The Seleucid Empire! AAAARRRGGH!

[Doomdark]

In my recent game, the Seleucids haven't had a civil war yet (it's 522 AUC). In previous games, whenever a civil war occurs, the rebels are crushed within months.

Does anyone else find that the AI is able to capture provinces way too fast? Whenever I besiege a province, even if I assault, it takes months to capture. As I've said before, in my current game, the Seleucids captured Sparta (with Stockade, 2000 garrison, no recent attack and 0% siege value) within six days with a 20,000 man army. I attempt to claim it back with a same sized army and it took 361 days with assaults!

Again, I know the game doesn't cheat or cut corners, but it seems bizarre that this can happen.

This seems to be a common perception in both EU3 and Rome. Both me and Johan have looked through the code and not found any cheat or bug that would cause the AI to win sieges faster. It is probably just a case of human psychology: we take notice when things go against us.

 

[vanin]

This seems to be a common perception in both EU3 and Rome. Both me and Johan have looked through the code and not found any cheat or bug that would cause the AI to win sieges faster. It is probably just a case of human psychology: we take notice when things go against us.

True, and often it goes down to simple bad luck. Once I had trouble taking a province garrisoned by 1000 men with an army of 40'000, as all assaults were cast of (morale plummeting), probably being the same as rolling 1 against 8 in a pitched battle every time; Assaults are being decided by the dice aswell, isn't it, just that we can't see it?

Other times I can see the AI in the same scenario, keeping them at bay while I fullfill other goals, and then swoop by and defeat their diminished and unhappy army. Luck and the dice, that's all there is to it.

 

[Emperor Leo]

Both me and Johan have looked through the code and not found any cheat or bug that would cause the AI to win sieges faster. It is probably just a case of human psychology: we take notice when things go against us

That's fair enough, I suppose. I'm obviously not going to question the game's mechanics with the one's who created it!

Although, on a similar note, what are your feelings on the current state of the Seleucid Empire, Doomdark? Do you feel that they are balanced fairly compared to other in-game nations? Again, I'm not questioning the game's workings, I'm just curious if this is something that will be looked into for future patches or expansion?

Please say expansion, please...

EDIT:

Assaults are being decided by the dice aswell, isn't it, just that we can't see it?

Oh, I didn't realise that dice were involved in sieges! Makes sense, though, now I think about it!

 

[vanin]

Oh, I didn't realise that dice were involved in sieges! Makes sense, though, now I think about it!

I am just guessing about that one, really

However, imo the Seleucid Empire needs enemies in the East, big ones. I am not necesarily talking about the Mauryan Empire, as I don't think extending the map further than the Indus is such a bright idea, but Scythians, Sakae, Parni, Yuezhi and so on, and obviously a rebellious Bactria. To depict the Seleucid Empire correctly a bigger map is needed, it would be as if you made a game including the Roman Empire, but you cut it of by the Alps and modern-day Tunisia: It just wouldn't make sense, and our SE doesn't either. The Parthia event can be shrugged of and there are no real threats other than Egypt once in a while. Historically the Seleucid kings had to direct loads of their resources and manpower to shield the Eastern half of the empire from invaders, in EU:Rome that 'feature' is missing.

 

[Emp_Palpatine]

Although, on a similar note, what are your feelings on the current state of the Seleucid Empire, Doomdark? Do you feel that they are balanced fairly compared to other in-game nations? Again, I'm not questioning the game's workings, I'm just curious if this is something that will be looked into for future patches or expansion?

Please say expansion, please...

Seconded, would like to hear P'dox on this issue.

 

[unmerged(175562)]

I probably haven't tested enough the latest beta versions to make a formal statement, but IIRC some changes were introduced so that loyalty drops are now less severe and civil wars are overall less frequent. This may have made easier to manage big kingdoms.

Yes. The Seleucids used to be easy pie in older versions. they had more civil wars and were usually crippled by barbarians and rebels afterwards, because the AI often forgot to take care of such problems if the rebel faction had won. They just didnt play them anymore, until one reloaded the game. But that was a bug and is fixed.
At the current state the Seleucids are always steamrolling everything. Sure, it’s still possible to stop them, but it is a lot of pain and one has to be a bit gamey, using all kind of tricks like assassinating several of their 9 martial leaders in the middle of decisive battles.

But that problem could be solved neatly, if monarchies in general could be weakened. Especially huge empires. Right now monarchies are very easy to play, much easier than republics, while they get similar benefits. As a monarchy I hardly ever build up tyranny, because it is so easy to avoid. But monarchies were often build on tyranny, so this could be one change.

My general solution though would be, that such states depend much more on their kings / tyrants! If for example the Seleucid ruler got great stats, good. The country is stable and peaceful and the king can spend his time waging war. Probably such a government would be more efficient than a republic too. Let him steamroll everything, like the Seleucids do right now. But if his heir is an inbred idiot, his country should be in serious trouble and start to fall apart. For example: low charisma and stats like cruelty should automatically generate tyranny. Low finesse ruins the economy and makes your governors and generals want to become independent. very low martial skill could even give your armies a penalty (opposites of course if he is a good man). For a single province monarchy this might still be okay, because your army can control such a small area. But big states have to rely on the stats of their rulers to keep the empire together. In that case the biggest enemy for the Seleucids wouldn’t be some eastern neighbor, but come from within! quite realistic, i`d sayl

 

[Emperor Leo]

low charisma and stats like cruelty should automatically generate tyranny

As the game is at the moment, a low charisma drops the King's popularity, which, in turn, drops court loyalty. So there is sort of a penalty in place. I do agree with what you're saying, though. I've never built up any Tyranny in any play-throughs. I never imprison people, simply because there's no need to and it's not worth the loyalty hit.

Why would I be punished for executing a powerful POW?

 

[lucaluca]

Yes. The Seleucids used to be easy pie in older versions. they had more civil wars and were usually crippled by barbarians and rebels afterwards, because the AI often forgot to take care of such problems if the rebel faction had won. They just didnt play them anymore, until one reloaded the game. But that was a bug and is fixed.
At the current state the Seleucids are always steamrolling everything. Sure, it’s still possible to stop them, but it is a lot of pain and one has to be a bit gamey, using all kind of tricks like assassinating several of their 9 martial leaders in the middle of decisive battles.

But that problem could be solved neatly, if monarchies in general could be weakened. Especially huge empires. Right now monarchies are very easy to play, much easier than republics, while they get similar benefits. As a monarchy I hardly ever build up tyranny, because it is so easy to avoid. But monarchies were often build on tyranny, so this could be one change.

My general solution though would be, that such states depend much more on their kings / tyrants! If for example the Seleucid ruler got great stats, good. The country is stable and peaceful and the king can spend his time waging war. Probably such a government would be more efficient than a republic too. Let him steamroll everything, like the Seleucids do right now. But if his heir is an inbred idiot, his country should be in serious trouble and start to fall apart. For example: low charisma and stats like cruelty should automatically generate tyranny. Low finesse ruins the economy and makes your governors and generals want to become independent. very low martial skill could even give your armies a penalty (opposites of course if he is a good man). For a single province monarchy this might still be okay, because your army can control such a small area. But big states have to rely on the stats of their rulers to keep the empire together. In that case the biggest enemy for the Seleucids wouldn’t be some eastern neighbor, but come from within! quite realistic, i`d sayl

great points. Yes in the new betas empires are usually more stable and it's easier to manage loyalty. I agree with you with that a low stats king should have troubles governing, but it already does, i.e. low charisma leads to a drop in loyalty, low finesse makes him not a good general thus rules out the possibility of having triumphs, etc. Maybe some penalties should be introduced/increased like having low finesse would make more probable events like assassinations or civil wars.

 

[MarkusH]

s

Why just start later when the seleucids doesn't exist or are much weaker?

 

[Emperor Leo]

Why just start later when the seleucids doesn't exist or are much weaker?

Because I don't want to. Simple as that. I want to play the full history available, not just a section of it.

 

[Doomdark]

Although, on a similar note, what are your feelings on the current state of the Seleucid Empire, Doomdark? Do you feel that they are balanced fairly compared to other in-game nations? Again, I'm not questioning the game's workings, I'm just curious if this is something that will be looked into for future patches or expansion?

Please say expansion, please...

I see the Seleucids as an interesting mid - and even late - game challenge. Yes, it is tricky to defeat them when playing Pontus or similar, but it is doable. (I played a recent game as Pontus, and did well.) Are they fairly balanced? Maybe not, but I do not see it as huge problem. As for an expansion, all I can say is that I personally would love to do another one. There is a lot of mileage left in EU:Rome.

 

[nachinus]

As for an expansion, all I can say is that I personally would love to do another one. There is a lot of mileage left in EU:Rome.

Yay! We have one of ours inside the Organization!

Count on us to create a pro-Rome lobby and press for an expansion.

 

[Emperor Leo]

I see the Seleucids as an interesting mid - and even late - game challenge. Yes, it is tricky to defeat them when playing Pontus or similar, but it is doable. (I played a recent game as Pontus, and did well.) Are they fairly balanced? Maybe not, but I do not see it as huge problem.

Thanks for the input! This is the reason I stick with Paradox. Your communication with fans is superb! I imagine that war with the Seleucids is somewhat more doable with the latest patch, now that the General's Martial modifier has been slashed.

As for an expansion, all I can say is that I personally would love to do another one. There is a lot of mileage left in EU:Rome.

I'm glad you guys at Paradox don't see Rome as a lost cause just yet. I think everyone in our small Rome community believes that the game certainly has lots of untapped potential. I just hope no-one takes this comment as an expansion confirmation, otherwise we could be in a "CK2-esque" situation.

Oops! How did a link to this thread get in here. I certainly don't want Doomdark to think that I dropped the thread under his nose on purpose!

 

[unmerged(197038)]

I see the Seleucids as an interesting mid - and even late - game challenge. Yes, it is tricky to defeat them when playing Pontus or similar, but it is doable. (I played a recent game as Pontus, and did well.) Are they fairly balanced? Maybe not, but I do not see it as huge problem. As for an expansion, all I can say is that I personally would love to do another one. There is a lot of mileage left in EU:Rome.

I recently had to end a game with Sparta because I ended up being steamrolled after having to concede a defeat, despite having laid claim to the entirety of Anatolia. The fact remains that, in the early game, the Seleucid Empire is very difficult to bring down -- the patch I'm playing 2.31b seems to have the Seleucids bringing the Egyptian Ptolemies and the Armenians into tributary-allied status, with all three able to field rather large armies -- and from then on can effectively defeat any other power within its sphere of influence (Black Sea region, as I've seen), with the advantage of large stacks and huge amounts of territory. The issue is that, when a huge region of territory is brought under foreign control (in my case, Anatolia), even if you are able to conquer another huge swath, you'll be limited to getting only a few provinces. Even if it's a failure on my part to deal with the Seleucids, it still feels as though playing any power in the Black Sea region, or with expansion options that are forced towards the Black Sea region, the Seleucids end up being such a problem that those powers just aren't worth playing.

I would imagine that, historically, even a large empire like the Seleucid Empire would have to concede a defeat if enemy forces control such a large amount of their territory. Having eight stacks of forty-thousand, all with above 7 generals, and no territory lost on your side, yet still having to give tribute to the big yellow blob, just seems as though the Seleucids have a major advantage, preventing any successful campaigns against them.

Also, even with the Parthian League appearing relatively early, in that game, the Seleucids were not weakened in the slightest. They simply eliminated the league without losing anything.

To sum up, I guess I would have to say that I feel as though something should be done so that the Seleucids can't just lose a large section of their territory in a war, and still be able to force a concession on the other party's side. And after that war, there's nothing much that can be done on your part, as they will continually declare war on you afterwards. To me, having no room to maneuver in the Black Sea region is just a dealbreaker, and keeps me from gleaning any enjoyment from the Greek states, Colchis, Armenia, Rhoxolani, Bosporus, Pontus, Bithynia, or Pergammon.

 

[Emperor Leo]

Even if it's a failure on my part to deal with the Seleucids, it still feels as though playing any power in the Black Sea region, or with expansion options that are forced towards the Black Sea region, the Seleucids end up being such a problem that those powers just aren't worth playing.

Totally agree. In my most recent game, I decided to ditch my usual favourite (Pontus) for Macedonia. Quit the game at 502 AVC, due to being crushed between Rome and the Seleucid Empire like a vice. Had no where to colonise, no chance to defeat the Seleucids and had to become a vassal of Rome to save my kingdom from destruction. Bad luck? Poor strategy on my part? Maybe so, but whenever I play, the "big" nations (i.e Rome and Seleucid Empire) always seem to head for my kingdom regardless of who I'm playing as. As I've said in a previous post, from the moment you start playing, it's a countdown to destruction from the Seleucid Empire. My games usually end at around 500 - 520 AVC. I don't think I've ever played much past those dates.

On a side note, I mentioned is a previous post that opposing armies seem to be able to siege and capture my cities pretty quickly. I know Doomdark refuted claims that the AI has some sort of bonus, but I had another ridiculous AI experience today. I was at war with Rome, playing as Macedonia. Rome invaded with a stack of 20,000 troops and laid siege to Macedonia. I began moving my troops to the city and then...

Macedonia has fallen... the siege lasted 4 days.

What?! Oh, well. Rome's troop morale will be at an all time low. Time to strike! My army reaches Macedonia within the month of the siege... to fight a Roman army at full morale. *Defeat* The Romans reach Thesselay and begin an assault. "Great", I thought. "I'll wait until their morale drops and then move in for an att--"

Thesselay has fallen... the siege lasted 4 days.

Both Macedonia and Thesselay had Stockades and 0% siege value. How is this possible, yet whenever I attempt the same feat, my armies get ripped to shreds and sieges last for months and months.

 

[JDMS]

I would imagine that, historically, even a large empire like the Seleucid Empire would have to concede a defeat if enemy forces control such a large amount of their territory.

While I'll be one of the first to agree that something must curb Seleucid power, I would like to point out that Rome lost most of her territory in the Second Punic War, and was able to all but destroy Carthage. I think it is more that the SE knows that it can beat you, given time, and refuses to concede defeat before it's really begun to fight.

 

[unmerged(175562)]

I agree. the Seleucid Empire always becomes this big, invincible blob, which does not feel very historical. the solution could be a simple tweak, as I suggested. weaken big empires from within, especially (easy to play) monarchies, by giving weak rulers some kind of auto-tyranny-build-up penalty. by this, you could destabilize a weak lead Seleucid Empire through a long war. they would have to seek peace or crumble from within - rebels, civil wars, regions breaking away... you name it! I think it would be a neat solution. and it would add a new challenge for big player-monarchies as well (while playing republics already is quite a challenge, I think )

 

[unmerged(197038)]

While I'll be one of the first to agree that something must curb Seleucid power, I would like to point out that Rome lost most of her territory in the Second Punic War, and was able to all but destroy Carthage. I think it is more that the SE knows that it can beat you, given time, and refuses to concede defeat before it's really begun to fight.

True. Then again, even if you can count on one hand how many times Rome came back from losing majorly (be it an entire generation of fighting men, her allies, etc.) during the Republican era, Rome had a strange reputation for fighting when other empires would have given up. It's this resilience that actually made Rome able to conquer most of the known Western world that was worth conquering at the time.

 

[byzantium43]

I wish that the Persians would be the late game challenge, instead of the Seleucids, since that would be more historical.

 

[JDMS]

I wish that the Persians would be the late game challenge, instead of the Seleucids, since that would be more historical.

Do you mean the Parthians?