Faction difficulty rating overhaul

[realm56]

*sigh*, TWC really seems to hate me posting here nowadays. Editing this post to make some more sense now...

EDIT: OK, so the EB II team really needs some feedback on how difficult the various factions are. I had planned to rework the intro screen to something like this before I went AWOL (I hence don't know if this made it into the mod):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What we need is info on both the initial campaign difficulty and the overall difficulty, as well as a breakdown of what makes the faction easy or difficult exactly. There's definitely some data to use in this thread already, but it's several iterations of EB II old by now.

As it currently stands, the faction difficulties on the campaign menu for EB2 are quite outdated, iirc, there have already been a trend or two attempting to address this issue but none have come to fruition as of now.

My proposal is as follows:

• Consolidation of the faction difficulty reviews.
• Splitting the faction difficulty into several sections:

- Starting strategic situation (Some factions may be strong overall but getting to that point will not always be smooth sailing...)
- Late Strategic situation (Will take geography, finances, possible reforms and late game army compositions into consideration (Most weight will be given to factional armies post turn 200 with exceptions (looking at you Rome)))
- Faction Mechanics/Reforms (Some factions may have trait lines, administrations or role playing elements that takes some understanding to fully exploit the benefits of such as Rome's Cursus Honorum)
- Factional/regional Army compositions (This will be evaluated on a different scale: Weak, Moderate, Strong), most of these ratings will be made relative to your neighbors' compositions and some bearing will be given to future far-flung adversaries.
-Overall Difficulty

The proposed difficulty scale is as follows unless stated otherwise: Easy, Moderate, Challenging, Very Challenging.

Of course most of these ratings are subjective and a more precise criteria will be generated at a later date pending approval.

Possible actions:

• Additional community participation in the faction difficulty reviews/ EB Gameplay guides (And more community input regarding faction difficulties, no matter how big or small to make consolidation easier, I will also put appeals for factions in dire need of reviews if approved).

Any and all well-intentioned input is welcome.

[Aleksander the Average]

Shoot me a PM over on the Org if this gets rolling and you need some proofreading done on the resulting text.

[realm56]

Faction difficulty rating overhaul

The faction difficulty ratings in EBII look quite outdated for the most part and I want to address that as I have stated previously.


How will this overhaul be structured?

The difficulty will be split into several parts, each with specific judging criteria along with a final overall difficulty that takes all of these parts into account. Each part will be weighed differently in order to render judgement on the overall campaign difficulty. Note that the overhaul will be made with Hard/Medium difficulty in mind and is intended to be a supplement to the official guide.


Starting strategic situation:

• The strength of your administration, military and economy at campaign start relative to your neighbors and the work needed to ensure a stable income with a strong main army with money left over to build infrastructure.
• Scripted events such as rebels, relief armies, generation/removal of funds etc....
• Immediate geography and resource potential.

Weight in overall difficulty: 40%


Late strategic situation:

• Late game army compositions and their strength relative to your enemies.
• Potential to access additional military and civil options with reforms .
• Scripted events (Such as nomadic invasions...)

Weight in overall difficulty: 20%


Faction mechanics:

• Potential long term benefits for Family members and the faction at large.
• Possible constraints on player actions.
• Necessity for micromanagement.

Weight in overall difficulty: 15%


Army composition:

• Bodyguards (The general and his retinue, it should ideally be maneuverable, potent in attack and steadfast in defense).
• Cavalry (Mounted units should be able to hit the enemy where they are unprepared and readily respond to their counterparts in the enemy army)
• Infantry (Infantry units should be able to hold the line and grind the enemy to paste in protracted melee, credit to be given to fast, hard hitting light/medium infantry as well as solid heavy infantry)
• Skirmishers (Skirmishers must be able to harass the enemy and deal good damage from range, being able to hold if intercepted or deal reasonable damage in CQC will be considered as a bonus.)
• Ability of roster to scale with time.

Weight in overall difficulty: 25%


Overall difficulty:

Will be judged with a short paragraph with all criteria considered appropriately based on their weight on the overall judgement. A scale will be used to assess this difficulty as follows:

• Easy
• Moderate
• Hard
• Very Hard
• Legendary

Closing statements

If any of you want to make contributions to this trend, please use the criteria specified.

I am in particular need of difficulty assessments for the following factions:

• Aedui
• Arverni
• Pritanoi
• Lusotannan
• Sab'yn
• Sauromatae
• Sweboz
• Massylia
• Arevaci
• Lugiones

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Jurand of Cracow]

I keep my fingers crossed for this initiative but I thought there's already a project to update the ratings? Is there no follow-up of the series of the reports?

[realm56]

I keep my fingers crossed for this initiative but I thought there's already a project to update the ratings? Is there no follow-up of the series of the reports?

Yes, there have been updates to the current reports, but what I intend to do is to consolidate all of them and combine them with input from the devs regarding the new changes that are coming to version 2.4 (Some of the older reports are quite frankly no longer applicable with all the changes that have arrived and/or have yet to come... and some factions have no reports put up from what I have seen). The consolidated reports with their various different styles would then all be combined into a short summary using the criteria I have just established.

*sigh*, TWC really seems to hate me posting here nowadays. Editing this post to make some more sense now...

EDIT: OK, so the EB II team really needs some feedback on how difficult the various factions are. I had planned to rework the intro screen to something like this before I went AWOL (I hence don't know if this made it into the mod):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What we need is info on both the initial campaign difficulty and the overall difficulty, as well as a breakdown of what makes the faction easy or difficult exactly. There's definitely some data to use in this thread already, but it's several iterations of EB II old by now.

As for the project you mentioned, that project now appears very dead, thus I have taken up the important but laborious work of making sure that the faction difficulties are up to date in time for version 2.4.

[realm56]

Here is an example of my proposal at work:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hayasdan

Starting strategic situation:

Hayasdan starts in a safe position with two very defensible settlements in the form of the decently developed but wealthy capital of Armavir and the newly founded but strategically vital Shamushat. Both her starting settlements are safely nestled in the Caucasus away from the conflict zones of Syria and Anatolia. Her starting military is sufficient for the initial consolidation of the surrounding lands ruled by petty kings. The Caucasus has the potential to be wealthy with Armavir at its centre. Unfortunately, on both counts, these potential strengths are constrained by vassalage to the Seleucids in exchange for semi-autonomy in her affairs although this was not always a given due to her relative isolation from the Seleucid heartlands of Syria and Mesopotamia. To compound this insult, the Seleucids and to a lesser extent, the Sauromatae through money and strategic marriages respectively have granted the surrounding petty kingdoms mutual protection from aggression by Hayasdan. Therefore, patience is advised until an opportunity arises to throw off Seleucid vassalage and attack when the gaze of the Sauromatae lie elsewhere.


Late strategic situation:

With her sovereignty now without question, Hayastan has the option of further expansion into the Seleucid heartlands to cement her status as in imperial power. This will inevitably put her into contact with Hellenistic culture which she can co-opt for her own purposes although not to the same extent as neighbouring Pontos. However, with her newfound status and wealth comes new enemies. The Ptolemies and the Nabateans will resent Hayasdan’s expansion into Syria and will bitterly contest her influence in the area. Pontos will also become increasingly threatened by her dominion, thus a careful watch should be maintained to gauge her intentions. The Seleucids, undoubtably diminished by Hayasdan’s imperial rule will also plot unceasingly to seize back her lost possessions from her newly acquired empire. Maintenance of an Achaemenid style administration will bring many benefits to Hayasdan although secondary administrative hubs may have to be established to check the power of her satraps. Stay the course and Hayasdan may yet enjoy a new golden age.


Faction Mechanics:

• Seleucid vassalage
• Imperial Hayasdan


Army composition:

Hayasdan’s roster consists of various tribal levies with a good array of cavalry that should serve her well as she seeks to maintain her sovereignty in the face of aggression from the surrounding kingdoms and petty chiefs. Should she gain influence in her immediate periphery, additional Caucasian and Persian regionals can be levied to serve in her military. Should she gain true autonomy and expand her dominion ever further, well trained, and equipped retinues will be made available to her along with a plethora of foreign peoples willing to bask in her newfound power and defend it with zeal.

The riders who accompany the Arkhy and his trusted aides are drawn from the Nakharar and Azat nobles and are all covered from top to bottom in the finest scale and plate armour available, armed with barge pole and mace. They deploy themselves in battle atop the finest steeds, armoured in the same manner. They fight in the manner of the Cataphract which is a relatively new introduction to these lands, a product of steppe warfare that Hayasdan has taken for her own. They will often be the last to fall in battle.

The horsemen that serve Hayasdan are all seasoned riders despite her mountainous terrain. Javelin and bow armed cavalry gallop out to harass her foes from afar whilst stout medium cavalrymen follow them, never far behind. None should ignore the much vaulted and healthily feared Cataphract, covered from head to toe in finely made armour and armed with the much-feared barge pole which can impale any enemy and leave them to be crushed under the combined weight of their baneful hooves, their sheer bulk and their heavy armour. As her dominion expands, Hayasdan can gain access to even more exotic mounted options to bolster her already solid cavalry roster.

The infantrymen who fight for the Arkhy consist of lightly armoured levies and warriors who fight in the manner of the Persian Sparabara although more seasoned tribal warriors from Kartli, Egrisi and other locales can be co-opted to bolster the front line. Galatanised units can also be recruited to comprise a functional but unexceptional infantry core. As Hayasdan’s dominion expands, Hellenes, Persians and other foreigners can be recruited to fight for her. Finally, the Gund, masters of the spear, shield and bow can be drawn from the sons of the lesser nobility to reliably serve as much needed professional troops.

The missile troops that Hayasdan recruits to fight in her name can be relied upon to provide adequate supporting fire although their poor armour and discipline will leave them vulnerable to being intercepted and broken by faster or better-armed opposition should they get too close.


Overall difficulty:

Hayasdan’s sheltered starting position, utilitarian roster and the relative simplicity of her reforms and mechanics make her campaign a solid first pick for a player just starting to explore Europa Barbarorum II.

Rating: Easy

I will refine this example and other assessments as the changes for 2.4 trickle in.

[realm56]

Project update:

Assessments for 16 factions including this one have currently been completed and I am reaching a point where I will soon have to proceed at a dead man's pace because there are little to no assessments on this trend or the sticky trend for faction difficulty .


Thus I once again reiterate my appeal:

Please add feedback for factions on either trend, however minor they may be!

I really need feedback for the following in particular:

• Aruernoi
• ​Aedui
• Arevaci
• Lougiones
• Lusotannan
• Massylia
• Sauromatae
• Sweboz

Pretty please ?

[Artannis Wolfrunner]

Question: how do you want replies to be written? Specifically, do you want them written in the historical, role-playing direction you took with Hayasdan, or do you just want a general breakdown of the faction with economic numbers, effective units listed by name, building priorities, expansion strategies, etc. ?

Personally I have terribly narrow faction preferences in EB as I basically only ever play as Hayasdan or Pontos, over and over. I was going to do one for Hayasdan before yours, but I was planning to phrase it more from an in-game perspective, mentioning certain stand-out units to prioritize for armies and which cities to expand to and governments to build in order to get those units. But yours went in a very different direction that was more detached from gameplay. I've been thinking about branching out and trying Taksashila due to their seemingly comfortable end-of-map start.

[realm56]

Question: how do you want replies to be written? Specifically, do you want them written in the historical, role-playing direction you took with Hayasdan, or do you just want a general breakdown of the faction with economic numbers, effective units listed by name, building priorities, expansion strategies, etc. ?

Personally I have terribly narrow faction preferences in EB as I basically only ever play as Hayasdan or Pontos, over and over. I was going to do one for Hayasdan before yours, but I was planning to phrase it more from an in-game perspective, mentioning certain stand-out units to prioritize for armies and which cities to expand to and governments to build in order to get those units. But yours went in a very different direction that was more detached from gameplay. I've been thinking about branching out and trying Taksashila due to their seemingly comfortable end-of-map start.

General breakdowns are fine for now, I'll add the historical flavor at a later date using the input I recieve here, as a matter of fact, I'm gathering material for Taksashila right now (ie. Getting my behind handed to me and/or recovering 30k debt, praying to high heaven that no more rebels pop up to ruin my day....).

EDIT: I have made it through the maelstrom and am secure at home, all I need is the late game and I should soon have enough material to start writing their assessment (I'll put one up on the pinned difficulty trend given their relative absence from said trend). You can ignore the criteria if you do not want to follow it to the letter, I'll judge what is put up on their own merits and amend accordingly.

[Sar1n]

The only faction I've played in 2.35A so far are Ptolemaioi. I could write it up if you want...

[realm56]

The only faction I've played in 2.35A so far are Ptolemaioi. I could write it up if you want...

That's fine, other perspectives other than my own or what is already posted are always welcome .

[Spartocos Leukonovich]

Cheers Realm, thanks for redirecting me to this thread, i can commit to write up my insight in the manner you proposed on Areuakoi, Boii, Lougiones, Massylians, but gonna need some time to refresh my memory with Areuakoi, as for the rest three, i am currently playing them, and gonna need to advance at least to turn 350, to judge them fair, and Lougiones to 200 BC, to witness przeworsk stabilization. So it gonna take some time, but surely will revert back.

[romulus_aeneas]

Realm, for the sake of preventing redundancy, can you quickly verify the remaining the factions you need reports for? Your last post was from June, so I don't want to write up something you already have I need an excuse to play something besides Rome/Macedonia, so this will be a fun Halloween project.

[realm56]

Realm, for the sake of preventing redundancy, can you quickly verify the remaining the factions you need reports for? Your last post was from June, so I don't want to write up something you already have I need an excuse to play something besides Rome/Macedonia, so this will be a fun Halloween project.

The list on post#7 has been updated with the factions I have yet to do writeups for.

[eyelurker]

Getai seems to be a lot more difficult that i consider it's difficult similiar to Ponus which is very hard - nigh impossible

You start with negative income and must expand rapidly (especially tyragetae which in previous patch i always ignore do to it's incovinient position but now there are time limit to conquer it otherwise face rebel script) which means winning multiple difficult battles and sieges fighting equal or stronger than your first army with skythian being the worst enemies for Getai unless you can deal an easy auto battle.

If your first army get wipe out before expanding enough it still recoverable becuase Getai has raid mechanic but it will takes years to rebuild new army again and you hope rebel do not spwan during that lull.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Getai seems to be a lot more difficult that i consider it's difficult similiar to Ponus which is very hard - nigh impossible

You start with negative income and must expand rapidly (especially tyragetae which in previous patch i always ignore do to it's incovinient position but now there are time limit to conquer it otherwise face rebel script) which means winning multiple difficult battles and sieges fighting equal or stronger than your first army with skythian being the worst enemies for Getai unless you can deal an easy auto battle.

If your first army get wipe out before expanding enough it still recoverable becuase Getai has raid mechanic but it will takes years to rebuild new army again and you hope rebel do not spwan during that lull.

My experience is quite a different one: it's a rather easy faction (not as easy as Pergamon, Hayasdan or Pritanoi, but still). With the teleporting in 2.35Ar3 (extremely high movement points number) you may have one decent army and show up in a blink anytime there's a need, ie some neighbour errantly attack you. Once you expand to the Geatai traditional territories (4 settlements), you can have good supply of troops and enough in your treasury. I imagine that unless you're attacked from all sides, you may easily expand and then win.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[eyelurker]

My experience is quite a different one: it's a rather easy faction (not as easy as Pergamon, Hayasdan or Pritanoi, but still). With the teleporting in 2.35Ar3 (extremely high movement points number) you may have one decent army and show up in a blink anytime there's a need, ie some neighbour errantly attack you. Once you expand to the Geatai traditional territories (4 settlements), you can have good supply of troops and enough in your treasury. I imagine that unless you're attacked from all sides, you may easily expand and then win.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Oh yeah once Getai finish it's traditional expansion it gets much easier but at the beggining you have to be very agressive or restart the game because Getai cannot sustain on it's own by it's starting settlement.

I find playing other barbarian faction have a more calmer start.

[realm56]

I will agree with @eyelurker in this instance, a faction will be higher in difficulty if it is not forgiving of early mistakes (ie. for Rome, you can lose both of your starting armies and still not be too badly affected by it from a strategic and financial point of view while for the Getai, it will take years to recover if you lose your starting army and leader and you will a few threats bearing down your necks if you delay).

[Spartocos Leukonovich]

Lougiones 2.35A R3.5, CAI VH, BAI Normal.
Faction Mechanics

1. Przeworsk Stabilization 200BC (turn 289, automatic change, no pop up windows). Enables Sibjos governments in Germania and Baltics, and Frijondlika Fulka outside of Germania and Baltics, but geographically restricted. Basically your imperial reform.
2. Rikis Hufa (confederation government which eats authority), Panoply reform 110-90 BC (by Teutanos, so long, but I determined to continue !!!)

Starting strategic situation:
Your starting position is unimpressive, as Lougiones themselves, a lot of people might have this idea, an idea which is technically wrong. Your faction has one of the both best/cheap tribal infantry in the game, on par with your neighbors Sweboz. Your consequent prospects of conquest thus, as follows: Consolidate Baltics under your rule in early game, or dethrone annoying Sweboz, force them to migrate somewhere, and take both their core territories, and Baltics.

Late strategic situation:
For you is really scary, Aedui, Aruernoi, Sauromatae, and possibly Boii (d*mn GoT AI!), is really not opponents you can fight prolonged war with, your tribal warriors are plentiful, but their weakness will show in prolonged combat, with more armored Gauls. Especially you are weak against Sauromatae, there is no good spearman for you to counter their elite cavalry, so wars with them will be really bloody. Do not forget, you inhabit one of the most poor parts of this world, and your max. city level is 3, so your coffers will feel each war, even when you build nothing.
Przeworsk stabilization: Aside from aforementioned governments, gives you interesting recruitment in following places: Kambodunon (Gaisoualos, Lake man), Klepidava (Peltenai, Oroneides, Gettikoi Hippotoxotai, Basternae)

Late game:
I am yet to witness it happen in 110-90 BC, according to recruitment viewer opens a lot of unique only to Lougiones units.

Amber route ambition:
Monopolize Amber Route from Baltic, to Mediterranean, and Black sea! Knock off everyone in the process. Be aware, list of your enemies will expand to Roma(ouch), Getai, and Hellenes.

Interesting features:
Before Przeworsk stabilization you have interesting government called Wertegernos (6400 minai, ouch !) which is installed anywhere where, at least 15-25 % WTS present, and thus only reliable option in early game, which provides you with mix of gallic/Germanic troops. Nothing unique really, kondamantes, diuxiroi, epatoi londoi. In Germania, local skirmishers, cavalry, frizandruhtiz, and Scandinavian spearmen with very long name, and as long replen. Pomeranian culture units (only in Baltics), and even limited nervii spearmen in Nemetokena. Those units will be your mainstay until przeworsk stabilization. You can install Tributary nation(geographically limited) outside Baltics, but for every 3 built, 1 authority of FL is lost, the only reason to build it, is to get chatti youth in Ubioidunon, and some recruitment in the Albion.

Easter Eggs/Curiosities probably:
Interesting Easter Egg is, that you can build tributary nation in Scotland (Dunopalator), and Ireland (Isamnion), because they start with decent PT culture. You in exchange get low level skirmishers, spearmen, and cavalry of Pritanoi, enough to garrison your oversee holdings. Not to mention you have pretty sweet wonder in Isamnion (5 law, +1 Trade). You can build Frijondlika Fulka in Dunopalator, but it provides you no recruitment (oversight?).

Overall difficulty:
I would argue Very challenging, but not nigh impossible, you just need to figure out your early game strategy, and being a little bit opportunistic before przeworsk stabilization.

Questions for the team;

1. Why I cant build Frijondlika Fulka in northern Gaul ?
2. Please, narrow down for me places where I can build tributary nation. Strangely enough I can build it in Scotland, Ireland, but not in Wales, why though ? I do have required 25 PT culture.
3. After przeworsk stabilization, and installation of Sibjos, I lost my Pomeranian recruitment in Baltics, seems strange, not to mention that I never got to recruit Pomeranian cavalry.

[realm56]

1. Dependent Nations can only be built in the following areas on the map:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

2. Tributary Nations can be built in any place with 25% PT or more. (Is the settlement in Wales at least town level?)

3. Oh, it looks like the Pomeranian Cavalry are only avaliable with Confederate and Dependent Nations which are coincidentally only avalible after the Przeworsk Stabilization which is also the time when all Pomeranian units are supposed to disappear from the recruitment pools, there are no issues with Client state or other factional recruitment though, weird...

The loss of Pomeranian recruitment is intentional as the indigenous Baltic influences got displaced by the emergent Jastorf and Przeworsk cultures by the time of the Przeworsk Stabilization which was a seismic change in the region.