How do you solve a problem like Tanais?

[williamsiddell]

Tanais is remote. Is at least 3 turns from the nearest city. Has a permanent 15% unrest penalty. Has fairly high growth. Is a large city.

Zero population growth is an option, but are there any alternatives that do not result in a city stuffed with peasant garrisons?

When Tanais is first captured Scythia is a long way from destruction.

At the point of capture I usually find the next promotion point is 24000 and so major culture penalties persist for a long time.

Currently I enslave several times, but all that does is lengthen the time to promotion when the remaining culture penalties can be removed.

A solution to Tanais could be applied to similar cities all over the map - and I like size 24k cities.

Any ideas?

p.s. I've just checked the last game I played. Just four North African cities and Rome to take - all other cities are mine (no rebel cities). Tanais has a population of 31921 with some buildings yet to construct - but here's the problem - status 80% but 20 peasants.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Still think you'll take a pass on ZPG??~;)

From my Black Sea Serenade campaign (Armenia):

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/aussiebirdman/BSS_13.jpg

Yes, I know it's Chersonesos, but I guarantee Tanais is in the same state (can fire up my save-game and get a screenie, if you'd like). That little orange population growth meter means I will never have to worry about civil unrest.....ever.

Here's another from a Brutii campaign with my capital in Athens:

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/aussiebirdman/Brutii02.jpg?1293806411

None of the four cities in the screenie has a city manager...even P.I.T.A. Tarsus:smug:

Fat and happy peasants even at the edge of my empire...:sweetheart:

[williamsiddell]

Luckily I can guess what P.I.T.A means :)

I get the point and understand your logic for using ZPG but I also note 3 of those cities are losing money. That's my problem. I'm fond of the filthy lucre and the best way to get it is via large cities. Tanais above required 20 peasants to keep it happy even before 24000 and, to give you an idea, even at 30000+ with 20 peasants it is still making 700 a turn after 1300 corruption. I'm hoping somebody out there has some magic bullet I don't know about for getting rid of those annoying peasants - I'm never happy if I have to use more than 3.

I think governors are one of the few weaknesses of the game. Leave one in a city too long and the negative attributes it gains will eventually make it worse than useless.

[Vincent Butler]

Who stocks their towns with peasants? Better to leave real military units in, if you do get kicked out they can at least fight back, one legionary cohort is worth at least three peasants for fighting. If I train peasants at all it is to drain the population from a (huge) city to reduce population size, and I move them to a town that I want to grow, and disband them. Voila, you have just killed two birds with one stone. Tanais, Corduba, Londinium will kick you out anyway. Corduba is actually the worst of the lot, in my opinion. Try to get general with lots of influence and build your best temple for making people happy (check the building browser in your city window). Tanais does get a lot of plagues, so that helps reduce population, and the riots and subsequent retraining help with that as well. Usually Tanais riots some but will not be a source of continuous civil revolts, like Corduba is.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I also note 3 of those cities are losing money

No, they are not. The number you see on the screen has nothing to do with the income of a settlement. It reflects how the overall operating costs are distributed amongst all your settlements. If you open the settlement page, go to the first button in the lower left and open it. You will see a balance sheet stating the income from taxes, farming, trade, corruption, etc. This is the true income a settlement is making. A quote from a discussion here long ago by Guyus Germanicus.........................


the game distributes your carrying costs (the cost of your army, faction members, diplomats, spies, etc) according to its own internal formula. Your only coherent figure for your bottomline is in your faction icon's folder for your treasury. Of course, if you add all the money figures for all of your cities' icons from the mapboard, you can get your bottomline figure. But that's not very practical. M2TW works completely different. There your cities reflect on their city icon on the mapbaord the amount of money they're producing so you can more easily see what they're doing for your treasury. That's the downside of RTW's city icons. Unless you open up (double click) the city's icon and check the left-hand side detail window and look closely at where your profits are coming from, you don't know how the city is actually doing


I'm fond of the filthy lucre and the best way to get it is via large cities

If you looked at my treasury in the Brutii campaign (close to 4 million denarii), I'd say I'm doing pretty well:creep:


I'm hoping somebody out there has some magic bullet I don't know about for getting rid of those annoying peasants

I've already pointed you in the direction you need to go...take it or ignore it as you wish. The point you overlooked is that all of those cities in the screenies are at ZPG and will give you no trouble....EVER.

Same Brutii campaign as above:

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/aussiebirdman/Brutii01.jpg?1293806361

Every single city in Greece, Macedonia, and beyond is at ZPG. The only city in that screenie with a governor is Athens, my current capital. He's just there because he isn't suited for the battlefield due to trait problems, but he isn't really necessary.

Same view, different factions:

http://s990.photobucket.com/user/aussiebirdman/media/Macedon01.jpg.html?1300833722

http://s990.photobucket.com/user/aussiebirdman/media/GreekCities01.jpg.html?1300833722

Iberia as Carthage, capital in Carthage:

http://s990.photobucket.com/user/aussiebirdman/media/Carthage01.jpg.html?1300833722

Former Roman territory, same campaign:

http://s990.photobucket.com/user/aussiebirdman/media/Carthage02.jpg.html?1300833722


Tanais, Corduba, Londinium will kick you out anyway

If properly managed...they will not. Guys....do I have to post a screenie from every one of my recent campaigns to prove my point? ZPG is attainable even with barbarian factions. My last Germania campaign includes both Londinium and Corduba as part of my empire. Both are ZPG'ed, and neither will give me any problems for the rest of the campaign.


Try to get general with lots of influence and build your best temple for making people happy

Useful only so long as your family member is alive. My method will eventually require no governor, and you can then keep your family members out leading armies.

[williamsiddell]

Who stocks their towns with peasants?

Ha Ha - I do. My cities have only as many peasants as needed. Most have 1, some 2, some 3 and the irritating ones as many as necessary. Why? Cos they're cheap and the AI is eminently predictable. Think of that faction that has been at peace with you for decades (even allies) then suddenly a large army tiptoes over your border - they're gonna attack! Then you take steps to counter it and even if they besiege with only peasants inside they won't attack for many turns - especially if you've stopped their spies from entering.

If you've taken Antioch you don't need to be told the Egyptians will throw countless armies and spies at it - peasants are not a priority! But once you've moved on, a couple of peasants is enough.


Of course, if you add all the money figures for all of your cities' icons from the mapboard, you can get your bottomline figure.

I understand the way it works (my Tanais example contributes 200 to the pot) - my point is that those cities are not profitably paying their way cos you've limited growth. That's the way you like to play and it clearly works.


(close to 4 million denarii)

You tight git :) The most I make is 200k per turn and I spend it - not like some.


Both are ZPG'ed, and neither will give me any problems for the rest of the campaign.

My cities don't give me trouble - In the example above I control all the cites in the world except a few and no revolters. My guess is that it is an insurmountable problem, but I'd just like to cut the number of peasants needed in some cities.

Athens is a great city - way back, when I used a lot of generals in cities, I got 10000+ per turn with the right general, attributes and ancillaries.

[ReluctantSamurai]

my point is that those cities are not profitably paying their way cos you've limited growth

Does it really matter? How much money do you need? 4 million denarii is far more than enough to do whatever I want. I can recruit troops to my hearts desire...bribe armies or entire cities...dole out huge sums of money to my allies...:inquisitive:


my point is that those cities are not profitably paying their way cos you've limited growth.

And my point is that after 24k for many factions (12k for the others) there's no point to further growth other than management headaches. You can't build any further improvements and you are making so much money that a somewhat bigger tax base is insignificant. Besides, you make more money from port trading than all other forms of income.....combined.


My cities don't give me trouble

Obviously they do or you wouldn't have started this thread. You stated it right in the header....Tanais is a "problem":inquisitive:


My guess is that it is an insurmountable problem

I've already shown you that it is not and so I will say no more. The old adage of you can lead a horse to water comes to mind....:creep:

[williamsiddell]

The problem with Tanais starts the minute you take it. As with others. I'm looking for a solution better than stuffing with units (and other than ZPG). Aye, landlocked cities can be a disappointment. Money makes the world go round - except in RTW that is.

[Vincent Butler]

As ReluctantSamurai has stated, whatever works for you. Usually it is the same cities that cause problems. The only one that regularly kicks me out is Corduba. I will keep in mind what Samurai said, I never really tried to achieve ZPG, just assumed there was no real way to stop population growth without increasing unrest, ie, raising taxes.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I'm looking for a solution better than stuffing with units (and other than ZPG)

There are only several ways to control unrest, AFAICS:

Manipulate the tax rate. This hits a dead end eventually when even at the lowest rate, loyalty continues to drop.

Have a family member with very high influence. This works until that member dies, and there are no guarantees you'll get another like him. Most of my field generals accumulate a pile of influence laurels...but I'd rather have them out expanding my empire than stuck in a city.

Increase your native cultural influence through the building queue. This works well if you can capture a city that has lots of building projects to do. But by mid to late game, many cities already have the maximum governors building (which is the building that has the greatest impact on loyalty). Upgrading other structures if possible helps, but it is the governing building that makes the biggest impact.

Allow revolt>exterminate...rinse and repeat as needed. This is counterproductive to your stated aim of achieving maximum income. Less people=less taxes. If you're getting revolts before the desired end-point in population numbers, then extermination is a very bad method to adopt. There are also inherent risks, as has already been mentioned. If the previous owners faction is still alive (and its not always possible to eliminate them before you start having loyalty problems) then you could see your entire garrison wiped out or at the least, badly mauled by the super units created by allowing the city to revolt.

Zero Population Growth. This is nearly foolproof, and can be done with just about every faction on the board...certainly by any of the "major" factions like Rome, the Greek factions, Egypt, Carthage, and just about every barbarian faction or eastern factions. When a city has reached its maximum potential (24k for major factions, 12k for all the others), there is no point to allowing further population growth. The few tax monies you gain from super-huge cities is not worth the aggravation of keeping those populations under control. Tax money pales in comparison to port trading anyways, so why bother squeezing for a few thousand extra denarii when your treasury contains hundreds of thousands or even millions of denarii??

Me....I'd rather do without the headaches, concentrate on expanding my empire through conquest, rake in the many thousands of denarii I'm already making, with the supreme confidence that I don't ever have to worry about one single revolt anywhere in the territories I've already conquered.

Now if you can figure out another system other than those I've mentioned for controlling population loyalty, then I'm all ears because noone I've ever been involved with in discussions about this, has figured out another way either. And I'm speaking of not resorting to modding to create a "loyalty" structure to get the job done. I've already proved that isn't necessary.

[williamsiddell]

Very much appreciated RS - I think more or less says it all. And I don't want to go about changing the system files.

Manipulate the tax rate - and low tax rate increases growth.

Have a family member with very high influence - and my experience is if you leave a good general in a city it picks up negative attributes.

Let me put it this way - I'm not hopeful of finding an alternative :)

[Vincent Butler]

It seems that for a while after I eliminate a faction, the settlements I took from them get really upset. Are their spies still active, or is this just coincidence. Also, has anyone else ever had a rebel diplomat come to them and offer a ceasefire? It is not rare with me, and the rebel armies, including the brigands, leave your trade alone, and the rebels will not blockade your ports.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Are their spies still active, or is this just coincidence.

When a faction is eliminated, all of their agents go with them into obscurity. There may be some ground units, including generals, that remain and become rebel, as do any naval fleets.


Also, has anyone else ever had a rebel diplomat come to them and offer a ceasefire?

Are you kidding?:laugh4: On VH, for the campaign map, rebels will lay siege to your cities if you let wayward stacks consolidate into a full army, especially if there is a commanding general present. They almost always spawn right on roads between settlements, and if you let smaller fleets gather into a much larger one, they will blockade the nearest port.

So no, I've never had peaceful dealings with brigands:thinking:

[Vincent Butler]

Oh, they blockade my ports and will spawn on the roads ordinarily. I have had a rebel diplomats come up and offer ceasefires multiple times, and when they do, I take it. That way, they do not interfere with my trade and they leave my ports and my armies alone. Usually the ceasefire is broken when I get kicked out of a town and it reverts to rebel. Or I decide I need one of their settlements. If at war with them, I prefer to deal with them when they pop up, sometimes I will have a cav-heavy (including worthless generals) army specifically to deal with them.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I've never, ever gotten an offer from a rebel diplomat, and even if I did, I would send his head back to his master on a plate:thumbsdown:

[williamsiddell]

This is a revelation for me. I play hard mainly because I suspected VH would be a variation of iron man in other games - you play the same game only battles take longer to resolve. But if it means rebels take a bigger part I'm up for it - I'll try it soon.


after I eliminate a faction, the settlements I took from them get really upset

I haven't noticed an increase in unrest elsewhere when I take a faction's last city - but I don't know if it increases the length of time unrest persists. The Germans seem to have more than their fair share of cities with permanent unrest - there's list of cities of that type I've found in my Greek Cities post. Never seen a rebel diplomat or spy, but I have seen a faction's spies exiting a city I've just taken.

On hard I don't maintain a standing navy because rebel navies seem to spend most of the game just wandering about, only now and again blockading and then for only one turn.

I think this is an issue with the game. If a rebel army is on a road then it's supposed to block trade yet when you check the trade screen there is no indication of any effect.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I play hard mainly because I suspected VH would be a variation of iron man in other games - you play the same game only battles take longer to resolve.

I believe the reverse is true...on VH battle difficulty, battles become shorter because the higher morale means more casualties before a unit routs, and the higher attack values means faster kills. Also be aware that VH on the campaign difficulty means that autocalc battles will be tougher to win because it's the campaign difficulty rating that used and not the battle difficulty. Battle difficulty values are used only when you actually fight on a battle map. Starting units for the AI are also affected. A perfect example is the SPQR garrison. On Easy or Normal the garrison is mostly Hastati and Velite with a few units of Principes and Triarii. On Hard the garrison is mainly Principes and Triarii, and on VH the garrison has units of Praetorian and Urban Cohorts in it.


If a rebel army is on a road then it's supposed to block trade yet when you check the trade screen there is no indication of any effect.

Any enemy army, rebel or one from a faction whom you are at war with reduce trade by standing on a road. On the first turn you will notice in the trade income (land) that there is now a higher amount in the greyed out or blinking portion of the listed land trade (some of that value is also the amount of corruption being deducted, so you have to check immediately before and after). This is subtracted from your total income. By turn two, if you haven't destroyed or driven off the stack, it begins to cause devastation, which is also subtracted from your income and starts to add to unrest.

[williamsiddell]

Ta.

Tougher to win I'm all for - and shorter battles is a bonus.

So the road blockage is a one-off effect (apart from devastation). I also considered whether the AI was smart enough to find another path - I'll check that first chance. It seems a siege cuts off all income, but from memory I don't remember the trade screen showing zeros (maybe didn't check enough).

[ReluctantSamurai]

Blockage of a road trade route halves the income from that route, IIRC, and lasts for as long as the army stands on the road. Other land routes aren't affected unless the offending army stands on an intersection. One other note about VH campaign difficulty is that it reduces your income (don't remember the exact %). I've forgotten if that is across the board (taxes, farming, port trade), or only taxes and farming.

[williamsiddell]

Reduced income was a taken. That's why I thought battles would take longer (not able to afford the best units/buildings etc.).

So sending some units to chase the rebels off the path would be beneficial. Plus the new devastation they cause takes several turns to happen, while the existing devastation reduces.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The only real effect of a VH campaign setting is felt at the start. Less income and tougher battles makes early expansion more difficult. But once you get rolling, the effect falls away...the Brutii campaign that I posted, with 4 million denarii in the bank, was VH/H so you can see, in the end, it really doesn't matter.


So sending some units to chase the rebels off the path would be beneficial.

Yep. Getting them off the road restores the trade, but you have to eliminate them or push them into another province to get rid of the devastation. What really sucks is when a rebel stack spawns in a spot you can't reach. There's one spot in the mountains to the east of Mazaka that's unreachable (unless you have a levitation spell handy) and inevitably, in the course of an Armenian campaign, the AI always seems to spawn a rebel stack there....:wall:

[williamsiddell]

push them into another province

That would be very satisfying :) It's a shame two nudges in one turn results in a battle.


What really sucks is when a rebel stack spawns in a spot you can't reach

That's definitely a situation where I'd reload, use up a dice throw, and end turn. Hey presto - it's gone!

[williamsiddell]

I doubt if there are many surprises here:

Siege of a landlocked city : farming and taxes unaffected, land trade eliminated. Devastation increases after one turn. Corruption increases greatly.

Siege of port city: as above but sea trade survives.

Rebels on the road: as was said above 50% cut on that route. I've had an example of two rebel armies on the same route (adjacent provinces) and I'm pleased to say the second one appears to have no effect.

AI choosing alternative routes: The cities I checked all had a maximum of three roads out. I had one city with a road out that went to a 'T' junction, but I was unable to force a set of circumstances to prove or disprove. Will keep an eye out.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Siege of port city: as above but sea trade survives.

Which raises an issue I've had with RTW since the get-go...if sea trade still survives, why should a garrison in a port city take losses each turn of a siege? Logically (and historically, btw) if the port is not blockaded as part of a siege, then the city can hold out indefinitely and will have to be taken by direct assault. And while I'm at it, as a corollary, there should be a minimum size army required to siege a certain sized city. The dumbest thing to watch is a large/huge city with tens of thousands of residents, get put under siege by three skirmisher units.....:wall:

[Vincent Butler]

Most of the time, though, the port was really a part of the city, right, not a distance away? If the port really was the distance away that it is in the game (look at Numantia in Spain), you could cut off the city from supplies (providing you have the forces to surround the city), intercepting the supplies or forcing them to remain at the port. So as far as game mechanics vs appearance, it is possible for a port city to be totally cut off, and so lose men from the garrison.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If the port is some distance away, then yes, no supplies. I found some detailed maps of how some of the ancient cities we see in the game were built, and most cities had a wall that ran from port to city, protecting the port. Athens is a prime example of this. But most of the ports in the game are not accurately placed. Rome is a prime example here, as supplies form its port needed to be transported upriver before reaching the city....

I still disagree with being able to completely cut off a port city without blockading the port, as well.

[Vincent Butler]

I still disagree with being able to completely cut off a port city without blockading the port, as well.

Right, it would take a sizable army to totally surround a city, especially one the size of Rome, which hit a population of 1,000,000 in 5 BC. Although really, all you would need to do is control the roads leading in. Ancient Babylon actually would have been really hard, the Euphrates River ran through the city, and the city had farms inside the walls, enough to support the city for a while. The walls were thick enough to drive two chariots abreast on top of them. The Medes diverted the Euphrates, and the guards at the river gate were apparently negligent or drunk not to notice the river level dropping, at least that is my understanding of what happened. Feel free to correct me if somebody knows better.

[williamsiddell]

a large/huge city with tens of thousands of residents, get put under siege by three skirmisher units

Usually an AI army. Though I've taken advantage in a situation we've discussed elsewhere. I took my peasants out of Tanais to allow revolt and when it did it returned to Scythia. I had an army a couple of turns away and used a peasant to siege and disrupt production while I waited for it to arrive. Naturally Tanais assaulted the peasant at turn end and I withdrew only to resiege cos the AI didn't follow up.


Feel free to correct me if somebody knows better.

I certainly don't know better :)

[ReluctantSamurai]

Usually an AI army.

Always an AI army in my case...I don't siege unless I'm there to assault.


cos the AI didn't follow up.

The AI in RTW is so pathetically timid. That's why, if you set up a game where the AI controlled all of the factions, the Romans would win every time, because 'nobody attacks the Romans'. Well, I have seen the Gauls do it on occasion, but even when a garrison could overwhelm the several Velites that were laying siege, they just sit there until a bigger Roman army shows up. In Shogun, if you tried that, you'd get your head handed to you:bow:

[Vincent Butler]

That's why, if you set up a game where the AI controlled all of the factions, the Romans would win every time, because 'nobody attacks the Romans'. Well, I have seen the Gauls do it on occasion:bow:

Right, overall, Rome kicks tail with the AI, especially after Marius. I have seen Gaul successfully fend off Rome for a time:chucks:, and I have seen Spain take Mediolanium from the Julii, but overall, AI Rome would beat AI everything else:thwack:. Too bad, Macedon should be more powerful, they and Seleucia are usually gone pretty quickly, when really, they could do very well. Really, among the Greek factions, power is a toss-up.

[williamsiddell]

The AI in RTW is so pathetically timid.

Aye, if it's a small garrison you can successfully besiege with anything. For instance if you have a choice of cities to attack, try besieging the one with the smallest garrison with a duff unit while you attack the other - therefore preventing any further nuisance builds.

One thing I've considered but never done is: Say you are about to declare war on Germania and it has half a dozen cities. Send in five peasants and place each near a city. Then besiege all the cities at once :) Watch while the AI armies run about like headless chickens!

[ReluctantSamurai]

Send in five peasants and place each near a city. Then besiege all the cities at once :) Watch while the AI armies run about like headless chickens!

:laugh4:

Not even remotely historical, but probably a boatload of fun.........

[williamsiddell]

History is made every day :) Trouble is my neigbours will nearly always attack me before I could set up the fun.

[Vincent Butler]

Watch while the AI armies run about like headless chickens!

Because they don't know who to attack? That won't work with Egypt or Rome, because they always have multiple double-stack + 2 armies running around. Destroy one and three more magically appear from nowhere.:speechless: And why does the AI get to have their armies double-stack plus 2 anyway? By the way, the AI is not timid. They will attack my armies in the field with 3-1 odds against them. Brainless is more what I would say. I am seeing something weird, huge AI armies not doing anything. I took Halicarnasus. Egypt had a double-stack army by the bridge, and just sat their while I upgraded from town to large town to city, and built military buildings to retrain my army. Then finally they besieged Sardis instead (and got wiped out):hmg:. I will besiege a town, and a large army won't come to relieve the town, but will instead go off and do something else. That does not happen all the time, but I have seen it several times recently. Not that I mind.:party:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Most of what you just described has to do with pathfinding problems, something that was not a part of the game until the 3-D map came along. At the beginning of each turn the AI assesses what each stack it has can do....and sometimes that list has absolutely nothing to with where the current stack is standing. It may have tasked that Big E stack with something on the far side of the board, and the AI could not figure out how to get it there, or the target was not within its line-of-sight and again the AI had no idea what to do.


By the way, the AI is not timid.

With this I disagree. Case in point: Macedon campaign (VH/H)...I have a temporary truce with the GC due to a concerted effort by both Dacia and Thrace wanting me dead and gone.~D I don't trust the GC as far as I can spit, but I simply have to take care of the massive intrusions on my borders first. The Brutii have taken Appolonia and Thermon and are sniffing around Greece looking for more targets. The GC place a huge army led by their current faction leader who has four command stars (at least 15 units of hoplites and such, IIRC) onto a fleet and dump them next to Thermon. The Romans have left a minor general and two Hastati units there, and I had just destroyed their main army before heading north. A ready-made situation for the GC to easily get Thermon back, right? Wrong! The faction leader and his army just stand there for at least 6 or 7 turns doing absolutely nothing. Now I know auto-clac is skewed in favor of the Romans but holy hell, 15 hoplites and a 4-star general should have taken that city with ease. Nope. Eventually, the faction leader dies leaving the stack still standing there until a relief force from Tarantum lands and defeats the Greeks. Just plain dumb:shame:

If this had been Shogun, the AI would've thrown everything but their bamboo floor mats at the city in order to recapture it. There are countless more examples I could give, but I don't want to bore anyone to tears.

The RTW AI is pathetically timid......

[Vincent Butler]

The RTW AI is pathetically timid......

I am still not convinced, but whatever. We each get to make our own inferences. I would just say they are stupid. Does the autocalc really give Rome an advantage? I know I read that the Amazons in Themiskyra get an autocalc advantage, they are supposed to win with up to 5:1 odds against them, I think it was. The AI did seem more aggressive in EB, that was when four Lusotannan units of Lusotannan Spearmen would attack my armies of fourteen units, with ten of them medium/heavy infantry, Hastati/Principes/Triarii. Needless to say, I owned them.:smash: You keep talking about Shogun-it is not considered abandonware yet, is it, ie, nobody has a legal free download available? I don't think I have seen it in the stores.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Does the autocalc really give Rome an advantage?

How many times have you ever seen an AI-led faction attack an AI-led Roman faction and win? Very, very rare even at odds stacked in favor of the non-Roman faction. I once saw a full stack of Gauls best led by their 10-star faction leader lose to a minor Roman general and a half-stack of Auxillia, Light Auxillia, and a few Cohort I's:shame: I shouldn't state it as fact that auto-calc is skewed towards the Romans, but set up a few custom battles (AI vs AI) against Roman troops and see how many times the Romans lose.....

Shogun I publishing rights are owned by a company called Sold Out Software. Don't know if they are still producing discs for the game. IIRC, CA re-released the game with some sort of Shogun "Gold Edition" but don't quote me on that....

I still prefer it to RTW despite the "Risk-style" campaign map. You have to do far more planning on how to develop your infrastructure (with four seasons, payday only comes in the fall) or you may find yourself out of money. The battles are much, much tougher than RTW, and repelling a multi-stack invasion can take 1 1/2 to 2 hours....real time. It's just epic, at times. You will fight some battles where you absolutely have to win or face extinction. Now if that doesn't add excitement to a game I don't know what will.....The AI is smart and as aggressive as a mad hornet. Most people don't care for it much because unit selection is slim, and the campaign map is 2-D. But oh the tactics involved......

I remember when a year had gone by after the release of RTW, players were coming back to the STW forum and whining because they were getting their asses kicked by the Shogun AI. Things they could get away with in RTW, were not so in STW. Weather actually means something on the battlefield (fighting in dense fog is a blast), and the music tracks by Jeff VanDyke are awesome. If you can find a copy, and get it to run on your rig, it's worth the experience.

[Vincent Butler]

I once saw a full stack of Gauls best led by their 10-star faction leader lose to a minor Roman general and a half-stack of Auxillia, Light Auxillia, and a few Cohort I's:shame: I shouldn't state it as fact that auto-calc is skewed towards the Romans, but set up a few custom battles (AI vs AI) against Roman troops and see how many times the Romans lose.....

Well, if there are a lot of Warband, start one routing, the rest rout. Same with Eastern Infantry. The pila alone can do a lot of damage. I have had a full (minus the men lost from the siege), rested unit of Phalanx Pikemen, in my own huge city, rout just from two volleys of pila, their first engagement of the day. I'm not sure, but I think it was from Praetorian Cohort. Still, without even getting involved?:embarassed: Good thing they were supported by another unit. But even Auxilia and ELC are nothing to sneeze at, they will hold up to just about anything anybody else has, barring elite units such as Praetorian/Urban Cohort, Sacred Band or (I wouldn't call them elite) Pharaoh's Guards.

I will have to check out Shogun sometime, though it probably won't happen anytime soon. There is a Shogun 2 as well, right? So in that, would you recommend using real-life tactics? I try to do that in Rome anyway, but depends on who you are, it is not always feasible, ie, my Greeks hitting a pinned enemy with Greek Cav is not the same as doing it with Companion Cav like Macedon or Seleucia can.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Well, if there are a lot of Warband, start one routing, the rest rout.

Not the case here. I said 'Gauls best' which means Foresters, Chosen Swordmen, etc. With a 10-star general against a neophyte, the Gauls should have won IMO....


The pila alone can do a lot of damage

As is in RTW, Roman infantry get too many pila volleys (four or five, IIRC). Historically, they carried two pila:inquisitive:

I've modded out any Roman infantry past Cohort I. The Lorica Segmentata armor (the main difference between ELC and Praetorian/Urban) did not appear until around 100AD. And that means when I play a Roman faction, Cohort I is the best I get. I've removed Pharaoh's Guard and Pharaoh's Bowmen from the Big E's roster (really bad run-on with the whole 'mummy' look for Egypt...they were Ptolemaic Greeks for cryin' out loud), and made numerous other changes (like disabling Red Sea ports so Egypt doesn't waste money creating fleets where they can't participate in the game), and many other balancing changes.

To play Shogun I, you pretty much have to have a liking for the period, and prefer strategy and tactics over fluff and graphics (although the battlefields are 3-D and can be awesome to fight on). Shogun II has more diverse unit rosters, naval battles, and complicated tech trees. CA did a very nice job with the sequel, unlike Rome II.

Play to have fun rather than emphasizing historical aspects, IMHO:shrug:

[williamsiddell]

Eventually, the faction leader dies leaving the stack still standing there


Ha ha - I've seen the like often.

In my current GC VH/VH game I've just besieged Tarantum the last Brutii city (I'll take it next turn). Meanwhile they've been besieging Appoliona (with my usual one peasant garrison - at the risk of upsetting some!) for several turns with a large army. I'm moving an army up but not got there yet. It'll be interesting to see what the AI does next.

At turn end will it 1) jump into the nearby boat to support Tarentum, 2) Assault my city, or 3) sit there and become rebels. I'm on tenterhooks.

p.s. since only we three are posting - I take it you're both US of A, I'm in Scotland.

[ReluctantSamurai]

p.s. since only we three are posting - I take it you're both US of A, I'm in Scotland.

There aren't many left who still play vanilla RTW...and yes, I live in the Motor City.

And a long overdue....welcome aboard mate...~:wave:

[williamsiddell]

Ta.

Motor City - I'm impressed! Smokey Robinson and co. I'm in Perth - former crowning place of the kings of Scotland.

I've just played the turn mentioned above. Gold stars to any who guessed 3) changed to rebels. That was a size 20 army with 2 generals - a faction heir and another I assassinated. Now I have to get rid of a 14 strong roman rebel army.

[Vincent Butler]

As is in RTW, Roman infantry get too many pila volleys (four or five, IIRC). Historically, they carried two pila:inquisitive:

I've modded out any Roman infantry past Cohort I. The Lorica Segmentata armor (the main difference between ELC and Praetorian/Urban) did not appear until around 100AD. And that means when I play a Roman faction, Cohort I is the best I get. I've removed Pharaoh's Guard and Pharaoh's Bowmen from the Big E's roster (really bad run-on with the whole 'mummy' look for Egypt...they were Ptolemaic Greeks for cryin' out loud), and made numerous other changes (like disabling Red Sea ports so Egypt doesn't waste money creating fleets where they can't participate in the game), and many other balancing changes.

To play Shogun I, you pretty much have to have a liking for the period, and prefer strategy and tactics over fluff and graphics (although the battlefields are 3-D and can be awesome to fight on). Shogun II has more diverse unit rosters, naval battles, and complicated tech trees. CA did a very nice job with the sequel, unlike Rome II.

Play to have fun rather than emphasizing historical aspects, IMHO:shrug:

Asian history is not my interest. I just know not to get involved in a land war in Asia. As to the pila, I have only observed two volleys, at least from my own. If there are extra, it is because some of the legionaries are out of range. The amount is just given to the unit, so some may throw more, but then some will throw less. The computer probably gives their guys more.

since only we three are posting - I take it you're both US of A, I'm in Scotland.
Anchorage, Alaska. I hear Perth, I think Australia. Didn't know there was a Perth, Scotland. My family traces back to Kilkenny County, Ireland (though we were Normans who moved to Ireland), my avatar is my family coat of arms.:ireland:

[williamsiddell]

Anchorage, Alaska

Bet you're sick of your mum saying 'wrap up warm'.


Didn't know there was a Perth

Aye. Google Perth and you get the Australian one. I suppose it would be huge city in RTW and my Perth a large town.

We're all mongrels. Armies have marched back and forth through Europe for millennia.

[Vincent Butler]

You said you modded out anything past ELC. Praetorian/Urban don't get Lorica Segmentata, do they? I thought they had the muscled cuirass? Technically, the Praetorians would have been your imperial bodyguard, so the way the game uses them is not realistic though the PC itself is (I know that is old news). Julius Caesar talked about having the tenth legion as his Praetorian Cohort when he went to fight Ariovistus. I don't know how realistic the Urban Cohort were, probably not the elites that they are in the game, more likely the garrison would have been the Urban Cohort. I never saw "The Mummy", so I will take your word that the Pharaoh's Bowmen/Guards were unrealistic. Egypt did have good archers, so it would be nice to replace PB with something more realistic instead of getting rid of them. Elite units are only moderately realistic anyway, the Silver Shield Pikemen were, Praetorian Cohort (not as used in the game), Spartan Hoplites are, Macedon should have Hypaspists and Agyraspids (Silver Shields) instead of Royal Pikemen.

[ReluctantSamurai]

You said you modded out anything past ELC. Praetorian/Urban don't get Lorica Segmentata, do they?

The question is certainly open to debate, and I am certainly not an expert military archaeologist. Most probably the Trajan-era cohorts used it (would be Cohort II in RTW).

I found this in an article at the Angelfire website:


It was once presumed that all legionaries wore segmented armor after its introduction in the early 1st c. CE, and that after that time, the lorica hamata (mail shirt) was worn only by auxilia. More recently, however, scholars such as Bishop and Maxfield have posited that there was a far greater diversity of armor within units. Legionaries and auxiliaries may have worn either segmented or mail armor based on personal preference or local practice. Like legionaries, Praetorians wore mail shirts, then gradually and not universally transitioned into segmented cuirasses, and later came to favor scale mail in the late 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.

So who knows:shrug:

The biggest reason I modded out units for some of the more powerful factions was not for historical accuracy (or I'd have to get rid of such nonsense like Head Hurlers, Screeching Women, and Chariots) but to balance gameplay. I've said this before...if you let the AI play all the factions and then run a campaign, the Romans win every time. Maybe that's historical, maybe not, but this is a game not a historical simulator. I also play by my own rules as a Roman faction...no Praetorian Cohorts/Cavalry, no Urban/Cohort II. When you play Shogun, you can face any other clan in the final showdown to be the Shogun. Granted there are certain clans that get there more often than others, but any clan is capable to get to the "big showdown". Not so for RTW.


I never saw "The Mummy", so I will take your word that the Pharaoh's Bowmen/Guards were unrealistic.

By mummy I was referring to the Old Dynasty style depiction of the Egyptians. The Pharaohs were long gone to their ancestors in the sky in the timeframe of RTW...Ptolemaic Greeks ruled Egypt.

If you removed the Romans from the game (hypothetically) then the Big E wins every time. Despite my removing Pharaoh's Bowmen (and reducing their vanilla bowmen to 80 men from 120), removing Pharaoh's Guard, reducing the Desert Cavalry to 54 men from 80 (and placing them in a square formation like everyone else), you still get this:

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/aussiebirdman/BSS_13.jpg

As compensation for all the roster change to Egypt, I removed their capability to create fleets in the Red Sea. Nothing dumber than seeing several full-stack fleets sitting there and not being able to even participate in the game. Net result...the Big E isn't wasting money to create and maintain fleets they can't use. Egypt still has one of the better unit rosters in the game, despite my changes, and the screenie above shows that.

[Vincent Butler]

As far as the armour goes, I meant in the game. The Chariots are not unrealistic for Britannia, but they were used as fast transports, not fighting vehicles. Don't know about Egypt. I guess EB was kind of meant to deal with a lot of the inaccuracies, but it is harder, especially as Rome, because for a while you can't train your own units outside of Italy, and some levy barracks need to get very advanced before they can build some good units, some can't build any good units.

[guineawolf]

Luckily I can guess what P.I.T.A means :)

I get the point and understand your logic for using ZPG but I also note 3 of those cities are losing money. That's my problem. I'm fond of the filthy lucre and the best way to get it is via large cities. Tanais above required 20 peasants to keep it happy even before 24000 and, to give you an idea, even at 30000+ with 20 peasants it is still making 700 a turn after 1300 corruption. I'm hoping somebody out there has some magic bullet I don't know about for getting rid of those annoying peasants - I'm never happy if I have to use more than 3.

I think governors are one of the few weaknesses of the game. Leave one in a city too long and the negative attributes it gains will eventually make it worse than useless.

do you guys try not to upgrade your farm?the farm can earn you 60 to 80 denarii,but you will need more peasant upkeep to maintain it!!!

[Vincent Butler]

do you guys try not to upgrade your farm?the farm can earn you 60 to 80 denarii,but you will need more peasant upkeep to maintain it!!!

Does it really work that way? If you have advanced farms you need peasants in your towns? I almost never have peasants in towns, instead keeping a garrison in case I do get kicked out.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Upgrading farms is mostly situational. If you have many low population towns (<2000), then you want as much growth as possible, and therefore maximum farming. If you own cities in provinces with a grain bonus (Carthage, Memphis, Tanais, etc), then basic farming will be all you will ever need to build. Some cities are what I call 'slow-growers'. Sparta, Corinth, and most Middle East cities outside of Jerusalem and Tarsus fall into this category. If you are playing one of the "major" factions, getting these cities to 24k is going to be problematical. Even with max farms, they won't get there. You almost always need a governor with 'growth' traits (Good Farmer, Architect, etc) and one or two 'growth' ancillaries (Grain Merchant, etc) to push the population to 24k.

You can always ship in peasants from other cities, but this gets tedious unless the trip is a short local one. There is also the danger of getting the plague using this method, because squalor is not balanced with what the local food production can support, so it's a race to get the final governors building queued before the plague hits.

Many factions get a temple with growth properties built-in, and full advantage of them should be taken. Unlike farming, which cannot be undone, a temple can be razed once you've boosted the population to the desired level, and the growth bonus therefore cancelled.