Will there be a mini-release to neuter the new AI?

[Aodh Mór Ó Néill]

The current iteration of EBII is the most awesome yet, but the new AI takes "Total War" far too literally. Games have been getting very frustrating very quickly lately.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I'm more interested in save-compatible fix for the movement points to prevent teleportation...

[Dooz]

Might not be considered much of a "fix" for all the people who responded positively to the increased movement with the update though

[ramsesii]

@Jurand

The movementpoints can be "fixed" in descr_character. This should be savegame compattible.
You could get some wierd stuf for the turn you load it up after the change.

I dont know if this will help with the AI.

[Shlazaor]

Might not be considered much of a "fix" for all the people who responded positively to the increased movement with the update though

From what I can tell most people like the improved movement range it's just that the increase was taken a a bit too extreme on land travel for gameplay purposes.

[Lusitanio]

The current iteration of EBII is the most awesome yet, but the new AI takes "Total War" far too literally. Games have been getting very frustrating very quickly lately.

Send me the current campaign script file and I will release a fix.

[QuintusSertorius]

Send me the current campaign script file and I will release a fix.

It's not in the campaign_script, it's in the AI files.

[Jurand of Cracow]

It's not in the campaign_script, it's in the AI files.

is changing the number of movement points in descr_character save-compatible? I've modified them but the save doesn't work, while a new game does.

[QuintusSertorius]

is changing the number of movement points in descr_character save-compatible? I've modified them but the save doesn't work, while a new game does.

I have no idea; I assume no change is savegame compatible.

[Cleitus the Pink]

is changing the number of movement points in descr_character save-compatible? I've modified them but the save doesn't work, while a new game does.

Nope, it's not.

[Lusitanio]

It's not in the campaign_script, it's in the AI files.

I know. I already changed those files on my build, but I would need the current campaign script file to edit since we removed the script regarding war tiredness, if I used mine, the game would crash for the other players.

[Aquila SPQR]

"starting_action_points 250"

It's this line, right? I think I'll reduce it when I'll start a new campaign.

[Dooz]

Yes, they were 124/125 for generals/named characters in previous versions for reference. You might wanna look through all the entries to change various characters, like generals and named characters, navies have their own setting, etc.

[Aquila SPQR]

Thanks, it was a big change then to have it doubled. I don't know how exactly it'll impact the gameplay, but I'm pretty sure I'll return to 125 in new campaign.

EDIT: I played a bit more and I agree the new AI feels... strange. I play as Ptolemies and I can understand Seleukids disliking me and declaring war on me, but I don't understand them doing very little during war afterwards. I also don't like Makedonians declaring war constantly (I think I've read it's scripted), and when I removed half of garrison of Kyrene to invade Macedonia - my ally KH betrayed me. I signed peace with them (they were very grateful) only to be at war with them again next turn (and I assume it'll be like that unless I wipe them out or increase my garrisons)...

This current system doesn't make much sense to me. Is it using the same AI as SSHIP? SSHIP seems to have decent campaign AI and diplomacy from my limited experience.

[Pooploop]

To the people who are hankering for the ai to be "nerfed" and the movement points to be reduced...you guys are aware how that kind of veers the game to the realm of historical INACCURACY right?? Of course arguments can be made to slight (VERY slight) reductions to both aforementioned parameters, but making it as it was (pre 2.35R3.5) is just...let's just say it...easy mode (baby mode even). The old movement points made armies crawl at a SNAIL'S pace...to say the current ones make them teleport is ridiculous, if taking into account that one turn represents 3 MONTHS of a game year! Even if they only moved half the time in that turn (so 1.5 months just for marching, the rest for foraging/training/recruiting/resting), the old movement points suggested they all had two left feet and kept getting lost! Reading on the marching paces set by various nomadic groups (e.g. Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, *ehem Mongols), or those set by Alexander's and later Caesar's armies, then one can judge that 250 (that's the current one right) is STILL on the slow side!!

Now on to the general "feel" of the campaign ai...the supposed "unrealistic" backstabbing. Do you guys even garrison ALL your border settlements (at LEAST quarter to half stack)? Do you know WHY the Romans and the Han Chinese, despite being the greatest powers of their respective regions still had to place up to 100,000 troops (I don't think I'm exaggerating here) on their respective frontiers even when the "barbarians" were so remarkably inferior to them in logistics and military tech? Winning one to two great battles then negotiating an advantageous peace is only the TIP of the iceberg of ensuring stability on your borders. CONSTANT show of force is also required!! You guys seem to think battles, nay, wars in this time period were like those of the early classical era of the Greek city states, where there was a nice preplanned field of battle, and a nice expected outcome, where the vanquished more or less complied with the treaty and you oh so childishly assumed you won't ever be attacked or betrayed. Please explain then the wars of the Diadochai, the wars of Carthage, the corpse-strewn fields where CONSTANT Gallic and Germanic raids occured. If the current ai would play as Rome historically expanded and held territory...will you then complain that it such a "grindfest" and it's "too many battles and sieges" and the ai "never stops making war" or some other claims? Hannibal will most certainly agree with you!! When the settled peoples all across the fertile crescent and eastern Mediterranean faced the advancing steppe armies decade after decade, haha they will most certainly agree with you!! War, historically, is not some neatly concluded saga that will leave you ample turns to save up for some mine or port or some new Basilike Patris to create a picture perfect army with the right number of peltasts and cavalry units. It is a grindfest that will leave you scrambling for every unit or mercenary available, slogging through turn after turn while your treasury goes deeply in the red and you start fielding armies half composed of militia or peasant skirmishers. In short, it is unpredictable and NEVER convenient, and I think the current ai and movement points reflect my view very much.

[Aquila SPQR]

If we're talking about "historical inaccuracy" - let's not forget than in real life armies do not take "turns" and you were able to react in real time. In the game however both AI and player can totally bypass the enemy army and then waltz 500 kilometers into the enemy territory unmolested.

And when it comes to backstabbing - when you have good relations with someone (are... allied for example) - I expect them to maintain those relations even when I withdraw 1/3 of my army to fight the common enemy. In my actual campaign I took some of Kyrene garrison to invade Macedonia together with KH, who was my ally both formally and in war with Macedon. What strategic "geniuses" of KH did? They declared war on me immediately afterwards and sent puny fleet to block Kyrene's port. WHEN I WAS SAILING TO HELP THEM IN THEIR WAR AGAINST MACEDON.

If you're saying that it's fine and anything you wrote can totally justify it - ok, I don't know what to say.

Taking only garrisons under consideration is not a good idea.

[aaronp]

One great thing about the movement changes is that you don't **need** to have these unrealistic garrisons at every frontier settlement. You are allowed to think regionally rather than locally, mustering armies from farther afield in a more realistic way.

That means that the AI might attack you, but I don't consider that a bad thing. To people who want a less aggressive AI I do not personally understand why you would want that. At the same time, the AI should not be suicidal and should not devolve into a couple of super-factions in the late game. This solution solves those problems.

As to the AI being irrational and stupid... Well this is Medieval II. The AI is irrational and stupid.

[Dooz]

One feasible justification for the start-stop wars could be looking at peace as just ceasefire agreements (which maybe they're meant to be to begin with?) instead of some ultimate no take-backsies end of story peace. I think that is and was a real thing, so it wouldn't be a crazy justification. Ceasefire, regroup, reattack. Probably at least as realistic as constant wars of 20+ years.

Either way, I think the ends (good faction progression over the course of long campaigns) are worth the means. Not too sure what is too drastically different than how the game was before really, it's all just wars and conquering and defending, not much has changed in that regard.

Also, maybe limiting troops/armies would change the dynamic? If enough armies are destroyed and AI can't field new ones pretty quickly, they might not be as inclined to break peace by seeing more opportunities for expansion with their forces staying depleted for longer. Personally, I loved the manpower limit system in the BGR submod for Stainless Steel. Effectively worked similarly to how subsequent TW games introduced some unit limit caps, like in ETW/NTW, but it was dynamically tied specifically to the campaign and available manpower and a really great intricate system.

[Pooploop]

Aquila SPQR....that particular stupidity is due to M2TW's brand of ai. The higher movement points just allow them to pursue their idiocy to greater effect. I kind of remember the same sort of headache with other mods, like Stainless Steel. Point is attempting to roleplay the complex political relationships factions had with each other is not going to go over well with M2TW's diplomacy. You'd be better of playing CK2. Strangely enough though, that sort of mercenary behavior was not as uncommon as you might think. Try checking out the lives of the Syracusan tyrants, and the zigzags in fortunes and alliances of the Diadochai. Remember that each faction in M2TW is a regional power that has the potential to become a worldwide one. Betrayal and violence is a far more realistic ending to any "positive" relationship between players such as them, rather than the bosom friendship and kinship ties between small chieftains/lords. Do not expect (which is kinda reflected in history) any faction in EB2 to have the friendship that fantasy countries like Gondor and Rohan had. When reaching out with one hand always have another behind your back clutching a dagger (or in this case a more numerous Kyrene garrison/ or a "reserve" fleet).

[Cleitus the Pink]

Aquila SPQR....that particular stupidity is due to M2TW's brand of ai. The higher movement points just allow them to pursue their idiocy to greater effect. I kind of remember the same sort of headache with other mods, like Stainless Steel. Point is attempting to roleplay the complex political relationships factions had with each other is not going to go over well with M2TW's diplomacy. You'd be better of playing CK2. Strangely enough though, that sort of mercenary behavior was not as uncommon as you might think. Try checking out the lives of the Syracusan tyrants, and the zigzags in fortunes and alliances of the Diadochai. Remember that each faction in M2TW is a regional power that has the potential to become a worldwide one. Betrayal and violence is a far more realistic ending to any "positive" relationship between players such as them, rather than the bosom friendship and kinship ties between small chieftains/lords. Do not expect (which is kinda reflected in history) any faction in EB2 to have the friendship that fantasy countries like Gondor and Rohan had. When reaching out with one hand always have another behind your back clutching a dagger (or in this case a more numerous Kyrene garrison/ or a "reserve" fleet).

No, actually. He is the one that's right here. I had increased movement points for previous patches. (Movement points HIGHER THAN 250 BTW) and the AI NEVER did anything REMOTELY as stupid as the things it does in the latest version of EBII and this fact shows that it has very little to do with the increased movement points but it has everything to do with the newly implemented campaign AI. Might you tell me why some faction declares war on me, marches on my capital and besieges it for 1 turn, lifts the siege and marches into a different CONTINENT? Then I send a diplomat to talk this stupid situation over and at first their priority is obviously war, then I ask for them to be vassalized just to see their reaction and immediately their priority shifts on its head and suddenly they're at my feet begging for peace and of course I milk 10k out of them for it and guess what?! They declare war on me the next turn and so this circle of idiocy continues. Might you explain to me why me being able to milk factions STUPID amounts of money in this stupid cycle is somehow more "historically accurate" than honouring an alliance and maybe resting a little between pointless wars? No, not even the Diadochi were like this. The AI is messed up right now and it simply can't be denied. I have no problem with a backstab every now and then but this is just absurd.