Multiplayer blitzkrieging thoughts

[Demetrios_of_Messene]

Antigonus was not able to recruit a horde of experienced heavy infantry (which the hoplites in game present, I presume). He had a respectable standing army, which was scary enough. In the game Antigonus is able to triple the strength of that hoplite army in two years. It is ahistorical, and is not even close to what could have happened. However, in game that is what happens, and it is what makes currently Antigonids a broken nation. In short, it is *impossible* to stop an Antigonus played by an experienced player (such as Ludendorf for example).

That you don't see such behavior in single player is no wonder. Why would you as Antigonids do that, because they AI can be nuked off by much less effort? On the other hand, the AI never goes the way of recruiting a horde of hoplites and stomprolling over everything. As such, claiming such behaviour in game to be historical or have correct feel of the era is quite frankly insulting. Such Antigonid behaviour has nothing to do with historical facts, and would *never* have been possible to be pulled off by Antigonus (or his sons).


When players have to come up with "rules" to limit certain nations in a historical based game, then you know something is seriously wrong. Very seriously wrong. I most certainly hope that wouldn't be how the devs see the situation, as that would essentially kill the game for good.

- We know that the game factions are not designed equal with Antigonus obviously standing out as one of the possible powerhouses.
- You say that an experienced Antigonid player is *impossible* to stop.
- However, this experienced player makes a nice analysis about the in-game situation in the eastern empires and how he managed to succeed mainly due to the inactivity of other competitors. You seem to ignore this analysis jumping to your conclusion that he is *impossible* to stop, while he is already explaining that there was no considerable effort to stop him.
- The Successor Wars in the historical timeframe mostly saw the Antigonids on one side and several opponents on the other. In Ipsus, Antigonids faces 3 successor armies (Seleucos, Cassander, Lysimachos), and were previously heavily engaged against Ptolemy and others, as well. It historically took a coalition of successors to bring the Antigonids down including several expensive campaigns with large armies. It appears that you do not like the idea that this should somehow be reflected in-game.
- Apparently, your judgement of Ludendorf as experienced player is also as arbitrary as the rest of your conclusions, but never mind me.

In the end, we can agree to disagree and all is well.

[Morbio]

One thing I will say is I have no idea how a Britonae player or someone playing on the periphery is supposed to have a chance, let alone players on minor nations. The way Legacy works with the current victory system should mean that by the time one of the barbarian nations has really gotten going, either Rome, one of the Greek states or maybe a particularly successful Carthage should have basically won the game.

I've raised this before and in short the answer is: They're not!

Most people agreed that the 'winning' comes from the fun and enjoyment of survival, or perhaps, having a bigger or better country than when the game started. Some people struggle with this as the best outcome, but once you do you can have an enjoyable part in the game. I'm playing a couple of games are the Arverni and whilst I will never win, I can have influence over whether Rome, and to a lesser extent, Carthage, win.

[Pocus]

Speaking of veterans, do you know that increased upkeep from veterancy is only activated if you play on Experienced+ difficulty*? This might be an interesting twist for a MP game to play at such level (which would also mean more resilient AIs).

(*: try playing Sparta on balanced, and then experienced to feel the pain on the meager finances they start with)

That said, I'm not formerly adverse to a measured 'MoneyInc' value applied to pikes/phalanxes.

Antigonids stand decent chances of success if they are not ganged up. But being not ganged up is not historical for them. So I'm not convinced the current setup is faulty...

[Swuul]

Antigonids stand decent chances of success if they are not ganged up. But being not ganged up is not historical for them. So I'm not convinced the current setup is faulty...

Antigonids in game survive just fine being ganged up by their historical opponents. They can easily fight a delaying action on two fronts (and recruiting enough heavy infantries to make a stand after a couple turns), while immediatly blitzing through a third (Ptolemy being the smartest target for first blitz, as Ptolemy has enough troubles of their own at start). That is no issue for Antigonus and their nearly unlimited ability to recruit hordes of heavy infantries.

To take take down Antigonus in a MP needs a *real* ganging, where Rome and Carthage rush to defend Egypt. If Rome and Carthage don't make it to Egypt by turn 4, it is too late. And then the 6 or 7 players have to be able to co-ordinate their attacks on Antigonus, attempting to destroy the economy before their own economies crumble. For that to fail needs just one player jumping the boat, and go home to take advantage of the military vacuum.

As such, I agree with Pocus, the *setup* is not faulty. It is the insane (and absolutely un-historical) ability of Antigonus to multiply their heavy infantry which is faulty.