I've never seen it. But I haven't played or watch enough full games to truly know. Has anyone seen it? I want to see it.
- 5
- 2
Has anyone ever seen the AI Rome reach the middle east? What about destroying all of Carthage?
- Thread starter klopkr
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I have never seen it. I always see Rome heading north after reaching modern day Reggio di Calabria, always north and into Rhaetia and Gaul.
- 3
- 1
AI prefers stuff like wars against non-peer powers.
But it's also because Carthage starts out very strong, arguably too strong.
I'll use HOI4 as an example. In that game, Germany usually rolls over France. German Barbarossa attempt goes nowhere. USA and UK launches multiple naval invasions and it's a race to see which side can occupy Berlin first.
In I:R, Rome won't roll over anything but petty states around Italia and then north. Those Germanic tribes are weakest and least likely to have a dominant state among them. In the west the Gauls consolidate. Carthage really eats up Iberia fast. And they get stronger instead of weaker.
Antigonid kingdom doesn't fall. The Selukids are always in and out of a civil war. Avernia becomes a major power and usually is a few steps away from controlling most of France
It might annoy some people but I think the game would play better if Carthage and Antigonids were weaker over time or maybe Rome more aggressive. And the tribes stay small and divided, maybe diplomatic confederations of tribes.
Because AI doesn't want to fight a peer nation. It will pick a weaker target.
And there are no scripted peace agreements that I'm aware of. That would improve things some my making sure that when majors fight majors, big changes happen in a coherent way and not just random bordergore.
But it's also because Carthage starts out very strong, arguably too strong.
I'll use HOI4 as an example. In that game, Germany usually rolls over France. German Barbarossa attempt goes nowhere. USA and UK launches multiple naval invasions and it's a race to see which side can occupy Berlin first.
In I:R, Rome won't roll over anything but petty states around Italia and then north. Those Germanic tribes are weakest and least likely to have a dominant state among them. In the west the Gauls consolidate. Carthage really eats up Iberia fast. And they get stronger instead of weaker.
Antigonid kingdom doesn't fall. The Selukids are always in and out of a civil war. Avernia becomes a major power and usually is a few steps away from controlling most of France
It might annoy some people but I think the game would play better if Carthage and Antigonids were weaker over time or maybe Rome more aggressive. And the tribes stay small and divided, maybe diplomatic confederations of tribes.
Because AI doesn't want to fight a peer nation. It will pick a weaker target.
And there are no scripted peace agreements that I'm aware of. That would improve things some my making sure that when majors fight majors, big changes happen in a coherent way and not just random bordergore.
- 15
- 4
- 3
My last Rome game saw the Antigonids crippled by decades of civil war, which I capitalized on to take most of Ionia (then it went from 1.5.1 to 1.5.2, so that might have changed).
With Carthage, I find my problem being that I just... don't care. Obviously my priorities are't the same as Rome's, but once I've knocked Carthage out of Italia and Magnia Graecia, I really need a reason to go for the kill other than "oh I have a claim on Carthage itself). Don't get me wrong, I love the missions that allow my to pursue Greece, Gaul, etc., but given that my navy is always going to be hard-pressed to beat Carthage and the territory I'd take needs conversion and assimilation, I always have an excuse for another front. As for Carthage itself, I find that unless it can take out Rome and expand in Italy, it never does get that strong because of the high proportion of wrong culture / religion pops.
Perhaps what we need is some sort of broader goals to pursue - Rome and Carthage were generally fighting over being the dominant influence in the western Mediterranean, but all this means in-game is control over the land in Corsica/Sardinia and Sicily. Right now, the cost is "fighting a peer," but the reward is "beating the peer" (or I could just out-snowball them, so not compelling) and "get more clay" (but I can get that off Greek minors or vast swathes of low-pop tribal land, so not compelling).
- 9
- 2
- 1
I can't get past bugs to see what happens in my games now. I thought it was one of the virtues of IR that different runs resulted in very different worlds, so, assuming Carthage and the Antigonids are ending up usually dominant in their respective spheres, I think it would be good to take them down a notch. Surprised, really, that the Antigonids aren't having trouble between the ramped-up civil wars and being surrounded by enemies. Carthage I can see as a problem - republics tend to be more stable, and there's just nothing around to challenge it.
Also, always Avernia, really? My experience with barbs was that which one hit it big was different every time.
- 1
I have never seen it. Rome IRL used tons of diplomacy, early submissions etc to expand that quick. Game mechanics won't allow such a quick expansion.
- 6
.png){kind=avatar}
Three games for me (2 in 1.42, 1 full game in 1.5), usually as Rome (played some partial games as others).
Avernia is in the south east of Gaul and they are allowed to become a republic because they are near other Republics. So they become a major power and have an army about the size of Carthage (somewhere between 30-60 cohorts). They take over other tribes in Western Gaul.
In my last game they founded cities over France and while they weren't a military challenge, I don't think an AI would want to mess with them. And if Gaul was mostly United, historically I don't know if Rome would have messed with them. Divide and conquer was their thing.
1.5 Carthage is bugged with no Navy so that makes things more interesting but I don't expect that to remain.
- 1
you're expecting people to go digging for months old screenshots?
it would be prtty hard for AI rome to take carthage rn, since they cant build ships. but im pretty sure ive seen it on 1.3 / 1.4 patches sometimes..
Never, which is quite sad, because Punic wars Roman/Karthage-rivarly was the most epic rivarly in the history. Something that even wrestling screenwriters could not make up.
Generally there is not enough rivarly and power projection between great powers. GPs usually ally each other and just beat smaller nations. Game needs some sort of rivarly mechanism, because it doesn't deliver Punic wars, which were kind of centre of the era. Both Karthage and Romans sitting on their own side of mediterranean contently.
E: I assume that broken naval warfare also plays a role here.
Generally there is not enough rivarly and power projection between great powers. GPs usually ally each other and just beat smaller nations. Game needs some sort of rivarly mechanism, because it doesn't deliver Punic wars, which were kind of centre of the era. Both Karthage and Romans sitting on their own side of mediterranean contently.
E: I assume that broken naval warfare also plays a role here.
Last edited:
- 6
- 4
This, exactly this in almost EVERY playthough ive had. I wish PDX scripted or coded Rome and Carthage so they would atleast clash at some point. But it NEVER happens -.-
The Antigonids are still far too stable, even though events should have them crumble and crash. Alas no, feudatories usually stay with them, and I have seldom if ever seen Pergamon be released.
- 3
- 1
I've seen Pergamon get released a few times, but the Antigonids eat them up again within 15 years because they're so weak.
Ok you're not wrong. I mean I figure if it did happen someone would have one by chance though.
Does anyone have a story of rome actually controlling carthage? or spain?
I've never seen it, but just going from my own experience playing as Rome. The AI would have to be relatively single-minded in wanting to destroy Carthage. I have only done it once in 5 attempts and it took the whole game.
From what I see the AI as currently constituted is incapable of doing it. It doesn't build ships and can barely win in Italy and Magna Graecia...let alone make it to Spain.
From what I see the AI as currently constituted is incapable of doing it. It doesn't build ships and can barely win in Italy and Magna Graecia...let alone make it to Spain.
- 1
I like playing tribes on the Iberian Peninsula. Prior to 1.5 and after the reduction of retinues and elimination of tribe to tribe fuedetoires, it became excruciating... expansion very slow with most tribes on equal footing and with very little manpower early. Extremely difficult to get established before Carthage rolls through. Got worse in 1.5 as Carthage & its buddies are much more ground troop focused.
Point is, it’s extremely aggravating that it’s near impossible to get an Alliance with Rome to get some level of protection. IRL tribal affiliations with Rome and Carthage was a big flashpoint between the two powers. In game it might trigger more conflict between Rome & Carthage if Rome AI would be programmed to actively seek & protect some tribal allies to keep Carthage in check.
Point is, it’s extremely aggravating that it’s near impossible to get an Alliance with Rome to get some level of protection. IRL tribal affiliations with Rome and Carthage was a big flashpoint between the two powers. In game it might trigger more conflict between Rome & Carthage if Rome AI would be programmed to actively seek & protect some tribal allies to keep Carthage in check.
- 4
I don't think this game allows for historical alliances or tribes picking their hegemon at all. If they show up it's just random chance based on very basic gameplay mechanics.
I kind of wish tribes would see the writing on the wall and have to consolidate or pick a hegemon winner to live under.
Sort of like the coalition system in CK2? The "Gaulic Coalition against Roman Aggression" if the perceived threat levels are at a certain point. A baseline of 50 to 100 aggression would cause smaller tribes to flock to one another. Though under this circumstance I'd say if Rome does win against this coalition they should be granted special AE and Warscore reductions for winning. This could be ultra over the top.
Could we also get an Imperial Conquest CB for Great Powers? Something that will halve the AE + Warscore cost? Something almost similar to Alexander's continual Imperial Conquest of the Persian Empire over the course of the years he spent.
Kind of tired formulating a CB against smaller neighbors for several months at a time just to absorb them and their allies.
Kind of tired formulating a CB against smaller neighbors for several months at a time just to absorb them and their allies.
- 3
never seen that. there is no point for rome to fight carthage, no any prophit + too hard. much easier to spread into gallia/germania/pannonia.
the same for the carthage - no point for fight rome, iberia is much easier to conquest.
AI isn't stupid. It try fight against rome/carthage, see how it hard and then change direction of expansion.
the same for the carthage - no point for fight rome, iberia is much easier to conquest.
AI isn't stupid. It try fight against rome/carthage, see how it hard and then change direction of expansion.
- 1