs and the more solid composition of rebel forces is certainly an improvement, both in terms of game and story

[Trarco]

The new rebel script now spawns 8 unit armies, right? Yeah, I will still need a garrison, but if above discussed changes are introduced, I will need around 10 units, instead of 20 units and the occasional relief army coming to the rescue.

Actually 20 units wouldn't be historically accurate. I know that you may prefer a more gamey army composition in this case but 10 units for a garrison is more preferable. My guide about a historical army composition for a Carthaginian garrison could give you some ideas for a 10-unit army. Also, try to use more semi-professional units rather than professionals for more interesting battles. I know that if you don't want to roleplay a bit, you will find my above comment useless, but anyway, I think that the new change on the map is positive but our concepts can't make everyone happy. As a "fan" of Carthage I hope you enjoy more the future changes that will affect this faction.

[Rad]

Actually 20 units wouldn't be historically accurate.

How come? I don't keep such high numbers of troops in garrison because I'm bored, I keep them because they are needed. Please read my above post - I keep 20 unit garrisons in newly conquered, distant, rebellious and border regions. Sometimes, only a combination of a capable FM, low taxes and a huge garrison keeps the region from rebelling. And I love that.

I know that you may prefer a more gamey army composition in this case but 10 units for a garrison is more preferable. My guide about a historical army composition for a Carthaginian garrison could give you some ideas for a 10-unit army.

Also, try to use more semi-professional units rather than professionals for more interesting battles. I know that if you don't want to roleplay a bit, you will find my above comment useless, but anyway, I think that the new change on the map is positive but our concepts can't make everyone happy. As a "fan" of Carthage I hope you enjoy more the future changes that will affect this faction.

Most of my armies are composed of semi-professionals. I prefer dependable but replaceable troops, such as the light Libyan hoplites and the Celtic light cavalry.

On the other hand, I avoid elite units. While I do appreciate how their small recruitment pools and long refresh rates make them precious, their low numbers in a unit undermine their tactical value. A while ago, I welcomed the removal (limitation to bodyguard only, actually) of the Carthaginian noble cavalry unit and I made the decision to not recruit Sacred Band hoplites.

Seems you have me confused with someone else.

[Trarco]

Seems you have me confused with someone else.

Actually, it was just a generic suggestion, I can't know your style of playing this mod and I was just referring to the specific case of the garrison of Lapqi in case you wanted to apply a more or less historical approach on that Carthaginian border. It was after all the main topic of this discussion. In any case, imo there isn't much to add to the conversation. In summary, your non-acceptance of the new change is legit but you should understand that we have enough historical resons (with more weight than your personal desires) to support this change on the map. Also, if before the change the game forced you to have a 20 unit garrison due to the sand wars and now that garrison is not needed anymore, then the change is even better since it allows you to play in a less gamey way.


BTW, Lusitanio gave me in the past valuable feedback about the Carthaginian campaign in this province and thanks to the rebel script Lapqi can be perfectly besieged by rebels. I like this a lot, since it reminds me of the crisis time for Carthage in which after the Numdian attacks, the New City was only able to keep her garrisoned coastal cities but unable to keep the inland territory. Definitely the last changes on this province are really positive, especially from a historical point of view. At the same time, this province can still provide you with fun experiences from a gameplay point of view.

[Rad]

Actually, it was just a generic suggestion, I can't know your style of playing this mod and I was just referring to the specific case of the garrison of Lapqi in case you want to apply a more or less historical approach on that Carthaginian border. It was after all the main topic of this discussion.

You said:" I know that you may prefer a more gamey army composition in this case but 10 units for a garrison is more preferable. My guide about a historical army composition for a Carthaginian garrison could give you some ideas for a 10-unit army. Also, try to use more semi-professional units rather than professionals for more interesting battles."

To me, this seems like you felt you knew my play style. You implied that my armies and garrisons mostly consist of expensive hard-hitters.

Also, if before the change the game forced you to have a 20 unit garrison due to the sand wars and now that garrison is not needed anymore, then the change is even better since if allows you to play in a less gamey way.

I don't see what's "gamey" in maintaining a large garrison in a targeted, isolated border town. The borders can shift, but the borders must be protected.

BTW, Lusitanio gave me in the past valuable feedback about the Carthaginian campaign in this province and thanks to the rebel script Lapqi can be perfectly besieged by rebels. I like this a lot, since it remembers me those time of crisis for Carthage that after the Numdian attacks, the New City was only able to keep her garrisoned coastal cities but unable to keep the inland territory. Definitely the last changes on this province are really positive, especially from a historical point of view.

That's great. I'll destroy the rebel attackers like I destroyed Ptolemaic attackers. The thing is that I'll need far fewer troops to do so.

[charlieh]

Having read through both sides of the debate, regarding the Carthage-Ptolemaioi land block, I can certainly appreciate the merits of both sides. Personally, I have always appreciated the dedication to historicity that EB2 provides and, personally speaking, I get a kick out of campaigns that more closely follow historical accounts. I would even promote more scripts to this end, but appreciate that may be too constrictive.

[Hellenikon]

I think another option would be creating an empty region between both provinces (Eremus region expanded to cover it). I think the issue is that when two nations border eachother, the AI looks at the neighbour for expansion. Perhaps separating both provinces by an empty region would disincline the AI to expand that way. I however don't mind the proposed solution of adding impassable terrain, because most armies crossing that region would undoubtely do it by sea, as it was far faster and efficient supplies wise.

[bordinis]

So now that we know that Tribalii swordsmen are out of the picture and elite archers aswell, what about those "Red Sea hoplites" guarding that precious frankensense trade? We know you guys are still planning to create an elite cavalry unit for Nabatu but what about the goat people? What about the scourge of Arabia ??haha

[QuintusSertorius]

Yeah, you haven't figured out how to limit that one yet

It's the one that responds most readily to the shaping we're doing with scripts and such. It's made pretty clear to the human player that there are easy ways and hard ways to play the mod, they are not free to just do as they like without that having consequences for gameplay.

That's a gross over-exaggeration and extremely unlikely to happen during a campaign and you know it. I have no such desires as well. Two neighboring African power houses duking it out for a bigger piece of the market? That I'd like to be able to see.

That they're neighbouring is irrelevant given what separated them and was a real consideration. That strip of desert was effectively impassable to armies. Now we have made it so.

That's not true, it's not pointless. The governments, scripts etc set the stage and give it depth and value. Both the human player and the AI should be able to use the props with a degree of freedom. Otherwise we don't have a game, we have reenactment.

The AI is incapable of using props with any freedom, it can only be channelled in particular directions to make it behave in a way that's consistent with what it's supposed to be simulating. That's why there are countless toggles that involve guiding the AI to do certain things and not others.

Challenges are one thing and are welcome, outright blockade is another beast entirely.

It's not the first time we did that. There's a coastal path on the northern Pontic shore we closed off with impassable terrain for the same reason, because it was a route that was not viable for large bodies of men to use. If it achieves the intended object of removing an option that wouldn't have existed in reality, then it's a job well done.

It's not the experience I had. As Carthage, I found myself facing a ferocious, mega-Seleucid Empire in Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt. Were the Seleucids threatened on their northern and eastern frontiers? Absolutely not. The fighting got so attritional that I found myself inciting rebellions in their far-away cities just to get enough time to cycle enough fresh troops to keep the fight going.

Yours is one player's experience. How many campaigns have you played as Carthage? I'd note you haven't played any in 2.35A yet, which people are already reporting is different.

This is a made up issue. I played over 700 turns in my last Carthage campaign, I still had plenty of factions to fight and plenty of drive to do so. A 700-turn campaign is very long campaign, it's as long or longer than most players play, save for a few glorious madmen (looking at you Roma ; ).

It's what made EB1 dull after 100 turns. Fighting a half-dozen superfactions who spam you with 2-3 stacks every turn without fail is a chore, not fun.

Maintaining a status quo will make it easy for the player to pick off and absorb factions one by one. Even funnier/sadder, the more factions the player defeats, the easier time he will have defeating new enemies - the player will grow stronger, while the small AI factions will stay the same.

You might not find that's the case in 2.35A. Again, look at the feedback we've already received.

Because the game is created for the human and the human is getting a kick out of it. While I have learned many things playing EB, I don't play to learn. I play to have fun.

Different people get fun from different elements, for some that kick is precisely in learning something and being challenged in historically appropriate ways. We're not going to agree on the appropriate balance between historicity and gameplay, so your choices are to either accept it or get coding your own submod where those elements work differently.