View Full Version : CA : Suggestions about cities.
Right now, a big problem of the game, is the annoying tendencies of cities to revolt at the mere sight of a ruler. Even native cities, with the growth of squalor, are a nightmare to manage. Adds in the distance, the unrest that seem to never go away, and the culture penalty, and what we have is that players prefer to slaughter population when they capture a city, and to slow down the growth to the point of never building farms.
I suppose that the squalor concept was to make the game more interesting, both by showing that big cities aren't easy to manage (which is realistic), and to diminish the "snowball effect", the exponential growth of power when someone starts to have an edge.
This is a success, and a big empire unupgraded quickly fall in ruins, with multiple cities revolting, and its treasury sucked dry by the wages of its armies.
But it's excessive, and create more annoying micromanaging, and a tiresome quasi-impossibility to keep conquered cities down (even with a full 20 units garrisons).
Moreover, some of the ways of fighting the public disorders (health buildings, diminishing the taxes...), actually increase the population growth, which means they just delay the problem, not solve it.
All this to say : I think that, for plain simple enjoyment of the game, the loyalty should be increased. Garrisons should have a higher effect, squalor should be reduced, etc.
Additionnally, slaughtering cities should be the exception, not the rules.
But by reducing public disorder and squalor, we should provide another way to diminish the snowball effect. So, here are my suggestions :
Make "slaughter city" have a map-wide effect
First, slaughtering population is a tool of terror. It was used, because it was efficient. So it should have sometimes positive effects :
- If you slaughter a city you just captured, it should reduce the rebelliousness of the other cities of the same faction you capture in the future (temporary effect).
- If a city revolt and you slaughter it, then it should increase the public order in the rest of the empire, as people know what await them if they are unruly.
BUT :
If you slaughter too many times, you should start to endure to have negative effects, as people start to see your rule as harsh, unjust, and bloodthirsty.
- If you slaughter too many times captured cities, other factions should start to hate you. The "culture penalty" would start to increase in the cities that previously belonged to the faction which you decimate the cities. And if you still continue to slaughter, the culture penalty would increase for ALL the faction you have a culture penalty with.
(example : if you are Romans and have some culture penalty in your conquered Greek cities, and start to conquer Gauls and slaughter them, first you will make the Gauls afraid and they would temporarily be cowered. If you continue, the culture penalty with the Gauls would start to grow, and if you still continue, the culture penalty would start to grow both with your Gaul population AND greek population).
- If you slaughter too many times revolting cities, you will suffer from increasing empire-wide unrest, as people start to see you as a bloodthirsty tyrant with expeditive justice (and start to think : if I'm going to be executed anyway, well, let's be for a good reason at least).
I think that this would make the slaughtering a useful tool, but with serious drawback and would force a very careful use of it.
Make building have upkeep
To compensate the reduced unhappiness and squalor, and still make big cities not easy to handly, each building should have a upkeep, like units.
As such, it makes big, developped cities both good ressources (big taxes and ability to raise many troops due to big population, advanced troops due to military buildings, etc.), but at the same time, they would cost a lot to maintain, thus slowing the snowball effect.
I think that these suggestions could possibly increase greatly the interest of the game.
Just to illustrate some of this loyalty problems, here is a pic from a game yesterday :
http://zanath.free.fr/RTW/loyalty.JPG
I just slaughtered the settlement, and reduced to 3000-so people.
Ok, the temple and the governor's villa were damaged in the fight, and as such didn't had their "loyalty-boost" effect.
And ok, there is the "after capture unrest".
BUT, I have 17 units, a general with huge influence and no bad vice, and the town is reduced to a mere 3000 people ! And even with that, and taxes staying on "normal", there is revolt in the city !
I can't even imagine how it would be possible to hold this city for a SINGLE TURN if simply occupying without exterminating. And if we're not able to keep for a single turn, then it's a bit hard to reduce the cultural penalty and build the happiness buildings...
And all that is on medium/medium.
(I was able to keep the settlement on track by reducing the taxes on "low", but seriously, I should never had to do that, considering the crushing forces I had, the quality of my general, and the very small size of the population...)
So, well, there is far too much disorder in the game for now, I think.
Oh, and I'm somehow disappointed by the lack of feedback on these suggestions. I mean, if they are bad, people could at least tell me why. And if they are good, they it would be adequate to tell it, so that CA can have a look at them.
Hey Akka,
You beat me to it. ~:handball: I've just stopped my campaign to post about the ridiculous revolts. It is one othose lazy, CA implementation. In MTW, it was the resurrecting factions. This is far worse.
Why? Because, it is fairly difficult to capture big settlements. There's the machine-gun tower ~:eek:, there's the "huh? what did you say?-order-delay in the city square", the "admire the architecture while strolling around as the enemy runs at 40 mph", and of course, the tissue-paper-combustible siege engines. They also contrived to have the sapping points close together. The arrow towers should be DISABLED after you have captured the walls. Instead, I have to put soldiers atop the walls and shut the towers one by one. As if the battletimer isn't short as it is....
I just lost 500+ soldiers just fighting 2 thracian archers, 1 thracian pikemen, and their faction leader who's a 6 star general (all veterans; mine's the faction heir who is 4 stars and has got command and morale penalties). After enslaving the population. I lowered the tax and queued 1 early legionaire unit. What's the public order? I got a 10% boost from the tax cut, thus I now have a whopping 10% public order (with about 750 soldiers).
The next turn, BOOM! I got kicked out of the city (~13000 citizens). The town now has 2 Falxmen, 2 hoplite militia, 1 greek cavalry, another archer cavalry, and a pikemen. The rule states that you can only train ONE unit per turn!! How about a real revolt? Like a bunch of untrained peasants and one good unit who's the general/captain. Now, I have to wait another turn to build the siege engines again (why can't I store in it a city). Bribe? They are asking for 36000+ denari.
I think 750 units is a great enough occupying force in a 12900+ person city. Men, Women, Old folks and children, should be afraid. I've saved the Legionary Cohorts too, that's why I have about 5 of them there. I agree, the culture penalty is too high. Also make the garrison's effect at least dependent not just on numbers but troop quality and presence of a general/governor.
The senate at least going to give me 2 of the best units I can train, that's the only silver lining here (although I don't train Praetorians due to their uberhigh upkeep). :embarassed: However, it ain't fun if the AI just pulls units out of thin air. :stunned:
ChaosLord
10-09-2004, 17:01
I personally think they need to reduce the distance to capital penalty by half or one-third. I had my capital in Carthage and my Spanish cities were at 50% Distance-to-Capital penalty. I can only imagine how insane it gets if someone actually tries to replicate the Roman empire. This seems like a really bad way to reproduce unrest in fringe settlements. If they have all the comforts of Rome i've built for them, they should be happy damnit. Maybe we should have the various Palaces reduce distance-to-capital penalties, like 5-10-20-40.
But as for squalor and culture penalties, those seem fine to me. Culture can be gotten rid of by demolishing enemy buildings and replacing them with the types from your own faction. And I have a city with nearly 50k pop that isn't collapsing due to squalor, I can't remember a city I actually had a squalor problem in. But then I have a habbit of building alot of stuff.
As for making exterminate have more effects, only if the cash you gain from doing it is vastly reduced. Giving it the same Occupy and loot gets would work, while giving Occupy and loot the better number like it should have had originally.
garrison bonus maxes out at 80%.
Lower the tax rate, and the city is fine. In addition to tax boost, you'll get another 5% population boom boost as well. After a few turns the unrest penalty will drop, and you'll be able to build up 2-3 levels of temple or better yet an arena or hippodrome.
This is an extreme case (absolutely ZERO order buildings), and you can still keep order. Even 65% won't necessarily lead to revolt. High red level order usually elads to riots (which in truth, will be a good thing, since they'll reduce pop and thus squalor)
I don't see what the problem is, tbh.
btw this general is rather average. he has a lot of influence but nothing else. My top govs boost order by well more than 40%
King Azzole
10-09-2004, 18:51
Yea that does look kinda silly... But I kinda like the challenge. I just wish I didnt need to raise a 10-20 unit army to keep a city under control far away. 3-6 units should keep any city under control. Perhaps have a "No tax" rate for citys that a step lower than low taxes? "No tax" could boost loyalty tremendously.
garrison bonus maxes out at 80%.
Lower the tax rate, and the city is fine. In addition to tax boost, you'll get another 5% population boom boost as well. After a few turns the unrest penalty will drop, and you'll be able to build up 2-3 levels of temple or better yet an arena or hippodrome.
I was giving this as an exemple. But I have several more populated cities that have all the buildings and all the garrison I can put, and are in "low taxes", and still are at 65-70 % loyalty. And they haven't finished growing.
And I DON'T WANT the population boost. That's half my point in my first post, many players try as hard as they can to limit the population growth, and regularly slaughter their own cities.
That's quite an indication that there is something problematic in the game.
This is an extreme case (absolutely ZERO order buildings), and you can still keep order. Even 65% won't necessarily lead to revolt.
It's an extreme case ?
The city is 3000 people big with a general having a full 10 influence, and 17 units as garrison, for God sake !
One people out of three in this city is a soldier of mine ! That's two civilians, including women, children and elder, for each of my soldiers.
And there is happiness due to population boom.
And despite that, I'm still in the rebellious area with "normal taxes".
If that's not ridiculous, I don't know what is.
High red level order usually elads to riots (which in truth, will be a good thing, since they'll reduce pop and thus squalor)
Well, and you don't see a problem with having to make this kind of reasoning in a "conquer your empire" game ?
Soulflame
10-09-2004, 19:19
btw this general is rather average. he has a lot of influence but nothing else. My top govs boost order by well more than 40%
This is a bit funny, as this governer gives a 50% order boost. Every point of influence generates 5% order, this governer has 10 influence (highest possible) and thus generates 50% order.
Public order is very hard to manage in the game, at least on the outskirts of your empire.
I don't know how distance to capital is influencing public order, but I think it should be on a logical scale or something. I mean, if you live 3000km from Rome or 2500, that wouldn't be too much of a difference, whereas 300 km or 250 km may be a huge difference.
Beside that, I think most things are okay. And a riot after you massacred 3/4 of the population sounds pretty real to me...
i'll respond to both akka and SF here.
1. Yes, for this late in the game, this is an average general. I believe influence maxes out at 40% order boost (though all 10 influence affects general command radius). Maybe I am wrong about this. I forget.
But influence is only one factor in roder. THe best governors have law bonuses, health bonuses, and perhaps anti squalor bonuses from retinue/characteristics, in addition to having medium to high influence.
My top govs have an order effect of around 80%. If you have an academy or better somewhere, have your govs trained, or better yet, have other govs trained and transfer the retinue to your important govs.
2. This is an extreme case because it is a recently conquered province (unrest penalties, high culturepenalties, high dist to cap penalties) with ZERo order producing buildings. I don't see it as a problem for the game to make a city like this hard to hold. Indeed, there may be some cities of this sort that will rebel no matter what you do.
This is realistic, and it makes the game more interesting. I don't think I ever played a game of MTW beyond 30-40 turns becuase by that point, there was never any challenge. Just smash through everyone and take more provinces. Is it really so bad that a recnetly conquered province from an alien culture thosuands of miles from your capital is hard to hold? Imo, it is not.
3. True, population growth is not in your long run interest. But at 3k pop, 0.5% pop growth from low taxes will not hurt you much. And it will boost your order hugely. all you need is to lower taxes a couple rounds until you get some buidlings up, and so the unrest penatly will dissipate. The arena and hippodrome in particular can have a pretty big effect (though you have to pay for it).
4. Maybe order problems are too severe in the game. The fact that so many are complaining suggests that they are.
My personal theory, however, is that they're fine the way they are. CA has just done a really terrible job of explaining how to manage them. People stuff more and more troops in to no effect (beyond 7% of pop, it's pointless) and complain that theyc an't hold a city. They ignore cities for decades, and are surprised when squalor rears its head and causes a rebellion. They don't understand what law bonuses are, and how to get them. They don't properly utilize buildings such as the arena and hippodrome.
If CA had just explained how all this stuff works, then i don't think you'd see nearly as many complaints. I don't mind so much since I'm fine with figuring stuff out on my own.
Well, and you don't see a problem with having to make this kind of reasoning in a "conquer your empire" game ?
That a riot can be a good thing?
No i don't see that as a problem.
Inuyasha12
10-09-2004, 19:56
I personally think they need to reduce the distance to capital penalty by half or one-third. I had my capital in Carthage and my Spanish cities were at 50% Distance-to-Capital penalty.
Yes i was also going to suggest that building roads should lower the distance to capital penalty. I mean better roads=faster travel and news from the capital, so i think CA should add that as well.
As for squalor, i think it rises too fast. I mean during ancient times people lived in a bad way, its just the way it was for many people. The people in this game demand living in luxury, all the time!! It never was like that, i im declined to think that after being slaugthered twice a city will revolt because there are some cockroaches and dirt in their houses. Its bull!
squalor is a proxy for a lot of things. it's not just physical conditions but also, for example, the natural tendency for oppositino groups to form as you urbanize under a foreign ruler.
It's really hard for a bunch of farmers who live hundreds of miles from each other to rebel. When you build a city, have people living near each other, and give them more free time (speciziliation of labor), it's far more liketly to rebel.
I still think this is a good feature in the game. It's completely unrealistic to control these huge alien cities, tens of thousands of miles/kms away from your home provnice, easily. It also makes expansion more challenging.
Squalor and order just needed to be properly explained.
Inuyasha12
10-09-2004, 20:22
Im experimenting in giving some buildings(sewers, baths) more health bonus in the export_descr_buildings file and i will now go test it. Lets see if it changes the game and makes it too easy, or (i hope)balances it better. ~:)
I still think this is a good feature in the game. It's completely unrealistic to control these huge alien cities, tens of thousands of miles/kms away from your home provnice, easily. It also makes expansion more challenging.
Well, that's PRECISELY WHY I made this thread.
I wonder if people actually did read my first post. The whole point of the thread is to propose ways to keep the "squalor concept", but in a less irritating way (as in : less systematic revolts and impossibility to keep order).
1. Yes, for this late in the game, this is an average general.
Well, if you consider a 10-influence and 9-military general "average"...
You can certainly have better generals, but I hardly consider such a maxed-up guy "average"...
But influence is only one factor in roder. THe best governors have law bonuses, health bonuses, and perhaps anti squalor bonuses from retinue/characteristics, in addition to having medium to high influence.
My top govs have an order effect of around 80%. If you have an academy or better somewhere, have your govs trained, or better yet, have other govs trained and transfer the retinue to your important govs.
2. This is an extreme case because it is a recently conquered province (unrest penalties, high culturepenalties, high dist to cap penalties) with ZERo order producing buildings. I don't see it as a problem for the game to make a city like this hard to hold. Indeed, there may be some cities of this sort that will rebel no matter what you do.
Well, I DO see a problem.
That a town that has been reduced to 3000 people can barely be kept quiet by a full stack army with a 10-influence general, and only if you go on "low taxes", seems ridiculous to me.
It means that it's IMPOSSIBLE to not have revolt on a backwater town if you have less than a maxed-out general AND a maxed army AND if you DON'T SLAUGHTER.
Because if it's already nearly impossible to keep things in check after a slaughter, just imagine if I had chosen to enslave or occupy.
That big cities, with different culture, that had just been taken, require large armies and good governors, is not a bad thing. But that even after been reduced to a quarter of their size and military crushed, they are still on the brink of revolution, that's insane.
4. Maybe order problems are too severe in the game. The fact that so many are complaining suggests that they are.
That's the point. Particularly, they force the players to slaughter population and to limit growth as a rule. It's not just counter-intuitive and partially unrealistic, it's also frustrating, irritating, and require a tedious level of micromanagement.
My personal theory, however, is that they're fine the way they are. CA has just done a really terrible job of explaining how to manage them. People stuff more and more troops in to no effect (beyond 7% of pop, it's pointless) and complain that theyc an't hold a city. They ignore cities for decades, and are surprised when squalor rears its head and causes a rebellion. They don't understand what law bonuses are, and how to get them. They don't properly utilize buildings such as the arena and hippodrome.
Well, I do know how to use all that, and I still find revolts to be annoyingly common.
Del Arroyo
10-09-2004, 21:32
Historically, people were hard to control, order was hard to achieve. Resources had to be put into managing your own people BEFORE resources could be put into going to war.
Most video games have totally ignored this fact. Until RTW.
Things are great the way they are. ~:cheers:
Well, that's PRECISELY WHY I made this thread.
I wonder if people actually did read my first post. The whole point of the thread is to propose ways to keep the "squalor concept", but in a less irritating way (as in : less systematic revolts and impossibility to keep order).
By less irritating you basically mean easier. The game is already too easy. If you plan well, have good governors ready to take charge, and think strategically about which cities you should try to hold, and which you should enslave/kill off, then rebellion is not much of a problem, in my experience.
Maybe they should scale squalor penalties by difficulty level. They definitely should not reduce them for all difficulties.
Well, if you consider a 10-influence and 9-military general "average"...
You can certainly have better generals, but I hardly consider such a maxed-up guy "average"...
He's a great fighter, but no, he is not a great governor. Did you read my prior post? I had multiple governors well over 40% order in my last game. Probably around 7. And I didn't even get to 200 bc. Get govs trained in cities with academy-type buildings and law or other order enhancing temples. They'll develop a bunch of order enchancing characteristics and retinue.
Well, I DO see a problem.
That a town that has been reduced to 3000 people can barely be kept quiet by a full stack army with a 10-influence general, and only if you go on "low taxes", seems ridiculous to me.
Nothing here is ridiculous. What do barbarians care if your governor is influential? And I repeat, a full stack army is pointless in a 3k city. Garrison bonuses are capped at 80%, so you'd be quite fine moving 3/4 or more of your army out of the city.
Maybe you could quibble with the garrison bonus cap, but I think that's a reasonable choice. It encourages people to choose options other than the iron fist.
It means that it's IMPOSSIBLE to not have revolt on a backwater town if you have less than a maxed-out general AND a maxed army AND if you DON'T SLAUGHTER.
Because if it's already nearly impossible to keep things in check after a slaughter, just imagine if I had chosen to enslave or occupy.
Your example is a worst case scenario, and your'e doing fine with low taxes. Moreover, as I said, you could move 3/4 of your army out of the city, and you'd still be fine. I don't think there's anyting wrong with that at all.
That big cities, with different culture, that had just been taken, require large armies and good governors, is not a bad thing. But that even after been reduced to a quarter of their size and military crushed, they are still on the brink of revolution, that's insane.
Again, your example city is a near worst case scenario, and it is NOT on the brink of revolution. It's fine with low taxes. Maybe you jsut really hate low taxes, but I think most of us don't mind setting the taxes low until the unrest/culture penalties go away.
That's the point. Particularly, they force the players to slaughter population and to limit growth as a rule. It's not just counter-intuitive and partially unrealistic, it's also frustrating, irritating, and require a tedious level of micromanagement.
I don't think it's counter intuitive at all. Other games in the genre are counter-intuitive. they allow you to develop mass empires with minimal resources expended on retaining what you've recently conquered.
As to whether it's frustrating, opinions will differ. I would reiterate, however, that I don't think as many people would be frustrated if they simply understood that this was part of the game.
Finally, I don't see what this has to do with micromanagement. You press slaughter, and auto-tax, and your'e fine in 90% of the cases. You picked out a worst case city, with 70% distance penatly, max culture and unrest penalties, and an average governor, and guess what? You can control the city with a slaughter and low taxes, and still move 3/4 of your army to conquer some other province. To be sure, if you decide you don't like low taxes, or don't want to leave even 1/4 of your army in the city, then you'll have some problems, and will have to send your armies back to take it over.
But that's a choice you make in the game -- it has nothing to do with the game's micromanagement demand intrinsically.
You keep repeating that it's a "worst case scenario", which is false.
It's, on the contrary, practically a "best case".
A small town should NOT require so much efforts to keep quiet. People that know they will be slaughtered if they revolt, should NOT do it when they have a huge army in the vicinity. I'm not talking about game mechanics, I'm talking about common sense. Game mechanics should reflect common sense, and not the reverse.
And it would not make the game "easier", it would just make it "less tedious". It's not that hard to deal with revolts, but it's quite tiresome to move governors one by one from the capital, and do it again so often, because they die and you need to do the same thing over and over and over. And it's tedious to slow down the growth, and it's irritating to slowly see people revolt just because the game mechanics say so.
And it's also irritating to see cities where unrest never go (like Jerusalem, this city has 15 % unrest since now about 40 years...). And it's irritating to see that there is something like 80 % distance penalty between Greece and Spain, and that you KNOW the cities here WILL revolt after a while, when they will have reached the critical mass in population, and you'll have to make a couple of pointless battles and slaughter the people and start again.
Inuyasha12
10-10-2004, 00:46
I don't think it's counter intuitive at all. Other games in the genre are counter-intuitive. they allow you to develop mass empires with minimal resources expended on retaining what you've recently conquered.
As to whether it's frustrating, opinions will differ. I would reiterate, however, that I don't think as many people would be frustrated if they simply understood that this was part of the game.
I can understand what you mean, you should not be able to simply march across the world and take everything without problems of loyalty. However If fighting pointless battles over and over again simply to take back whats already yours is part of the game, its not a fun part of it. Yes it would be good to have a city revolt once and awhile and crush them to show them your superiority. These things happened alot in the ancient world. However a city that has been massacred will not revolt the same year with the same army that massacred it inside the city, NO one is that fanatical.
Take the britons for example if you saw yesterdays episode of decisive battles, after Boudicca's horrible defeat against rome, it was over. They gave up. For 400 years!! And they were only free from rome because the empire was collapsing.
What im saying here is that people know when they are conquered, when a general is forced to slaugther a city its a last resort, but it always works. Even soldiers will kneel to such kind of massacre(Roman decimation 1/10 of the unit). In this game you kill 1/3 of the populous, how can a city have the spirit to revolt after that, its simply impossible.
And it is incredibly tedious, after a city has revolted several times it begins to annoy you! Yes there are cities who revolt many times, carthage for example as the scipii will revolt many times. When playing other factions you can even see the AI struggle to keep control of the region. I wanted to conquer other nations, not to fight rebels for the rest of the game.
Again if part of the game is to have half of every large, foreing city you capture revolt again and again(even after slaughter!). Then it is very VERY annoying.
Again, your example city is a near worst case scenario, and it is NOT on the brink of revolution. It's fine with low taxes. Maybe you jsut really hate low taxes, but I think most of us don't mind setting the taxes low until the unrest/culture penalties go away.
It shouldn't matter. The city has just been massacred, 1/3 of every man, woman and child has been killed. The people in a real city would happily pay incredibly high taxes, aslong as their daughter is not killed like their son was. A massacre like that is a horrid experience for anyone. That a city should even think of revolt after that is stupid.
By less irritating you basically mean easier. The game is already too easy. If you plan well, have good governors ready to take charge, and think strategically about which cities you should try to hold, and which you should enslave/kill off, then rebellion is not much of a problem, in my experience.
Well then if the game is too easy then the other factions could be made stronger. The thing is i want to enjoy fighting my enemy not my own people. This did not happen in the ancient world. A city that was massacred either dissapeared, or did not need any troops to hold. The memory of massacre is clear in their minds forever. I just don't want to fight my own revolting people over and over again, it takes away from the main thing in this game, to conquer. Not to put down rebellions.
(I can even add, that it's not 1/3 of the population that is massacred, but 3/4. So the effect is even higher than that)
Inuyasha12
10-10-2004, 01:20
Really!!?? I strictly remember Victoria( the campaing assistant) saying it was 1/3. Oh well. ~:cheers:
Meneldil
10-10-2004, 16:11
Inuyasha12, I think you said you would try to change health bonuses given by buildings. Have you got any result yet ? I just got the game this week and squalor is already pissing me off.
Inuyasha12
10-10-2004, 16:33
Well it helped a little, but im still getting revolts in carthage and some pretty high squalor levels. I guess i'll try to put them up higher again...
If you want you can do it yourself, go into the data file and find the export_descr_buildings file(there are alot of text file there :book: ) Then you'll see the basic building text block.
building health
{
levels sewers baths aqueduct city_plumbing
{
sewers requires factions { ct_carthage, egyptian, greek, roman, } and building_present_min_level market trader
{
capability
{
population_health_bonus bonus 1
}
construction 2
cost 800
settlement_min large_town
upgrades
{
baths
}
}
Just raise the population health bonus to something more. And go test it.
But again this only counters the effects of squalor for a longer duration of time, not takes it away altogether.
You have a 80% distance penatly, max culture penatly, max unrest penalty, zero order buildings, and a damaged town hall.
Explain to me how this is not a near worst case scenario.
It may be tedious to manage order and rebellions, it may not. Opinions will differ. A rebel battle to hold ground you have just conquered is just as much a battle as a conquering battle. In my experience, rebel battles are often harder, since i generally expand so quickly in my games that the factions have terrible, low tech armies. It may be "tedious" for you because you sent your entire army out to conquer more territories, and thus have no way to stop the rebels from running rampant behind you. But that's your own fault, not the game's.
In my current game. I have ~25 provinces spanning from Carthage to Egypt to Rhodes. My max pop city is carthage at 27k (pop growth 0), and I have ~8 other cities at large city or greater level. I have never had an unexpected rebellion, and only a handful of unplanned rebellions. I have also had zero rebellions in the interior of my empire.
If you don't like rebellions, you don't have to have them. just manage your cities well.
And it's worth repeating, this small town you pointed out (with all its terrible order characteristics), is perfectly fine with low taxes. Moreover, you can move out 3/4 (maybe more) of your army, and it will still be fine. Maybe you refuse to leave even 1/4 of your army in the city to maintain order. Maybe you refuse to lower taxes. Those are the choices you make. Don't blame the game for them.
Edit: actually, it's also worth pointing out again that you don't even have to lower taxes. 65% will lead to riot but (usually) not revolt. after a cuople rounds, the unrest will dissipate and you won't even have riots.
You keep repeating that it's a "worst case scenario", which is false.
It's, on the contrary, practically a "best case".
A small town should NOT require so much efforts to keep quiet. People that know they will be slaughtered if they revolt, should NOT do it when they have a huge army in the vicinity. I'm not talking about game mechanics, I'm talking about common sense. Game mechanics should reflect common sense, and not the reverse.
And it would not make the game "easier", it would just make it "less tedious". It's not that hard to deal with revolts, but it's quite tiresome to move governors one by one from the capital, and do it again so often, because they die and you need to do the same thing over and over and over. And it's tedious to slow down the growth, and it's irritating to slowly see people revolt just because the game mechanics say so.
And it's also irritating to see cities where unrest never go (like Jerusalem, this city has 15 % unrest since now about 40 years...). And it's irritating to see that there is something like 80 % distance penalty between Greece and Spain, and that you KNOW the cities here WILL revolt after a while, when they will have reached the critical mass in population, and you'll have to make a couple of pointless battles and slaughter the people and start again.
Look, your entire post assumes that revolts are inevitable. They're not.
I've played multiple VH/VH games, and never had an in internal revolt. It can be hard to control provines you just took, to be sure. But it's not impossible. Usually, what this means is you have to leave your general and a (small, if you slaughtered or enslaved) force in the taken city until the unrest/culture penalties die down and/or you can get a good governor in to replace your general.
That's not a bad game mechanic.
And please don't tell me that "if yous alughtered x% of the people, it's unreaslitic for them to rebel."
First of all, it's unrealistic that you could slaughter 3/4 of the people with a click of the button in half a year's time. Seocnd, slaughtering does not alwyas lead to passivity. At some point, people realize you have no intent on letting them survive and will ifght you like dogs.
The more general point is simply that people who are complaining about order are really mad that they haven't successfully managed order. CA should have explained that managinig order was in fact part of the challenge of the game, and they should have explained how to manage order better. As things stand, the vast majority of people have no clue.
But there's nothing wrong with the game mechanic intrinsically --it's the explanation of it that's faulty.
Edit: PS when you fight rebels, you ARE fighitng your enemy and not your own people. That's the entire point. I mean, when your'e talking about a recently conquered province, they're flying enemy faction banners, right?
People just need to realize RTW is not RTExpansion. That doesn't mean you can't expand increidbly quickly. It does mean that if you want to expand quickly, you have to be smart about it.
I can understand what you mean, you should not be able to simply march across the world and take everything without problems of loyalty. However If fighting pointless battles over and over again simply to take back whats already yours is part of the game, its not a fun part of it. Yes it would be good to have a city revolt once and awhile and crush them to show them your superiority. These things happened alot in the ancient world. However a city that has been massacred will not revolt the same year with the same army that massacred it inside the city, NO one is that fanatical.
Take the britons for example if you saw yesterdays episode of decisive battles, after Boudicca's horrible defeat against rome, it was over. They gave up. For 400 years!! And they were only free from rome because the empire was collapsing.
What im saying here is that people know when they are conquered, when a general is forced to slaugther a city its a last resort, but it always works. Even soldiers will kneel to such kind of massacre(Roman decimation 1/10 of the unit). In this game you kill 1/3 of the populous, how can a city have the spirit to revolt after that, its simply impossible.
And it is incredibly tedious, after a city has revolted several times it begins to annoy you! Yes there are cities who revolt many times, carthage for example as the scipii will revolt many times. When playing other factions you can even see the AI struggle to keep control of the region. I wanted to conquer other nations, not to fight rebels for the rest of the game.
Again if part of the game is to have half of every large, foreing city you capture revolt again and again(even after slaughter!). Then it is very VERY annoying.
It shouldn't matter. The city has just been massacred, 1/3 of every man, woman and child has been killed. The people in a real city would happily pay incredibly high taxes, aslong as their daughter is not killed like their son was. A massacre like that is a horrid experience for anyone. That a city should even think of revolt after that is stupid.
Well then if the game is too easy then the other factions could be made stronger. The thing is i want to enjoy fighting my enemy not my own people. This did not happen in the ancient world. A city that was massacred either dissapeared, or did not need any troops to hold. The memory of massacre is clear in their minds forever. I just don't want to fight my own revolting people over and over again, it takes away from the main thing in this game, to conquer. Not to put down rebellions.
Antalis::
10-10-2004, 20:03
This is a success, and a big empire unupgraded quickly fall in ruins, with multiple cities revolting, and its treasury sucked dry by the wages of its armies.
But it's excessive, and create more annoying micromanaging, and a tiresome quasi-impossibility to keep conquered cities down (even with a full 20 units garrisons).
I fully agree.
Its not funny at all to look 100 times if all governers are still alive to prevent a revolt.
And even if they are the cities are a nightmare to manage.
Please CA reduce the rebellions ~:handball:
I fully agree.
Its not funny at all to look 100 times if all governers are still alive to prevent a revolt.
And even if they are the cities are a nightmare to manage.
Please CA reduce the rebellions ~:handball:
you can scan over your entire empire in 10 seconds or less. All you have to do is look at the colored faces.
I'll agree taht there should be better summary reports. But ti's not like it's that hard even now.
Antalis::
10-10-2004, 20:48
you can scan over your entire empire in 10 seconds or less. All you have to do is look at the colored faces.
I'll agree taht there should be better summary reports. But ti's not like it's that hard even now.
Yes I can do that, but then 5 cities are smiling at me with there blue and red faces and many with yellow ones ~;)
Then I have to ship governers from my capital to these cities and thats annoying and a waste of time.
Well thats the thing I don´t like at all.
I have huge armies but often when you have conquered a new city: All men have to be in it to prevent rebellions.
I want to raid and plunder through the land with this army and not to settle down there.
heh fair enough.
But imo, if you plan ahead of time, it's not THAT bad. Disorder rarely goes up by more than 5% in a single turn.
Yes I can do that, but then 5 cities are smiling at me with there blue and red faces and many with yellow ones ~;)
Then I have to ship governers from my capital to these cities and thats annoying and a waste of time.
Well thats the thing I don´t like at all.
I have huge armies but often when you have conquered a new city: All men have to be in it to prevent rebellions.
I want to raid and plunder through the land with this army and not to settle down there.
Hurin_Rules
10-10-2004, 21:02
Dorkus (or anyone else),
YOu mention a couple of times to 'train' your governors through academies. You don't mean that you actually have to retrain them or anything, right? YOu just build the academy and you get retinue/traits because of it, right? Just wondering if there's something I've missed here.
Inuyasha12
10-10-2004, 21:13
Look, your entire post assumes that revolts are inevitable. They're not.
I've played multiple VH/VH games, and never had an in internal revolt. It can be hard to control provines you just took, to be sure. But it's not impossible. Usually, what this means is you have to leave your general and a (small, if you slaughtered or enslaved) force in the taken city until the unrest/culture penalties die down and/or you can get a good governor in to replace your general.
That's not a bad game mechanic.
And please don't tell me that "if yous alughtered x% of the people, it's unreaslitic for them to rebel."
First of all, it's unrealistic that you could slaughter 3/4 of the people with a click of the button in half a year's time. Seocnd, slaughtering does not alwyas lead to passivity. At some point, people realize you have no intent on letting them survive and will ifght you like dogs.
First of all did you read my post? I said that revolts happened and it would be fine if they happened like that once in awhile wich they do, that is not what bothers me.
But that after a city has revolted and been massacred it will learn its lesson.
And they don't in this game and THAT is unrealistic. You're going to tell me that a city no matter who it belongs to will revolt twice in the same year, to the same army that massacred it the last month. Now that is not possible.
Normal citizens, people like you and me would not. If that happened in your city and 3/4 was slaughtered would you join up in the revolt knowing the consequenses, i wouldn't.
And its not fun fighting hordes of peasants over and over again, no its not.
First of all, it's unrealistic that you could slaughter 3/4 of the people with a click of the button in half a year's time.
What i don't understand what you mean?? You want to slaughter them in the battle map then?? ~:)
Dorkus (or anyone else),
YOu mention a couple of times to 'train' your governors through academies. You don't mean that you actually have to retrain them or anything, right? YOu just build the academy and you get retinue/traits because of it, right? Just wondering if there's something I've missed here.
You need to build it, and you need to have the governor in the city with FULL MOVEMENT (ie he cannot move in and out, and he cannot have just arrived) for one turn.
You might want to sit him there for more than one turn, as the retinue results are random. The nice thing is that since the effect is on retinue and not V/V (actually, might be both, though if the latter then I think it is lower probability), you can swap retinue all you want and give an "order specialization" governor all the retinue that improve order (law, influence), and move the management/command retinue to generals who specialize in those areas.
Kaiser of Arabia
10-10-2004, 21:14
Wow, I wish we could slaughter them on the battle map. That would be the greatest feature ever implemented in a game. Imagine, Rome, with 1000000 people, against 200 legionaries. Fun indeed.
Hurin_Rules
10-10-2004, 21:20
You need to build it, and you need to have the governor in the city with FULL MOVEMENT (ie he cannot move in and out, and he cannot have just arrived) for one turn.
Ok, I think I've got it. I was just building and academy in each city to train its own governors. But from what you're saying, you can just build one in only one city and then cycle your governors throught it by just having them stay one full turn there. Then, you move that governor out to another city and have someone else stay in the city for one turn to get their retinue. Is that what you mean?
However If fighting pointless battles over and over again simply to take back whats already yours is part of the game, its not a fun part of it.
My point is that doesn't happen if you manage your cities well. If it's not fun, then avoid it. Most of the complaints strike me as being the complaints of unsuccessful campaigns, not bad game mechanics.
Maybe a rebellion after a slaughter is realistic. Maybe not. You scare people, but you also make them hate you even more.
But killing 3/4 of the population in half a year is certainly unrealistic. IT's not that easy to kill people, especailly in a huge province.
All of this is a little beside the point, though. When you exterminate, 90% of the time, public order will be fine with a minimal garrison.
As to hordes of peasants, at least on VH/VH difficulty, the rebel armies are almost always tougher than the normal faction armies. They seem to get the highest quality troops available from the settlement, and they're often full stacks. Throw in the VH combat bonuses on the battlefield, and they're not cakewalks at all. They're quite fun to fight, in fact.
You have a 80% distance penatly, max culture penatly, max unrest penalty, zero order buildings, and a damaged town hall.
Explain to me how this is not a near worst case scenario.
Because these penalties are what I will take on half the map. They are not "worst case", they are "average case". I will get above 60 % penalty about distance on basically everything that isn't Greece, Turkey and Italy. I will take the unrest and culture penalty on any city I capture. The buildings are commonly damaged during an assault.
On the point of view of city capture, it's barely a "below average" case. If you count that there is a huge garrison and a 10-influence general, it's a "far above average case". If you count that there is only a quarter of the population left (so practically no squalor left and garrison effect increased), it's a "ridiculous case".
It may be tedious to manage order and rebellions, it may not. Opinions will differ. A rebel battle to hold ground you have just conquered is just as much a battle as a conquering battle. In my experience, rebel battles are often harder, since i generally expand so quickly in my games that the factions have terrible, low tech armies. It may be "tedious" for you because you sent your entire army out to conquer more territories, and thus have no way to stop the rebels from running rampant behind you. But that's your own fault, not the game's.
Who said I had no way to stop rebels ? I say it's tiring to HAVE to deal with unrest even when you have big garrisons, happiness buildings and low taxes. A well-managed and heavily-garrisoned city should NOT have unrest troubles. I agree to have rebels when I don't take care of a city, not when the game is set so that there will be unrest anyway.
If you don't like rebellions, you don't have to have them. just manage your cities well.
They ARE well managed. They have happiness buildings, they have spies close to them to spot spies and assassins, they have 10 or 12 militia in them to keep order (up to 18-20 in Carthage, Memphis, Jerusalem and other troublesome cities), they are in "low taxes". And still, they are always close to rioting. That's stupid.
If all you can bring is contemptuous comments that are off-base, don't bother.
And it's worth repeating, this small town you pointed out (with all its terrible order characteristics), is perfectly fine with low taxes. Moreover, you can move out 3/4 (maybe more) of your army, and it will still be fine. Maybe you refuse to leave even 1/4 of your army in the city to maintain order. Maybe you refuse to lower taxes. Those are the choices you make. Don't blame the game for them.
Well, and that's something absurd. Why should the effect of the garrison capped ? That's precisely a flaw of the game, and NOT a flaw of my management.
Edit: actually, it's also worth pointing out again that you don't even have to lower taxes. 65% will lead to riot but (usually) not revolt. after a cuople rounds, the unrest will dissipate and you won't even have riots.
I don't consider that a little town military crushed by a huge army should REQUIRE low taxes to not riot. That's what you definitely can't understand, as it seems.
And please don't tell me that "if yous alughtered x% of the people, it's unreaslitic for them to rebel."
First of all, it's unrealistic that you could slaughter 3/4 of the people with a click of the button in half a year's time. Seocnd, slaughtering does not alwyas lead to passivity. At some point, people realize you have no intent on letting them survive and will ifght you like dogs.
First, it's not unrealistic to be able to slaughter the population. It takes, for an army, just a single night to massacre people.
Second, I agree, slaughter doesn't necessarily lead to passivity.
That's the VERY POINT of my first message (I'm pretty sure, now, that people don't read it...).
The point is that I'm FORCED to slaughter, or else I've a rebellion on spot as soon as I take the city.
Just see the picture. I'm at 65 % loyalty with a 3000 population and normal taxes.
With a 12000 population, even at low taxes, I've got a rebellion on my hands. Thus, either I slaughter, either they rebels.
THAT is what I consider absurd. Slaughtering should be the exception for punishing exceptionnally unruly provinces, not the regular course of action. It should be exceptionnal, or else, like you say, people will think that they will get executed anyway, and revolt. But if it happens only in rare case, only when people rebelled while not subjected to overly harsh rule, then it should be a good deterrent.
It's why I think that we should be able NOT to have rebellion with full-populated conquered cities, provided we have a big army.
The more general point is simply that people who are complaining about order are really mad that they haven't successfully managed order. CA should have explained that managinig order was in fact part of the challenge of the game, and they should have explained how to manage order better. As things stand, the vast majority of people have no clue.
But there's nothing wrong with the game mechanic intrinsically --it's the explanation of it that's faulty.
Again the extremely irritating "if you're annoyed by loyalty, it's just you didn't managed well". See my reply above. When there is all the happiness, law and culture building in the city, and a big garrison, and low taxes, there shoudl NOT be revolt.
Inuyasha12
10-10-2004, 23:46
Wow, I wish we could slaughter them on the battle map. That would be the greatest feature ever implemented in a game. Imagine, Rome, with 1000000 people, against 200 legionaries. Fun indeed.
Sir that is just sick and evil ~;)
Morindin
10-11-2004, 00:00
Well I finished a my first long campaign as the Julii (hard/hard) without reloading once. I had an empire that stretched from Iberia to the UK to the eastern edge of the map.
I had a few revolts, but my empire was probably larger than the real Roman empire itself (not including the other Roman factions) and I had about 1/100th of the Revolts the real empire had. By the sounds of things many of you would throw your games out the window if you had to deal with the number of revolts the real empire had :)
I have no problem with putting down revolts and needing large garrisons to maintain far way cities. Distance to Capital is very realistic and SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED AT ALL.
Culture penality is also realistic because many of the provinces that the Roman empire took over resented Roman rulership for a long time, and after the Empire collapsed STILL retained their culture.
The one thing I do have a problem with however - is when a revolt happens, its absurdly unrealistic. Byzantium revolted with about 25 units of cretan archers, oangers, hoplites, and not a peasant to be seen. How would they gather such a force without me noticing? This is pretty ridiculous.
Revolts should be masses of peasants with a small number of trained troops - perhaps mutiny from your own forces trained from that very city.
I had a few revolts, but my empire was probably larger than the real Roman empire itself (not including the other Roman factions) and I had about 1/100th of the Revolts the real empire had. By the sounds of things many of you would throw your games out the window if you had to deal with the number of revolts the real empire had :)
Who would find any fun in having the same amount of revolt of the real empire ?
And BTW, the Empire had relatively few revolts when it was well administrated. It was when there was corruption, looting and pillaging, that people revolted.
I have no problem with putting down revolts and needing large garrisons to maintain far way cities. Distance to Capital is very realistic and SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED AT ALL.
I think that the highest level of governor palace should somehow decrease the distance loss of loyalty.
Culture penality is also realistic because many of the provinces that the Roman empire took over resented Roman rulership for a long time, and after the Empire collapsed STILL retained their culture.
Nobody said that culture had to be changed. As long as it slowly decrease when we replace native buildings with our faction ones, no problem.
Morindin
10-11-2004, 00:30
Who would find any fun in having the same amount of revolt of the real empire ?
Yes, but we dont get that many either.
And BTW, the Empire had relatively few revolts when it was well administrated. It was when there was corruption, looting and pillaging, that people revolted.
Depends where/when. A lot of them happened when Roman power suffered a setback or defeat. A lot of them happened due to high taxation, and a lot of them happened due to tyrant leadership - particulary in the Iberian area. Fact of the matter is, there was a hell of a lot of them for lots of different reasons, far more than anyone is likely to encounter in RTW.
The major difference is however the Romans completely wiped out troublesome cities, something you cant do in RTW.
I also think culture slowly decreases over time too. Very slowly. Some of my original Gaul cities ended up with only one bar of culture penalty by the end of the game (which was only a couple of hundred years).
I do agree with some of your original points however, and my post was more directed at some other people rather than you.
SpencerH
10-11-2004, 02:04
Since Dorkus is an expert at this I'd like to pose this problem. I'm the Selucids and have conquered the Egyptians many years ago (Pontus first shortly followed by Egypt, then Armenia, Parthia, with Cyprus, Rhodes and Crete thrown in along the way). Memphis and Alexandria are both 30000 plus cities under constant strain of revolt with all happiness and public health buildings and maxed out units.
All I can do is hope for a better governor. Despite building scriptoriums everywhere and a few ludus thingies, I have few governors with good management skills (there were relatively lots in the early part of the game but they're now dead) and those that exist are dealing with unstable cities elsewhere. Unless I've had some bad luck with generating good managers I dont see how you've kept order as you've suggested on vh levels.
So whats the answer? Alexandria has just rebelled and been recaptured, unfortunately I should have executed the rebels but wanted to see what happened if I just walked back in. Guess what they're gonna rebel again? My army will be teleported outside the city and I'll have to take it again.
This needs fine tuning. It works fine for smaller cities but is unmanageable for large cities and empires.
Morindin
10-11-2004, 02:10
Since Dorkus is an expert at this I'd like to pose this problem. I'm the Selucids and have conquered the Egyptians many years ago (Pontus first shortly followed by Egypt, then Armenia, Parthia, with Cyprus, Rhodes and Crete thrown in along the way). Memphis and Alexandria are both 30000 plus cities under constant strain of revolt with all happiness and public health buildings and maxed out units.
All I can do is hope for a better governor. Despite building scriptoriums everywhere and a few ludus thingies, I have few governors with good management skills (there were relatively lots in the early part of the game but they're now dead) and those that exist are dealing with unstable cities elsewhere. Unless I've had some bad luck with generating good managers I dont see how you've kept order as you've suggested on vh levels.
So whats the answer? Alexandria has just rebelled and been recaptured, unfortunately I should have executed the rebels but wanted to see what happened if I just walked back in. Guess what they're gonna rebel again? My army will be teleported outside the city and I'll have to take it again.
This needs fine tuning. It works fine for smaller cities but is unmanageable for large cities and empires.
You just admitted you used the wrong solution to the problem. What you should have done is highlighted in bold.
Unfortunately we cant do it to the same extent the Romans did. They will probably rebel again, but after you've slaughtered them a couple of times they tend to quiet down
I'll take a crack at it. If you've taken them a long time before, they shouldn't have culture and unrest penalties anymore, especially since you have the Pyramids. If you slaughtered or enslaved the population, you have time to build improvements before they got to 30,000. Hopefully, they're not growing way past 30,000. 30,000 population is 100% public unrest due to squalor. Let's say they have the max distance penalty which is 80%. That's a total of 180%.
The Aqueduct gives 15% order. The Theatre does the same. The Curia gives 10%. That's already 40%. Dionysus Pantheon gives a total of 60% but adds 1% population growth which will give a 10% penalty to public order for a net of 50%. That's 90% total already. Low tax rate adds 30% to public order but adds 0.5% population growth which will give a 5% penalty to public order, netting you 25%. That's 115%.
My experience is that 80% public order won't get you any rebellions so your target is 160%. Therother has a good formula at https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37586 for garrison sizes. For the last 45%, you're looking at around 17 peasant units.
I'm playing Parthia and Antioch is my capital. I have around 30% distance penalty for Alexandria, 35% for Memphis, 45% for Thebes. You may substitute Hephaestus for Dionysus in that case.
SpencerH
10-11-2004, 14:59
You just admitted you used the wrong solution to the problem. What you should have done is highlighted in bold.
Unfortunately we cant do it to the same extent the Romans did. They will probably rebel again, but after you've slaughtered them a couple of times they tend to quiet down
It's just contrary to my inclinations to build up a city then be forced to slaughter a huge percentage of the population (since there is no other option available to me) just to stop them revolting against my benevolent government.
As it turned out they didnt revolt immediately and then the plague struck again (second time for this city). That shut up the whiners!
As I said I still feel that this aspect of the game needs some tweaking. Its just dopey to not build farms and other useful buildings in order to slow growth and squalor.
SpencerH
10-11-2004, 15:19
I'll take a crack at it. If you've taken them a long time before, they shouldn't have culture and unrest penalties anymore, especially since you have the Pyramids. If you slaughtered or enslaved the population, you have time to build improvements before they got to 30,000. Hopefully, they're not growing way past 30,000. 30,000 population is 100% public unrest due to squalor. Let's say they have the max distance penalty which is 80%. That's a total of 180%.
The Aqueduct gives 15% order. The Theatre does the same. The Curia gives 10%. That's already 40%. Dionysus Pantheon gives a total of 60% but adds 1% population growth which will give a 10% penalty to public order for a net of 50%. That's 90% total already. Low tax rate adds 30% to public order but adds 0.5% population growth which will give a 5% penalty to public order, netting you 25%. That's 115%.
My experience is that 80% public order won't get you any rebellions so your target is 160%. Therother has a good formula at https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37586 for garrison sizes. For the last 45%, you're looking at around 17 peasant units.
I'm playing Parthia and Antioch is my capital. I have around 30% distance penalty for Alexandria, 35% for Memphis, 45% for Thebes. You may substitute Hephaestus for Dionysus in that case.
These cities are/were well past 30000 (105-110% sq). In addition, max garrison is 40% (which they have). As I mentioned in the previous post, Alexandria has lost ~3000 pop so far from plague and seems to be stable enough that I may have time to build theatre but if the pop goes up again it'll be the same fix. We reach a point where unless we have a more influential governor available there is nothing we can do (short of causing starvation) to prevent an uprising and eventual slaughter of the population. If you enslave them you'll just cause problems elsewhere. Given the situation, I now have to slaughter rather than enslave all future-conquered cities in Greece so as to not increase the sizes of my huge cities.
Antalis::
10-18-2004, 21:35
Cities are impossible to manage probably.
I don´t know why many cities are more or less satisfied a moment ago and then in a few turns later they are not.
This rebellion problem with cities is the thing that makes me loosing my fun playing RTW, when I have to conquere cities again and again only to see another revolt in 20 turns ~:handball: :dizzy2:
I've slightly modded my game to make it more interesting to play : the central power building has a "law effect" of 5 % per upgrade (in other words : governor's house gives 5 % law, villa gives 10 %, up until the imperial palace giving 25 %). I still have plenty of dealing with revolts and riots, but on a much more manageable (and much less irritating) level. It pushes the treshold back just enough to make it goes out of the annoying point, but not enough to make it too easy.
I'm actually wondering how I could mod the farms to make them worth to build.
I've slightly modded my game to make it more interesting to play : the central power building has a "law effect" of 5 % per upgrade (in other words : governor's house gives 5 % law, villa gives 10 %, up until the imperial palace giving 25 %). I still have plenty of dealing with revolts and riots, but on a much more manageable (and much less irritating) level. It pushes the treshold back just enough to make it goes out of the annoying point, but not enough to make it too easy.
I'm actually wondering how I could mod the farms to make them worth to build.
Akka, that's a damn fine modding idea! It will also go a long way in helping the AI get a better handle on its own cities.
Who would find any fun in having the same amount of revolt of the real empire ?
You mean you are actually advocating having a fun gaming experience over implementing "realism"?? ~;)
I like the idea of making the governor's buildings affect city happiness. Makes sense, as building the infrastructure of government should increase the "lawfullness" of the citizens.
I haven't mucked around with modding at all, is it an easy change?
Bh
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.