Printable View
I was responding to the comment in your post, but I suspect you must have been quoting someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
Yes, that how I feel about it too. It wastes too much time when player start bragging about what they have achieved without mentioning the cheats they used to get there.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as
:laugh4:
Didz, it's all mixed up. My post #30 was in response to Siris #28, where I was confused if I was adressed. But your #29 made it before my #30 and so mine didn't really make sense without a name. ~D :dizzy2:
Sorry for this, but staying on the cheating-topic...
Ofcourse everybody can cheat in SP as much as they like, but to me it takes all the fun out of (just about every) game and when you do it's a sign that you're actually bored with it... I even feel like I'm cheating when I bribe too much armies off the field (that's because in mid-game I usually generate enough money to bribe just about everything and everybody I want) :embarassed:
Perhaps I should try playing Germania, I would assume they have a bit more cash-problems?!
Oh! I don't know about that, some people just haven't got the patience to play a game properly. The classic examples are the rushers who just want to finish the game as fast as possible and don't want to be bothered with the complexity of developing their cities and managing their population. A cheat that gives them unlimited gold means they can build huge armies and just smash through the military part of the game.
In my experience thats the most common use of cheats and is really the sign of an arcade game player who wants to win without using his brain. Yes, he would probably claim to be bored with the city management aspects of the game because besically he wasn't interested in them anyway.
So anyway back on topic.
I personally want to start the civil war asap. Before I do anything else because I want my capital to be Rome and I want to conquer out from there.
So far it seems it is pretty difficult to force the issue without going out and takin lots of land to get popular support.
Lets start a list of what can be done to get a Civil war as fast as possible WITHOUT gaining popularity with the people.
1. Refuse all senate missions.
2. Bribe other roman territories and refuse to return them.
3. Use diplomat to end all alliances and military access with other romans.
This is what I have gathered so far. Can anyone add to this list?
What about assasinations? Anything else at all?
How fast do you think a person can get outlawed? Lets race.... :)
I hope i'm not being too over the top here, but I notice far more of this braggart style of posting here since the RTW release.
Previously in good old MTW days this style was reserved for the .com boys.
Perhaps this arcade teen style is where the developers want to take the game ~:eek:
Have I "bragged" in anyway in this thread so far? No. I just simply have showed what I've done, and it still hasent sparked the civil war.
On the side note, on the one thread where I did brag about my public order, I was not useing cheats in that game, so lose the ego bro, its just a game go have fun! What I've found out so far that no one game is exactly the same, prehaps you had a harder setting than I did? A different faction? Many variables that could determine a different outcome to our public orders. :bow:
I'll re-start the conquering, see what it does. And having the large amount of cash doesant ruin the game, for a person that only gets to play Friday night, Saturday, & Sunday morning, I wouldnt have the time to experience anything much if I stayed with the economy, hence why I gave the cash, so I could upgrade & fight more. Its not as good as you guys think only getting 20 hours if that a week to play the game, 20 hours is a good weekend of play on it, and I dont brag about my cheat Campaigns with the money, only about the ones that I've earned it. :) So chill out lol.
On that, I wasent bragging, I put those men there, so I could have the biggest battle ever, well, it'd be my 2nd largest, the largest in custom battle, but this will fall short about 1,000 men but still have the city to take. But with the epic stone wall & my tens of thousands of men, I'll most likely take sever losses from the towers alone!
I think RTW has attracted a much wider group of gamers than STW and MTW. Probably becuase of the TV program 'Time Commanders'.
Personally, I still maintain that game developers should make a clear decision whether they are producing a historically accurate computer wargame or an fantasy arcade game and stick to that decision rather than trying to be all things to all people.
RTW definately has fantasy elements which would have been better left out if it is supposed to be a wargame. And if it isn't then where the hell are the wizards and dragons ~D
I think RTW is the least challenging of the titles released to date and hopefully wil mark the limit of how far CA are prepared to bend a games integrity for the arcade market.
Would hate to see CA go down the same path as Universal Studio's and start producing historical fiction.
Siris, I knew id been over top, no offece. ~:) Its a nightmare having to visit the boards, looking for for a patch.
~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
Is that how it works? I could have sworn that unit upkeep cost is distributed among the cities acording to city size. :dizzy2:
Well, I guess it was a little premature to utter this theses.Quote:
Is that how it works? I could have sworn that unit upkeep cost is distributed among the cities acording to city size.
During my campaign I got the feeling that the game keeps track of your units and calculates their upkeep cost against the producing cities income. However, your version makes somehow sense and could also be true. In fact, now you mention it, I've read it myself somewhere. Mmmm, can somebody clarify this?
R'as
It is how it works and in my opinion its one of the worse aspects of the City Management function as it prevents proper city and army management.Quote:
Originally Posted by TEP
The total cost of your army is actually divided pro-rata between your cities according to population size. Stupid in my opinion.
My capital brinked 41,000 citizens, and the garrison wasent keeping this Campaigns cities population order high, so it start to drop to about 120%. So I built a Pratoreion cohort garrison among other things, archers, etc, and now the order is 210%. So for you guys that cant keep your order in check, just build these units, their not "that" expensive!
I wont be able to play RTW until not this Friday, but next, have to stay home this weekend & go take the ACT. ~:) But I'll try the waiting it our portion & move accross Europe, should be interesting. ~D
Actually only the number of garrison counts, so peasants (as for purely public order purpose) is 1.5 times more effective than P. cohort. ~:)
And yes, the total cost is divided in proportion of the population. 10,000 pop. city shares 10 times more than a 1,000 pop. town.
I remember big discussions about this for M:TW. And it was conclusively proven that only numbers count. So, the peasant is the best for garrisoning against unrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltz
But, I prefer the Town Watch. It can at least sally against rebels and expect to provide some fight.
Prehaps, but I had a garrison of 161 Hastati from before the Marian reforms, same side, same governor, same buildings, etc. The public order was abour 120%, now with the Preatorian garrison, as it would have been historically, the %'age is much much higher, so I dont belive that.
Wouldnt you be more submissive to the best trained soliders, than the common peasants?!
All those stacks couldn't attack Rome anyway, its limited to what...6 stacks...8?
And it goes by numbers, not quality.