2.4 CAI Blockade fetish

[Wisahrabnaz]

I'm at around turn ~20 in a KH campaign. So far, the Bosporans, the Numidians, the Makedonians, and even the mf Pritanoi have come down and blockaded the ports of either Athens or Rhodes. The Bosporans seems especially fanatic, as they've done it probably four times in these twenty turns.From what I can tell of the rest of the world, this seems to be common. I distinctly remember the message that told me Pergamon was now at war with Carthage...due to a naval blockade.Has anyone else noticed this in the new version? It kind of breaks some of the immersion.

[Goffredo85]

It is either that or no naval invasions. Apparently there's some kind of on/off condition for the ai that once activated makes naval invasions possible but also causes this kind of behaviour.

[QuintusSertorius]

It is either that or no naval invasions. Apparently there's some kind of on/off condition for the ai that once activated makes naval invasions possible but also causes this kind of behaviour.

Precisely this, unfortunately. There's a load of hardcoded behaviour in the naval CAI that we can't touch; the upshot of it is either you have naval invasions (and this blockading behaviour happens) or you don't.

[Wisahrabnaz]

It is either that or no naval invasions. Apparently there's some kind of on/off condition for the ai that once activated makes naval invasions possible but also causes this kind of behaviour.

Precisely this, unfortunately. There's a load of hardcoded behaviour in the naval CAI that we can't touch; the upshot of it is either you have naval invasions (and this blockading behaviour happens) or you don't.

Ah, I see. I've gotten to around turn ~40 and it has not been that big of a deal. It's just kinda hilarious. It certainly doesn't detract from 2.4 in any meaningful way. Thanks for the clarification.

[Maroslav]

Naval invasions were acase in previous version and this odd behaviour was not present....

[Floren d'Asteneuz]

I had a lot of suicidal blockades in my games too, with the 2.3 and the 2.35x versions. I don't think it's new. I remember managing to block the access to my seas with a long row of ships or in narrowing precisely to avoid going to war with allied or neutral factions that had access to my seas but were far away, or very small and I wished to keep them friendly, or both.
It also works with bigger factions but those may have good reasons to be agressive : they can afford it.

But because of this, there is no way to keep an alliance running several centuries like it was done in history with different factions, and that broke the game for me. Mutual protection and friendship isn't possible in TW, and it was the reason why I stopped playing back then.

[Goffredo85]

Alliances are not a thing in tw games. Especially in old ones like med2. Consider them as non aggression pacts at best. Besides history is full of backstabbing and sideswitching.

[QuintusSertorius]

Alliances are not a thing in tw games. Especially in old ones like med2. Consider them as non aggression pacts at best. Besides history is full of backstabbing and sideswitching.

History also has long periods of non-aggression as well, though. Look at Carthage and the Ptolemaioi, who recognised each other's natural spheres of influence and never went to war.

[Goffredo85]

Well there were no contrasting interests between them, wouldn't call that a century long alliance. Incidentally alliances and peace can be mantained in med2 if the other faction is focused on other enemies or its expanding towards other areas. Ofc i am not implying that med 2 CAI is smart and realistic. I am just suggesting a different view on the subject. History is not Men of the West vs the Shadow.

[Maroslav]

Given how clunky AI computing of its moves is, this nonsense of naval aggresion worsen a situation for naval dependant factions like Carthage a lot , because of much higher naval traffic = less comitment of AI ships to transport its reinforcements to more important places. On the other hand AI now expand much more logicaly and do not neglect defense of its core territory for a sake of naval invasions.

A offtopic side note: tone down money cheats for single settlement factions- 4+ stacks is a bit over a line. it became almost a tradition that a single village Pantikapaion Bosphoros recruit 5 stacks and thrash Sarmatians whose autoresolve is sort of criminal ( thank you CA for implementing calculator, which never ever mirrored a bit of reality, not even a close).

[Floren d'Asteneuz]

Well there were no contrasting interests between them, wouldn't call that a century long alliance. Incidentally alliances and peace can be maintained in med2 if the other faction is focused on other enemies or its expanding towards other areas. Ofc i am not implying that med 2 CAI is smart and realistic. I am just suggesting a different view on the subject. History is not Men of the West vs the Shadow.

Yet even when you have an alliance (or a non-agression pact as you stade) they still attack your harbours.
What I say is that it breaks the idea that you can have a great protector to which you give money and help fight against a common enemy, which was the case for a lot of cultures, like the examples Quintus said. I would add some cities like Massalia who had a key role in influencing and fighting different Celt tribes, and had a lot of commercial accords with Rome, and wasn't worried by Rome only when Rome had a civil war and they couldn't chose a side, and were worried by both.
Your exaggeration with your men of the west is fun but it isn't was I was going for.

I played EB and EBII since the beginning and I know how the engine works, thank you. But at the end I just was fed up by it and stopped playing precisely because of that.

I mean : we all won against odds in wars, it's easy for all of us now, and it's boring. Trying to create durable alliances and to limit oneself in our own expansion and trying to make it more politics is funnier, but it doesn't work only because of those blockades. I worked around it, but at the end you can't play a more subtle way and after more than 23 years on total war, it is getting old fast.

So I know all that, I am just saying that this is the biggest part (just those blockades) of why I started to use console and at the end I stopped playing.

[Goffredo85]

Look i fell the same as you. I playd tw titles since shogun 1 too. Ofc the formula is stale after all this years of playing. I would also like more complex mechanics, especially in the diplomacy part. Three kingdoms maanged to improve that aspect a bit, but as CA left it rot i doubt they would pursue that route for future titles. I think we are asking for something that these games simply cannot provide. One can live with that or let it go, to each his own.

[Gunydii]

Given how clunky AI computing of its moves is, this nonsense of naval aggresion worsen a situation for naval dependant factions like Carthage a lot , because of much higher naval traffic = less comitment of AI ships to transport its reinforcements to more important places. On the other hand AI now expand much more logicaly and do not neglect defense of its core territory for a sake of naval invasions.

I've only had one decent run in 2.4 as bactria, but 330 turns in I'd say carthage are one of two maybe three major powers.

I'd argue another naval faction (with loads of enemies) Ptolemy is the other. neither of them have expanded anywhere daft.

Id actually argue that the map overall looks "really" sensible.

I'd have three comments/minor worries Rome is still on the struggle bus, the Seleucids basically melted (before my first "loyalist" FL could die), KH didnt last long (~150) that and hasnt re-emerged. Im not sure any of these are outrageous offences to history. Carthage winning the punic wars, the Seleucids losing the syrian wars into being cannibalised by its nominal subjects, Macedoia dealing with KH. Not saying this is how every game should play ofc.

My point being whilst everyone being at war is a bit daft at least if you leave the ai to it, naval factions (Carthage and Ptolemy for instance) seem to be doing very well in my game and whilst I dont love the process of the naval aggression, the aggregate outcome i think is pretty reasonable

[Maroslav]

thats exactly what i said. in my Aedui campaign, KH wiped a floor with Epeiros, although it is a bit of atheir own mistake, since they left Ambrakia undefended for a sake of invading Liburnian lands by land, where they froze because they haven't had enough man power to take a city. So Epeiros AI just changed their Knosos/Rhodos race from 2.35a , into trying to take any land adjacent to their port. I will repeat myself by saying, that it is still better than it was before, since now it is perhaps few factions doing nonsenses ( not that much from a perspective of sandbox/historical expansion, but given how clunky AI is- due to gathering its forces near a target rather near its mustering HUB being still operative if needed + a fact, that if AI has hardcoded preferences for expansion, which are a difficult one being naval dependant, while KH should wipe Epeiros out reaching their lands in 0,5 turn of march while Epirote armies are frozen somewhere in lands of no one.

Side note- i would love to see Seleukids crumble without need of my intervention- it does happen on its own in 1/6 cases and multiplepresure from all sides are needed. They usually barricade themselves with fulstack in border cities and thats it. Nobody usually can afford to take them, because they have other confiltcs between themselves. Parthia now finally do its job rather than trying to harras Sarmatians. What is weird from my perspective is, that they still have nomadism while maintaining their core regions needed for imperial reforms - the most western one.

[Gunydii]

thats exactly what i said .

Sorry if i misunderstood, but in my case the two big naval powers seem to be both strong and expanding logically, I'd taken from your previous post that in your experience they were weaker but more logical.

I may feel a bit differntly about the whole thing when I play a med faction ofc

Also the Seleucids melting is great until you need to take a bunch of the cities for your reform - I got mine from the no Seleucids in the east fall-back code.

[Piterx93]

It's fixed.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...onents)-EB-2-4

[Floren d'Asteneuz]

It's fixed.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...onents)-EB-2-4

I must have misread but in the description, nothing seems to mention blockades ?

[Floren d'Asteneuz]

Look i fell the same as you. I playd tw titles since shogun 1 too. Ofc the formula is stale after all this years of playing. I would also like more complex mechanics, especially in the diplomacy part. Three kingdoms maanged to improve that aspect a bit, but as CA left it rot i doubt they would pursue that route for future titles. I think we are asking for something that these games simply cannot provide. One can live with that or let it go, to each his own.

I know...
I don't have any problem with mechanics of the game in a broader sense. It's just blockades that kills my suspension of disbelieve. That very specific thing.

[Piterx93]

I must have misread but in the description, nothing seems to mention blockades ?

It's fixes there. I didn't see it as something very importent to note.