Gameplay issues playing as the Brits (or barb types)

[SpencerH]

Another thread aimed at generating discussion about gameplay balance issues that may contribute to the suggestions for the XP.

I've been playing as the Brits in a minimal re-start game in order to avoid the save 'feature'. The biggest problem I've found while playing as this faction is how little money is available. Units and buildings cost just as much as the rich factions, but income is pathetic. I've found that the lack of money is critical during war as the Brits, especially when large rebel armies start mushrooming and blocking what little trade is available. It's no wonder that the AI controlled barb factions are easy meat for the player controlled Romans once they have more than a few provinces.

Possible solutions that shouldnt take too much programming effort:

1) Lower the costs for units/buildings for barb factions

2) Victorious armies should generate money based on a percentage of the cost of the losers losses of 'high-tech' units. After all, scavaging battlefields for armour, money, and other spoils of war was a 'perk' of the winning army.

[slackker]

Another thread aimed at generating discussion about gameplay balance issues that may contribute to the suggestions for the XP.

I've been playing as the Brits in a minimal re-start game in order to avoid the save 'feature'. The biggest problem I've found while playing as this faction is how little money is available. Units and buildings cost just as much as the rich factions, but income is pathetic. I've found that the lack of money is critical during war as the Brits, especially when large rebel armies start mushrooming and blocking what little trade is available. It's no wonder that the AI controlled barb factions are easy meat for the player controlled Romans once they have more than a few provinces.

Possible solutions that shouldnt take too much programming effort:

1) Lower the costs for units/buildings for barb factions

2) Victorious armies should generate money based on a percentage of the cost of the losers losses of 'high-tech' units. After all, scavaging battlefields for armour, money, and other spoils of war was a 'perk' of the winning army.

well for a start on the 1st point: you could mod the costs yourself :) or give urself a higher starting army. benefits the AI when u play as the romans and u when u play them. Give urself a challenge as the latter and easier as the former ;)

[doc_bean]

I feel like I'm getting plenty of money on my brit campaign , it's the lack of a decent population that has me worried, I'm considering sending a fleet to carthage just to get some slaves :charge:

[katank]

As the Brits, you are not badly off. Conquer fast and furious and you'll be fine.

Do not go after rebel territories but instead after the Gauls. Also build mines for steady income. Londonium and Sambovica is also a nice port pair that generates lots of cash.

Brits have it easy compared to Spain or Dacia financially.

Don't forget that extermination is an option to take you out of the hole quickly. But population maybe more valuable.

[Marcus Maxentius]

The only rebel towns worth getting is Segesta, Segestica, and Salona. The rest are placeholders. I haven't played the barbs yet in campaign, but I think they key to success would be burning and pillaging. Sweep through the countryside taking as many provinces quickly. Don't try to spend to much time building them up. You'll go broke trying to max them out with the money problems and increasing costs of upgrades. Have a bunch of small population cities making steady income. The barbarians have population problems with the gov building cap, so they seem suited to conscripting every able bodied man and overwelming the civilized world taking more towns while controlling overpopulation. Speaking of civilization you can pillage those big cities for the loot.

[SpencerH]

Thanks, but I wasnt really looking for help playing the game (Europe is practically mine early into the game). I agree that the way to play the barbs is to overwhelm your opponents. My question was whether anyone else felt that the money was tight. From the few responses so far I'd say not.

Perhaps the difference is that I've expanded on a broad front and so have only recently acquired a few cities on the med. Of course war with Gaul, Germany, Spain, and the Romans at the same time has put a crimp in the trade money. I've had numerous turns (~50%) where I had no money to build anything at all so I've had to rely on exterminating cities for cash (hence my interest in generating money from defeated armies).

Based on the vast cash reserves buildable by the med factions, I've found the brits to be rather stingey by comparison, but maybe its just me and this particular game.

[screwtype]

I've had numerous turns (~50%) where I had no money to build anything at all so I've had to rely on exterminating cities for cash (hence my interest in generating money from defeated armies).



Maybe that's your problem. You're undermining your own potential tax revenue.

If you can't occupy towns due to cultural or strategic factors, I suggest you enslave, ensuring that your governors are set up so the slaves go to the appropriate towns.

You might also try building a few diplomats and sending them on trade missions. I must admit though, I'm not really up with the best techniques for trading myself. My own trade revenue in my current campaign isn't all that flash, most of my money comes from the pockets of my populace.

[SpencerH]

Maybe that's your problem. You're undermining your own potential tax revenue.

If you can't occupy towns due to cultural or strategic factors, I suggest you enslave, ensuring that your governors are set up so the slaves go to the appropriate towns.

You might also try building a few diplomats and sending them on trade missions. I must admit though, I'm not really up with the best techniques for trading myself. My own trade revenue in my current campaign isn't all that flash, most of my money comes from the pockets of my populace.

Early on I've had to exterminate to generate enough money to replace my battle losses, now I exterminate to generate money and to remove culture problems with captured Roman cities.

I'm a long time civ player, I've had lots of diplomats on trade missions. Prior to the war with Germans, Gauls, Spanish, and Julii I traded with them all. The problem is that I'm boxed in by factions that I'm at war with i.e. I have no trading partners that can be traded with.

[Cendre]

I thought trade income was correlated to population, by exterminating the population you're getting a quick buck but I think you're undermining your economy (especially from trade) for the long term, even medium term...

[SpencerH]

Thats true but I have to replace battle losses so I have to have money now and extermination is virtually the only way to deal with unruly (foreign) populations.

NB some players (not myself) even purposefully allow rebellions then recapture and re-exterminate in order to control populations.

[MajorFreak]

Thats true but I have to replace battle losses so I have to have money now and extermination is virtually the only way to deal with unruly (foreign) populations. I found the brits to be waaaaaaay too easy. i'm going to be modifying how many arrows the chariots carry, but if you're playing the game w/o mods i found that:

(1) chariots ARCHERS were available with ONLY the blacksmith (nothing else needed except market)

(2) these suckers could take anything up to, but not including, siege equipment on the opposing side.. hell, they could even storm barb cities owing to the silly AI defense pattern of marching up and down my archer killzones.

(3) they're cheap to maintain and you can even use autocalc

(4) if you know what you're doing (keeping them moving - charging through) you can mow the lawn with your chariots. It's amazing how many barbs flee after you hit them with a huge line of rampaging chariots that charge THROUGH their lines.

Oh, and trade is easy. Just make sure to build a port at every coastal city you take - the key being taking spain and avoiding the alps like the plague. Make an alliance with germany ASAP and take the non-alp gauls in a blitz early in the game and you'll never have a problem

[Cendre]

Thats true but I have to replace battle losses so I have to have money now and extermination is virtually the only way to deal with unruly (foreign) populations.
NB some players (not myself) even purposefully allow rebellions then recapture and re-exterminate in order to control populations.


That's one way to play it, personally I prefer to slow down the expansion of my empire and build my armies with what income comes from trade, I only take cities I know I can hold even after accounting for the losses. It has some economic advantages and make for a solid foundation of the empire, but it is also true that the faster you get the enemy's cities the more money goes into your pocket as opposed to the enemy's pockets...

[Marcus Maxentius]

It's taxes I think are affected by population.