Lackluster Carthage wars

[el caballerion]

Finally getting through my first play-through in Imperator, as the Romans on hard difficulty. I must admit that learning the game's mechanics were quite overwhelming at first, but now I finally got the hang of it.

After winning every single war in mid and southern Italy, I was really looking forward to experiencing quite a colossal war with Carthage. But nope... in the course of 30 or so years, Carthage declared war on me 3 times, and each time, I landed troops on the city of Carthage itself, sacking it before a single army could arrive in time. The only thing Carthage did was land like 5,000 troops on the opposite side of Italy, where it captured one minor territory. Rome itself was never threatened.

While I realize that the wars with minor tribes would be super easy, I didn't expect Carthage to be such a pushover, especially on hard difficulty. I wanted them to completely destroy my legion at least once or twice. Is this just how the current iteration of the game is? When playing as Rome, does the difficulty only consist of civil wars and domestic squabbles, while going to war and taking over territory is super easy?

 

[IsaacCAT]

I presume there is a problem with the AI handling levies and disbanding them after a war. This is a handicap for AI that needs to move them back to their territory every time.

Did you see their armies when they declared war on you? And their other vassals?

 

[hansnoetig]

The AI needs some serious work.

It functions if it is in the same theater of war. I attacked Carthage in Hispania while they were already in a war there. Had to regroup to fight back the tide, as i did not expect 60k+ Cartheginians plus another 15k+ tribal canon fodder.

Meanwhile, when Carthage declared on me while i was busy in the hellenic theater, it was basically a plea to plunder Carthage and the other rich cities. Doesnt even matter who you play as. I guess they have it especially hard, like the Seleucids, because of the long landmass with hilly terrain. These poor legions probably walk thousands of km, only to arrive a month after peace is signed, while the fleet is busy uselessly transporting levies to some random edge of your empire.

The often years long exciles mentioned above don't help either, but i don't see that this is working as intended(?).

 

[turokhalo]

I agree, in 2.0 wars against Carthage are really easy. For me the biggest difference seems to be them integrating their vassals quite fast. No more vassal swarm for them and for me a less chaotic war. Previously the vassals would sent annoying stacks to the italian peninsula quite often, you had to keep small armies to keep the OPM vassals in check and you could not get as much land in a single war, because warscore for annexing OPMs is quite high.
Right now it is just: go there, stomp them, take the land.

 

[Bovrick]

Plently of this is just OP Rome making the game boring when you play as them. I guess a big issue with simulating Punic Wars is the lack of a Naval game. Don't get me wrong, I can't think of a single strategy game that has ever really nailed naval warfare; but something closer to a HOI4 control based system seems like the better way to simulate Rome getting nowhere at sea. The seas should be way more dangerous to navigate in general too.

EDIT: I think the Devs are of a similar mind, given that you can assign navies to Regions with Objectives...it just doesn't really work right now, and the AI can't handle it to ever block a player that way.

 

[hansnoetig]

Plently of this is just OP Rome making the game boring when you play as them.

It's not just Rome tough. In my Athen game, i got declared on by Carthage soon after i started a small war. Few months later Egypt declared on me as well. I just sailed first to Carthage then to Alexandria (bit harder to get there bc egyptian fleet), traded a little bit of manpower for lots of money and some slaves almost unopposed, and white peaced out.

But i agree, the seas should be way more dangerous (the storms too, they decided wars afterall).

 

[Bovrick]

It's not just Rome tough. In my Athen game, i got declared on by Carthage soon after i started a small war. Few months later Egypt declared on me as well. I just sailed first to Carthage then to Alexandria (bit harder to get there bc egyptian fleet), traded a little bit of manpower for lots of money and some slaves almost unopposed, and white peaced out.

But i agree, the seas should be way more dangerous (the storms too, they decided wars afterall).

Oh for sure, but if you play that game as Athens without the big powers being distracted there's always a chance they'll just land an army on your capital and ruin you (unless we're talking later in the game with a bit of size); Rome isn't going to be threatened by that, they start out as the neighbourhood bully with nobody around to oppose them.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Cities and specially the Capital should be very important defensive objective for the AI. I have defended that war score should be based almost only in battles and conquering the capital of the enemy, as it was the case in those times.

War goals will be achieved if enough important battles are won or if you are able to subjugate the opposing capital city. Holding the war goal should not give war score, and the war goal will only be the measure of the required war score.

This way, AI should be more concerned in winning battles, actively looking for your armies, and defending/attacking the capital city. If the capital city is very far away, you could reach the desired war score by winning battles or preparing a long campaign, seizing provinces to feed your armies to assault the capital city. Because food should be a limiting factor to send your armies directly to the capital city.

This applies to sea transport as well, as @Bovrick and @hansnoetig have said, it should be more dangerous and deadly.

 

[Vernichtere]

The AI in paradox games is to able to handle navy in the proper way. So wars against countries with a large coastline are cakewalks. They are also cakewalks when you are the country with the costline. Just becuase the AI lands somewhere in Greece or somewhere else not inmportant. In combo with not dibanding levies and less forts, its just deadlay for Carthage. They dont even try to hunt my fleet.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Cities and specially the Capital should be very important defensive objective for the AI. I have defended that war score should be based almost only in battles and conquering the capital of the enemy, as it was the case in those times.

War goals will be achieved if enough important battles are won or if you are able to subjugate the opposing capital city. Holding the war goal should not give war score, and the war goal will only be the measure of the required war score.

This way, AI should be more concerned in winning battles, actively looking for your armies, and defending/attacking the capital city. If the capital city is very far away, you could reach the desired war score by winning battles or preparing a long campaign, seizing provinces to feed your armies to assault the capital city. Because food should be a limiting factor to send your armies directly to the capital city.

This applies to sea transport as well, as @Bovrick and @hansnoetig have said, it should be more dangerous and deadly.

In case of monarchies, defeating the king in battle should be as important as taking the capital in Republics.

By the way, kings should take over command of your most powerful army by default. If the player would like to increase the command level, another lesser army should be attached to the main Royal army.

Republics will have more leeway on this regard. Consuls could ask to command but the Senate could oppose this (with a loyalty penalty ofc)

I have opened a suggestion for this, instead of hijacking this thread, sorry.

Ancient warfare: war score from battles and capitulation

Preface: I have been thinking about how the game accrues war score and how this reflects ancient warfare. Observation: It is very easy to take over the capital from AI nations. It may be a problem with the new levy system introduced in 2.0 but...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Nominus]

Cities and specially the Capital should be very important defensive objective for the AI. I have defended that war score should be based almost only in battles and conquering the capital of the enemy, as it was the case in those times.

War goals will be achieved if enough important battles are won or if you are able to subjugate the opposing capital city. Holding the war goal should not give war score, and the war goal will only be the measure of the required war score.

This way, AI should be more concerned in winning battles, actively looking for your armies, and defending/attacking the capital city. If the capital city is very far away, you could reach the desired war score by winning battles or preparing a long campaign, seizing provinces to feed your armies to assault the capital city. Because food should be a limiting factor to send your armies directly to the capital city.

This applies to sea transport as well, as @Bovrick and @hansnoetig have said, it should be more dangerous and deadly.

I disagree. If you go to war over a certain province and are de-facto controlling it for good, there is no need to further wage war, unless the enemy is going to retaliate.
It makes more sense that holding onto a war-goal increases war-score.
Maybe though the concept of war-score is not fitting I:R generally. I mean: Why should there be an artificial stat that limits your ability to conquer? There are already enough soft-cap-like mechanics.

 

[IsaacCAT]

I disagree. If you go to war over a certain province and are de-facto controlling it for good, there is no need to further wage war, unless the enemy is going to retaliate.
It makes more sense that holding onto a war-goal increases war-score.
Maybe though the concept of war-score is not fitting I:R generally. I mean: Why should there be an artificial stat that limits your ability to conquer? There are already enough soft-cap-like mechanics.

Your rationale is sound but it is not how warfare was resolved in ancient times. You can read about the punic wars:

Punic Wars - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Holding to a territory was not sufficient condition. Or either you defeated in battle the other side and forced terms onto them (specially on monarchies) or you conquered the capital (in republics).

I am not saying that you need to obtain 100 war score, if your war goal is 20, you can reach that war score by winning battles.

I am advocating for more relevance for battles. Like in the Legacy of Alexander CB with only battles counting for war score but without the flipping of territories.