Verdict of BI by a TW Vet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KRALLODHRIB

I like it.
What would have happened if Rome had not adopted Christianity?
It would have created an EU 1500 years ago; and we would have skipped Christian inspired hatred, warfare and religous intolerance that lasted 1000 years and plunged Europe into a darkness called the Medieval period.

---

Somebody needs to go back and read their history. It wasn't Christianity that caused the Dark Ages, it was the barbarian invasions and collapse of the empire - and that would have happened whether the empire was still pagan or Christian. You act like paganism would have kept the empire from collapsing which is not true. In fact it was Christianity that gave the various barbarian tribes a common faith which kept things from getting worse than it might have been and aided their acculturation - they certainly weren't going to adopt the Greco-Roman gods. And it was the Christian monks who kept alive what learning there was that set the stage for a later recovery.

BTW, editorial comments such as this really have no place here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by player1

Thye couter-effect it.
5% of squalor reduce both growth and pulbic order for 5%.
Health gives 5% to both growth and pulbic order.

---

Yes, and you've just put your finger on another anomaly in this game.

If you don't want your population to grow too fast, you not only don't build farm upgrades, you don't build sewers either! So there's actually a *dis*incentive to not only feed your population but also keep them healthier.

Bloody stupid if you ask me.

Well, that one seems to make a bit of sense to me, Screwtype... One of the things that Squalor does is reduce pop growth, and building a Health building counters that. I didn't know Health actually helped public order, though, but that's a good reason alone to build a sewer.

It is kind of a catch-22 or paradox or whatever: we're so afraid of squalor that we don't build things like farms or sewers, because they contribute to squalor by increasing pop growth... but squalor *itself* DECREASES pop growth... so in a way, it's like the only thing that can actually *stop* the increase of squalor is squalor itself.

Gugugh.... now my brain hurts.. too early in the morning..

CountMRVHS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountMRVHS

It is kind of a catch-22 or paradox or whatever: we're so afraid of squalor that we don't build things like farms or sewers, because they contribute to squalor by increasing pop growth... but squalor *itself* DECREASES pop growth... so in a way, it's like the only thing that can actually *stop* the increase of squalor is squalor itself.

Gugugh.... now my brain hurts..

---

LOL, that's pretty much how I feel about it. You have to get just the right amount of starvation and disease to keep your population in check :dizzy2:

My capital city playing as the Julii in 1.3 has over 40000 population with 85%squalor but the health bonus, games, races all counters that and I have 215%loyalty in normal taxrate, and I have all of my other citys, royaltys above 130%.
The only thing I do is to build public health buiding as soon as you upgrade the city and build the food production building only after you built every other building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSEG

My capital city playing as the Julii in 1.3 has over 40000 population with 85%squalor but the health bonus, games, races all counters that and I have 215%loyalty in normal taxrate, and I have all of my other citys, royaltys above 130%.
The only thing I do is to build public health buiding as soon as you upgrade the city and build the food production building only after you built every other building.

---

You should probably have higher taxes. At that point, I don't think there is any reason not to.

But you reinforce my earlier point as well. Squalor is not the problem it used to be in V1.1. Your home cities will tend to have low distance-to-capital and no culture penalty and be manageable throughout the game.

When you get a bunch of things working against you (squalor, built-in unrest, distance to capital, and culture penalty) because you've conquered a big city half-way across the world, exterminate, then win the game already!

I love the discussion that this post has garnered.
This game still blows all other games away in terms of the depth of it on a comprehensive level.
If you prefer exclusively economic games then purchase those but RTW is great in terms of the whole picture but with a focus on the tactical level especially. Nothing out there has been created to rival it-period!

I do take exception to any suggestion that I do not "know" my history. I have studied it for years and regard my knowledge of European history as largely comprehensive as well as informed.

In terms of the saving effects of Christianity. Hmm. . . let's start with learning-the classics were preserved by the Arabs not the bloody Barbarians. It was Arab interpretations of the Classsics that spawned the learning of the Renaissance (rebirth). The monks of the Dark Ages (and they are called that because the light of knowledge was snuffed out after the Barbarian invasions) only preserved Christian literature, which incidently is rather lmited in scope. The extent of their contribution to knowledge was facsimlies of the bible, over and over and over again. Very little interpretation or new ideas were churned out-that says it all. Dark? Indeed, very, very dark in fact.

It was the Chinese who discovered gunpowder (and perhaps had beaten the Europeans to North America in the early modern period as well), while the Americas were of course NOT a terra nullis (empty land) thus it is impossible to consider Europeans as truly "discoverers" since it had been colonized 15000 years before Columbus and his ilk! Slavery was in practice well after the Dark Ages. It was certainly not the preserve of the Romans and Greeks. In terms of politics, I suppose hiserarchacal feudalism is a step towards democracy. It actally paved the way for the despots and autocrats prior to the Reformation, which was around the time that Europeans really began to emulate the free thought of the Greeks, ie Martin Luther, etc. (Note this was not done during the Dark Ages but around the 16th and 17th centuries).

It's amusing to note that also it was the Christian Europeans that persecuted the Arabs who held the remaining versions of the classics which would introduce the Reanissance.

Very little in the way of advancements were brought forth from the absolute night that was the Dark Ages. I tend to think of Europe as the centre of a pig-slop during the Middle Ages. Compared to the rest of the world, especially the Chinese, aside from some coastal cities, Euope was the proverbial backwater filled with stagnant filth.

LONG LIVE PAGAN ROME AND CONSTANTINE THE APOSTATE. REMEMBER THE OLD GODS ALWAYS!

Hrm....... Constantine the Apostate? Trying to be funny, I assume?

I think it's funny how people get all uppity about the medieval period. It's certainly easy to gang up on Christianity, I guess. I think people get a little excited by it too -- they feel like they're "sticking it to the man" somehow. Oh well.

It's also interesting that you bring up all the wonderful "advancements" -- gunpowder?? Please. Not to mention the irony that someone who claims to know something about history is throwing around terms like "Dark Ages" and "stagnant filth". Clearly not a sign of a balanced mind on this topic.

"Facsimiles of the Bible." I can only shake my head at that; only someone who hasn't seen even a reproduction of the Lindisfarne Gospels or the Book of Kells - to name only a few, from the most "backwater" part of Europe, you might say - would make such a ridiculous statement.

The exquisite jewelry and metalwork from the Sutton Hoo ship burial also dates from this "very very dark" time.

What about the literary works: Beowulf, the Dream of the Rood, the Wanderer, the Seafarer, Wulf and Eadwacer, Deor; Chaucer's works, the works of the Gawain-poet, not to mention the many lovely anonymous medieval lyrics.

What about the quiet scholarship and learning of Bede, a man who ended his life the way he lived it -- by teaching. He spent all his life in a "stagnant" monastery in a "stagnant" country in a "stagnant" century. Didn't invent the light bulb, either.

What about the countless marginalia -- poems written around the edges of barbarous Christian manuscripts by Irish monks; poems which reveal a life of the mind that too few of us are fortunate enough to touch in our much more "civilized" world. What about the 14th-century Welsh poet Dafydd ap Gwilym, a man practically unknown outside his native country, whose complexity, warmth, and humanity can still teach us today.

Is Christianity free of intolerance? Of course not. Is Islam? Intolerance is part of humanity, not part of the medieval Christian period.

You're right -- these filthy barbarians didn't even have indoor plumbing. But I would suggest you make even the smallest inquiry into the art and literature of this time before you write off a religion, a continent, and a period spanning several centuries. To fail to do so is only to continue to reveal your ignorance.

CountMRVHS

We would be irresponsible and pehaps guilty of an "imbalanced" approach if we didn't add that these examples, cited above, are the exceptions not the rule in the medieval European world.

Keep in mind that they are referred to the Dark Ages of European history for a reason.

Sir, I'm sorry, but that's not an argument.

They are called "the dark ages" because historians in the past several hundred years unquestionably preferred the Greco-Roman period to the medieval. You're simply perpetuating their bias by continuing to use that term.

As for my examples being the exception rather than the rule.... of course they are the exception. But the Arabs who (I agree with you here) kept the Classical heritage alive were *also* the exception in their own culture. While some Arabs translated Aristotle, others were busy tearing down the Library of Alexandria (admittedly already probably somewhat dilapidated). What I argue is that the richness of medieval art and literature rivals that of today.

However, I can't continue this conversation until you begin to do some honest research instead of falling back upon Victorian stereotypes. Get back to me by PM or some other method when you've read some literature from the period (even translated literature) that wasn't part of a high school course. I'm sorry to sound so harsh here, but I simply can't let you get away with making these sorts of statements without any backup. Do some reading and we can continue this later. No hard feelings, even. ~:cheers:

CountMRVHS

i think RTW is a very good game, but it just missed the magic that MTW had for me.

Er I think the Roman Empire if Pagan religion followed, would have been crushed remorslessly by either the Arabs or one of the other Islamic factions, for not of the book.

No Eu they would not have created, communism and facism would previal before the idea of EU.

Your forgetting India and China, XVICM and L nothing compared to the mighy 0 ~D

yeah another stupid thing in BI,,,the BERBERS HAVE FRIGGIN CHRISTIAN FAITH, THEY BUILD CHRISTIAN CHURCHES>>>THATS NOT RIGHT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

yeah another stupid thing in BI,,,the BERBERS HAVE FRIGGIN CHRISTIAN FAITH, THEY BUILD CHRISTIAN CHURCHES>>>THATS NOT RIGHT

---

Yes it is

I thought that the early medieval period (seriously, this is what the period is generally called now just in case anybody thinks I'm mixed up) was known as the Dark ages due to the lack of sources compared to other periods.

Edit: i.e. they were called dark because the information was not there to fully illuminate them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

yeah another stupid thing in BI,,,the BERBERS HAVE FRIGGIN CHRISTIAN FAITH, THEY BUILD CHRISTIAN CHURCHES>>>THATS NOT RIGHT

---

Are you sure?, christianity was rife in the middle east and north africa around this time.
Born in Mecca, in western Arabia, Muhammad (ca. 570–632), last in the line of Judeo-Christian prophets, received his first revelation in 610.
Islam began around 632.
But paganism would probably be more appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebelscum

But paganism would probably be more appropriate.

---

Nope, they seem to have been christians during this time.

The Berbers were once Christian, they converted later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KRALLODHRIB

Keep in mind that they are referred to the Dark Ages of European history for a reason.

---

Actually, historians no longer refer to this period as "The Dark Ages" because they believe it is a misnomer. It's now officially referred to as the Early Middle Ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

Actually, historians no longer refer to this period as "The Dark Ages" because they believe it is a misnomer. It's now officially referred to as the Early Middle Ages.

---

Quite right. You also now see the term "Late Antiquity', which refers to the period up to as late as 800 CE (AD).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

Actually, historians no longer refer to this period as "The Dark Ages"

---

Depends on the historian.
I'm studying history at Lund's university and the professor called it the "dark age".
But she also said that the term "Early Middle Ages" is also acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

because the world population is now growing at such a rate we may soon discover that Malthus was not wrong, just ahead of his time...

---

Malthus said Population *Tends* (keyword) to grow geometrically while food supplies grow arithmatically.

He was proven wrong by Henry George in book two of Progress and Poverty. So, if your basing your theory of roman population controls on the "dismal theory" then you need to reasses your hypothosis.

Secondly, most populations will cap at a certain level with only one farm built, sometimes 25K, sometimes 32K, sometimes some other level. It depends on the productivity of the local area. However, if you upgrade they can sustain a higher population. This does not contradict Malthus.

Those farm upgrades do not say that there are no farms out there at all. The Latifundia are large landed estates while the smaller landed estates become dispossed citizens. The farms are still there, just not as efficient as they could be. George also wrote about the Latifundia in his book P&P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

Depends on the historian.
I'm studying history at Lund's university and the professor called it the "dark age".
But she also said that the term "Early Middle Ages" is also acceptable.

---

Sure, but look at the latest books published by respected authors in university presses. The term 'Dark Ages' is falling out of use (except for the odd comment on the dust jacket, which the editor usually has control of).

e.g.: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...iography&hl=en

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eire1130

Malthus said Population *Tends* (keyword) to grow geometrically while food supplies grow arithmatically.

He was proven wrong by Henry George in book two of Progress and Poverty. So, if your basing your theory of roman population controls on the "dismal theory" then you need to reasses your hypothosis.

Secondly, most populations will cap at a certain level with only one farm built, sometimes 25K, sometimes 32K, sometimes some other level. It depends on the productivity of the local area. However, if you upgrade they can sustain a higher population. This does not contradict Malthus.

Those farm upgrades do not say that there are no farms out there at all. The Latifundia are large landed estates while the smaller landed estates become dispossed citizens. The farms are still there, just not as efficient as they could be. George also wrote about the Latifundia in his book P&P.

---

It seems to me that the big problem is not with farms, per se, but with the side effects of the results of improved farming: population growth that leads to squalor.

This is actually reasonable, since very few cities of the period could actually sustain a population without major migration, and people tended not to migrate to areas with insufficient food-supply. Disease and emigration rapidly depopulated those urban areas that became less attractive to migrants.

If the farming improvements are taken to represent development of the provincial hinterlands to provide the main centre with a steadier supply of food, thereby encouraging migration from rural and other, less popular, urban areas then I think the farms are quite effective at modelling things. RTW doesn't permit for variable spending on sanitation or urban policing, instead relying on the structures, but there clearly are upper limits to the population of cities of this time period (given sanitation, town planning, and transportation technology). The game just attempts to "model" this in a simple way, so people don't have to commit huge amounts of their budget to maintaining water supply, roads, and sanitation facilities.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a more complex simulator of this sort of thing, but it has been done (or at least attempted) in other games and it would detract from the military experience of Rome Total War. If I was going to nitpick the game, I would quibble about the manner in which troops are recruited; I would not complain that vast masses of humans tend to give rise to diseases and mob-violence. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Sure, but look at the latest books published by respected authors in university presses. The term 'Dark Ages' is falling out of use (except for the odd comment on the dust jacket, which the editor usually has control of).

e.g.: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...iography&hl=en

---

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, as I really have no knowledge of history, as I avoided it like the plague in college, but the relabeling and renaming (maybe even revisionist if you're a cynic like myself) of terms by modern politically correct university professors is neither a new trend nor exclusive to this field. The label used should really not be used as "proof" of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bel

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, as I really have no knowledge of history, as I avoided it like the plague in college, but the relabeling and renaming (maybe even revisionist if you're a cynic like myself) of terms by modern politically correct university professors is neither a new trend nor exclusive to this field. The label used should really not be used as "proof" of anything.

---

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But should we then also do away with other revisionist interpretations, like, say, the theories of evolution and relativity? Should we go back to thinking the sun revolves around the earth?