On the Feeding and Breeding of Governors and Generals

Thanks Severous!

Your experience resonates with me as to what I've seen in my own games. I love Man-of-the-Hour promos! I have this psychological quirk of compassion for the orphan outsider-whose-given-an-opportunity-by-a-patron to make it in the established family.

EZ - (on rescuing drunken faction members)

Yeah, I had this Julii youngster posted in Patavium where there was a Bacchus temple. He started out as a social drinker and just went down hill like a meteor shot. I moved him to Mediolanum, but the temple was the same. (Back in my early days with RTW I was always taking Victoria's advice on what temples to build. Now I'm more chosey. I will still build the Bacchus line of temples but usually only in cities that I don't intend to assign a governor on a permanent basis, opting for Jupiter instead.) Finally, I sent the youngster to Caralis where there was a Jupiter temple. I guess because he was a youngster, he had time to reform. Aesculapius has talked about that in one of his posts, I believe. I was greatly relieved. I also gave him some combat experiences to get him out of a city and on the move. Whatever, . . . it worked.

On money corruption, I believe it was Aesculapius that explained how money starts its serious corruption process after you reach a balance of 50,000 denarii. The AI tests for applying corruption at increasing higher pecentages of probability for every 50,000+ denarii threshold you pass in your cash balance. So, if your balance stays below the 50,000 denarii you reduce the likelihood of corruption. If you pass the 150,000 or 200,000 mark, the chances of corruption 'treble'. I've heard that temples that produce public order due to law benefits are supposed to have a reducing impact on the money corruption issue. Don't know if that's true or not. If you have bug fixer or you made the code change manually, your academies will also produce public order due to law benefits, which would further this positive affect.

On diplomats - it might be that some of your diplomats' lack of success are due to the laurel wreath influence of the AI faction member you're talking to. Hence, your eloquent/tactful 5 laurel wreath diplomat is still going to have a problem convincing an intransigent 7 laurel wreath governor. But, again, I don't have any experience playing RTW under the early releases. Just 1.4 and 1.5. Definitely, the diplomacy part of RTW is one of the weaker, 'less sophisticated' aspects of the game. :) I love that bizarre diplomatic exchange I get occasionally where the AI diplomat offers me "Accept or we will attack" and demands "Please do not attack." So, I press the counter offer "cease fire." And the AI responds, "We see no reason to stop the war." :dizzy2: Say, what? Yes, RTW diplomacy is farcical at times. Still, I love this game!! :bounce:

I am very stingy about producing diplomats in the early going. I usually recruit only three. One to go east, one to go west and one to stay close to home. When I start accummulating empire and cash I will recruit more. In my just completed Carthage game, in the last 5-6 turns, my diplomat bribed two huge Egyptian armies out of existance, two Egyptian faction members into my fold, and bribed away Siwa. (I was making huge profits in sea trade, so I had lots of cash. Ba'al be praised.) :) Made taking Memphis, Alexandria and Thebes a whole lot easier. In my early RTW games, I used to sell map information all the time. Now I only sell map information when the AI faction won't trade me straight up or unless I'm hard pressed for cash.

regards, guyus

Originally posted by MajorFreak

now then, my question is this: how do i get a certain infertile line of my family to start popping out adoptees?

~:eek: i noticed in one of my campaigns a infertile general started having children all i could put this down to was that he was situated in a settlemen
with a general who had the trait of sleeping around.

Excellant work very useful.

A few querries.

Often it just takes a winning battle to accumulate your first star and possibly an ancillary. However is there some sort of progressive formular to acquire further stars? ie Two seperate victories for you second star, three for the third etc I ask is that my seven star general and totally destroyed roman armies in three to four turns (one was three battles in the same go as repeatedly attacked ) They where fully stacked and odds against winning. He didnt get a thing. The ancillary box was full with bodyguards, morale boosters etc to maximise battle chances but I was expecting some trait to reflect his victories. How come.

To boost you management skills can you destroy some finance building and then rebuild it?. Some of my generals just do not seen to be able to develope squares.

ta

Captain Pugwash:

Once you've gotten your generals up to a certain level, it takes bigger events to gain stars, like taking enemy capitals and wonders.

Try building an academy or equivalent building in your cities. Your governors will soon accumulate wise councillors to aid them in managing the city.

I am playing RTR:PE, which is a based on R:TW 1v5.

I am a d. millionnaire in my current campaign so I keep all of my family members out in the field to avoid picking up any more bad traits. The family birthrate seems not to be affected much by having all the males away on business.

What does seem to affect birthrate, however, is the rate at which I expand my empire. I'm eighty years into the campaign and expansion habitually seems to proceed in stops and starts with not much happening for several years and then a sudden flurry of activity. Birthrate seems to follow suit but, more so, so do marriage proposals and Man of the Hour events.

Like others, I have a strong suspicion that the game has a built-in mechanism for keeping the empire's city and male family member counts in some sort of balance.

My opinion is to put any extra generals you have on a cheap ship, sail them out into the ocean, and disband the ship. :laugh4: They just cost too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChuggtheSquirrel

My opinion is to put any extra generals you have on a cheap ship, sail them out into the ocean, and disband the ship. :laugh4: They just cost too much.

---

:laugh4:

Sadly, I think it prevents you from disbanding outside a port. Pity, as your solution has some elegance -- load up the "dangerously mad" "drunkard"'s entourage with the Mother-in-law, the slubberdegullion, the overseer, a pet hunting dog, and the tender of the royal arse and simply pull the plug on 'em!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

:laugh4:

Sadly, I think it prevents you from disbanding outside a port. Pity, as your solution has some elegance -- load up the "dangerously mad" "drunkard"'s entourage with the Mother-in-law, the slubberdegullion, the overseer, a pet hunting dog, and the tender of the royal arse and simply pull the plug on 'em!

---

You can't? :shocked: But what if you disband inside a port, would they drown?

No, the buggers can walk on water, at least as far as dry land, anyway.:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bugrit

No, the buggers can walk on water, at least as far as dry land, anyway.:wall:

---

What if your enemy has an army on the port so there's no place to disembark? :wink:

There's always a few born-useless generals you get. They never seem to accumulate good talents or ancillaries, no matter what I do with 'em. One of mine conquered the whole of Anatolia and didn't come up with anything good out of it. He had to go. :hanged:

Man-of-the-hour generals seem to be consistently good, or at least reasonable, and fairly young. I adopt just about every decent one I can, and fight everywhere I can with small numbers. You end up expanding in all directions, rather than heading on a single warpath (Which is so terrible about playing as Julii).

Regards,
Max

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Karhunkynsi

One of mine conquered the whole of Anatolia and didn't come up with anything good out of it. He had to go. :hanged:

---

How did you get rid of him? *evil grin*

I used to send the "unhinged loons" off on long trips to interesting corners of the map. Once had a Scipii chappie who I shipped to Syria. He recruited a war elephant -- I'd found none near Carthago -- and then rode North. By the time he made it back to the Peleponese (my territory in that game) he'd acquired a full stack of horse archers (Gotta love HA with Gold sword and Silver Shield from the greek temples), Sarmatians, and Bastarnae. Let me set up some interesting armies for my Scip strike teams.

Another time, as the Britons, I sent my shiled biting nutjob son-in-law to the Northern Parthian starter province. Ended up owning half the Caspian. Interesting mix to put Sarmatians in trail of Brit Heavy chariots -- and the Heavy chariots were rather brutal to the horse archers and hillmen the Parthians sent up to fight.:devilish:

Hallo, Forum!! :)

I too used to embark my useless generals on a ship and make the BIREME (lol) attack an enemy stack/fleet. Most of the time he would sink, but sometimes he manages to flee. Boring. Now, instead, i prefer to actually make some use of that general's cavalry unit in the battlefield. Useful for diverting some nasty enemy unit before the clash, or to charge down some missile unit, or why not, the enemy's general unit itself. True, once my kamikaze-general dies, my troops get a morale hit, but, oh well, there is still my REAL general very much alive. At least, i secured a proper heroic soldier's death to the crazy git. Suits my RTW philosophy well i guess he he..

Have fun,

Y.

I've noticed that since I started recruiting generals in either of the two Roman Empires, some of my family members begin to either turn rebel, or become bandits. Now its one thing if it was a junior family member occupying a relatively insignificant position, but it frustrates me that family member turns out to be none other than that factions own Emperor. I mean his side is winning the war, he rules over vast territories and has thousands of troops under his command, only to senselessly turn renegade against his own subjects. What on earth is all that about?

I do like the idea of of recruitable generals, like having governor for rebellion-prone city, a commander for every army. But when comes to the Roman factions, I believe their over-abundance is compelling key family members into rebellion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChuggtheSquirrel

My opinion is to put any extra generals you have on a cheap ship, sail them out into the ocean, and disband the ship. :laugh4: They just cost too much.

---

Hahaha! Almost Neronian in it's fiendishness! :D

Personally, I just use mad bad and dangerous to know types as cavalry fodder in battles; sending them into the particularly difficult, line-cracking uphill charges seems to be a good idea.

Aesculapius sure done his homework.
personally i don't concentrate too much on breeding super genearls or governors. although it's nice to have them. i find academy and it's upgrades might helpful to increase an family members' traits and it's normally the first thing i build in a city.

using unwanted generals in a sucidal battle seems a good idea. if they pass the test then maybe they can even gain traits.

Barbarian factions aren’t allowed to build academies. Does that put them in an disadvantage when training governors.

Yeah, I do that too. I just send my mad generals on one suicidal raid after the other, even after they become semi-decent, as insanity is hereditary. I also never keep them in cities. They're a good way of softening up armies a little before the main army advances to complete the job. This way, I get quite a bang for my buck-- I even had a 'Horribly Scarred' madman once. Not that he lasted very much longer after that. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

Yeah, I do that too. I just send my mad generals on one suicidal raid after the other, even after they become semi-decent, as insanity is hereditary. I also never keep them in cities. They're a good way of softening up armies a little before the main army advances to complete the job. This way, I get quite a bang for my buck-- I even had a 'Horribly Scarred' madman once. Not that he lasted very much longer after that. :D

---

:inquisitive:

You're lucky army betrayals are disabled in RTW. I never liked leaving major cities without good administrators.

Army betrayals? Meaning, the general defects to the other side? Bully! Now the mad general gets to hump their daughters and infect their gene pool. That would be even more fun to watch than sending a plague-infected spy to an enemy settlement. >:D

They either become rebels or just desert you, which I've suffered many times due to my tyranny.:crowngrin:

escellent guide, very well thought out and skilled and informatory writing.

Excellent guide. Well worth the read as it's part of the game that I've been ignoring.

I have always found that in every campaign, no matter the faction, I can always crank out 3-4 generals with ten stars over the course of the game. I think everyone has the same experience.

My issue is that generals in Barbarian Invasion SUCK!!!. The most number of stars I have seen in BI, are six, and that was with the pre-made faction leader that the Sassanids have. In my Saxon game, having just one star was a blessing.:wall:

I think I know RTW well enough how to raise good generals, and yet in BI, I was put to shame. Anyone else noticed poorer generals in BI, compared to RTW?
:surrender2:

That was intentional, I think. They made it so that situations like what you described (having a ten-star every generation) would not happen often, which I don't mind at all. Even the vicinity of an eight-star would have been considered a legendary, exceptional commander, like, perhaps, Alexander was.

Even the minor changes in ancillaries were in that direction. Did you notice how the mercenary captain no longer gives +1 Command like it did in RTW?

Besides which, all the hordes running around meant that, if the old system of gaining stars were still in effect, there would be dozens of ten-stars rampaging across the map.

But I don't mind overmuch. I am not such a great player that I get ten-stars with such frequency, but anyhow I think it does illustrate the fact that by the time of BI, the period of Alexander and Caesar have passed. Or at least that's how I see it.

You're probably right. CA is probably right in making worse generals in BI. But still, in BI, I miss the days when I could thrash other factions with my huge command generals. :)

In my game, I'm the Franks and every 30 years, a (nomad? when you lose all your cities...) faction comes stomping through and attacks my walled cities with usually 10 times as much troops as me, and far better units. :duel: I usually beat them off, losing half my troops, :skull: but I never see a single star for my efforts. :no: It's really annoying.

I feel your pain, brother.:bigcry: