Consequences of Transgression Issued to Brutii by Dacia

First Imperial Campaign as Brutii, having played Jullii many times.

Basic Question 1:

Does a transgression notice from Dacia (family member slyly detoured to hire Mercs), indicate a likely medium term attack?

Basic Question 2:

Diplomatically, is it feasible to break-up an ungodly anti-historical alliance of Northern barbs (Gaul, Britons, Germania, Dacia, Scythia), plus the hemmed in Macedonians, with only Thrace as counter. Perhaps Germania can be groomed, so they get embroiled with Britons & Dacia, rather than attempt to expand southwards?


Background (Longwinded so only read and respond if you're in mood for strategy) ....

Played fair bit as Jullii, preferring short Campaign generally hard/hard, medium/vh or vh/med. Found the money worries are solved by a strategic double evelopment (Massilia / Eastern shore of Adriatic). The Gauls gut themselves on the banks of the Rhone (bridges near Massilia) and at a grand decisive defensive battle in northern italy (follows a surprise Amphib + Spy counter-assualt on Patavium after they "treacherously" invade southwards). I much prefer this to the generally recommended unsubtle early frontal assault (risks ambushes & forested battle fields & means Jullii are on offensive and the aggressors diplomatically). Mostly can then crush the Gauls in a single front Blitz style war (taking only light losses generally taken by the victims of the Gaullish Noble Heavy Cav), without interference from anything but Rebel brigands. Set this up by trading on Northern (Germania) & Eastern (Dacia) borders, and keeping things as quiet as poss in those regions. Sometimes however, a grand barbarian Alliance forms, Gauls-Britons-Germans-Dacians in response to rapid Julian expansion (sometimes promoted by Senate missions), which is uncomfortble, but OK as Jullii can ceasefire/trade with Carthage to secure Caralis, extracting some tribute as a sweetener. So though the attacks on all Northern & Eastern borders, stretch the Jullian Empire taught, the barbs get repulsed, then smashed by the counter-attack quickly followed by loss of a key province or two to the manipular legions arrayed in quincunx (fighting a flexible mobile battle supported by historically over-strong cavalry).
Setbacks do occur, but generally prove to be Phyrric victories (the AI doesn't often annihilate routers efficiently), so the recovery rate and rapid sea/road movement, plus money for mercs; permit absorption of even serious losses.


In my first Brutii (RTW 1.5 Med/Med) campaign, initially things seem much easier. I've swept up the Adriatic Salona, Segestica, Patavium, as well as taken Apollonia (Rebels), Thermon (Greeks) Athens (Rebels).

Taking advantage of the Brutii's slush fund capability, I allied with Thrace subsidising them by 250dn hoping they'd trouble the Macedonians. Actually they're embroiled with the Dacians but neutral with the Macs.

Early in game, I smelt a rat as Greek "Netral" ships approached lightly defended Croton & Tarrantum. Successfully took out 2 smallish Greek forces at sea, followed it up with a senate ordered blockade of Thermon, followed swiftly by a siege.

My next main target is the Pelopenese peninsula, TGC have sortied from Sparta, besieging the Macs in Corinth, attempting a cease-fire with the Brutii which was turned down for long term Diplomatic reputation & Senate popularity reasons. I'm "watching" with a big stack, currently hidden in a fleet blockading Sparta (Senate mission). Hoping the Greeks succeed this turn in Corinth (but with heavy losses) so I can take the Pelopenese (Sparta & Corinth) without immediate war with currently neutral Macedon (allied with enemies of my allies). If I attack Sparta on land too soon, I'll probably lift the siege for the Macs, and they'll preserve their strength. Hopefully my mountain forts deter (or stall) the Macs, just long enough that I can clear out my rear, fight a single front campaign against them, with possibility of outflanking them via the Sea.

In an excursion I took Crete from the Rebs a few years ago. partly in order to improve Athens & Cretan trade potential (Numidia & Egypt diplomat landed in Africa), provide access to more Merc Cretan Archers, to later offer the full courtesy service to Mac Phalanxes + Light Cav, that I plan to be facing in the next main offensive (on Larissa & Thessalonica).

A secondary force attempted to fulfill Senate Mission to blockade Patavium, and then take the City the turn after. Unfortunately though the Jullii were investing Mediolanum the AI chose to attack my seige of Patavium with 3 family members in 2 forces and an initially 1:1 decisive grand winter battle followed. This gained me the City too early with a Crushing Victory, cost me some good will in senate (no credit for the blockade, appears to go down as a failed mission).

To fill out the Patavium expeditionary force, I raised mercs from Illyria, but also Falxmen, Barb Spear men, and Sarmation Heavy Cavalry from the Dacian lands; where experience has taught me you can raise a reasonable "insta" army with sufficient gold, denying this resource to the enemy. This meant a family member was "In Dacian lands" for 2 turns, and I received a "Transgression" message on my 2nd hop, where I got spotted by a Macedonian diplomat.

Gaul has managed to ally Briton, Germania & Dacia. Thrace is fighting Dacia (but not Macedon who are only at war so far with Greece over Corinth & a naval blockade of Sparta). Dacia and Macedon are also allies, with Dacia & Sythia also allied. The traditional Briton-Germania war, never broke out, though it looks like they ought to be fighting as "impetuous" war bands are mingled in Trier but currently remain neutral and commonly allied to Gaul & Dacia. On the bright side, Thrace are besieging the Dacian capitol, which ought to be the Dacian AI's priority.

So until Sparta & Corinth fall, in the main theatre of ops, the Brutii & Macedon lie side by side, with the Macs holding a cav heavy fullish stack near Larissa, and the Brutii only have screening forces to stall a Macedonian attack, which surely is inevitable, if only because the Brutii cut them off from Corinth.

I have a non FOW tga save file, but not sure how to convert it to something "viewable", but will look into it if discussion develops.


My Aims:

Avoid intense 3 Front war - Northern Barbs + Dacia, Macedon and Greeks in Aegean.

I am confident I can handle, Dacia, Macedon (simulataneously weakening the Greeks further using traditional Royal Navy style blockade + selective amphib assualt on weakpoints). So long as the AI factions don't get well coordinated. I'm sure I'll roll up the main theatre, and defeat the secondary threats in detail, without things blowing up too much.

But I do want to avoid a simultaneous attack by Germania southwards, Dacia on Segestica, Macs and the Greeks via big naval battle. That could lead to over-stretch and additional opportunistic attacks by yet more factions, if I get stalled. I don't quite trust the Jullii AI, to do a decent job, take Massilia and make headway against the Gauls.

Some distraction, taking low hanging fruit is OK, but do want primary focus in the main Greek & Mac theatre, before Greeks, Egypt, or Pontus gain too much strength before I can fully consolidate a compact centre around Athens.

There's not much I can do medium term to directly weaken the Scipii, who rapidly secured Syracuse & Lilybaeum in this game. So I'll try to use trade to strengthen their future opponents, and try a plague ship strategy to stealthily delay them.


Is it worthwhile to attempt to take Noricum, trade and break up the Germania, Dacia alliance, perhaps with aid of slush fund? Financially I actually suspect, it's better to just build a fort in pass, leave Rebel Luvavum as a buffer, hoping the Dacians & Germans fall out over it (as they sometimes do). Then take richer pickings elsewhere.

Perhaps I would be better to set a border force on the Danube, plan to repulse a German incursion, with the aim of counter attacking Dacia, once they turn aggressive?

May be, I can use the wealth of the northern Adriatic to weaken Dacia further, which enables strategic land-based flanking of northern Macedonia, at cost of a long slow approach.

May be Thrace should be paid to attack Macedon from North, if their siege of Dacian capitol succeeds, weakening the both of them? But, I suspect the AI, is reluctant to accept such "Missions", certainly even quality diplomats have been turned down in past.

If you got this far thanks for your patience, look forward to discussing any ideas. Actually they may be moot, as I usually play on harder levels, so perhaps I can just "kill them all" via generalship on the battlefields.

Lots of questions, but there seems to be no logic to the Diplomacy AI, how often do you get "Accept or we Attack", "Please Do not Attack" messages?

Welcome to the .Org RLucid ~:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

Does a transgression notice from Dacia (family member slyly detoured to hire Mercs), indicate a likely medium term attack?

---

I'm inclined to say yes, but don't quote me on that. Transgressions do seem to have an attack eventually follow, but this could just be coincidence - if you share borders with the AI, war will almost always eventually occur regardless of current stances and status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

Diplomatically, is it feasible to break-up an ungodly anti-historical alliance of Northern barbs (Gaul, Britons, Germania, Dacia, Scythia), plus the hemmed in Macedonians, with only Thrace as counter. Perhaps Germania can be groomed, so they get embroiled with Britons & Dacia, rather than attempt to expand southwards?

---

It's possible.

Allying with a faction and then attacking an existing ally gives them a choice between you and the other ally. Sometimes they will end their alliance with you, but sometimes with them. It's pretty much 50:50 either way, although granting them a small fund each turn does appear to influence them to choose you over them.

You could apply this to the current situation by allying with a faction, and then attacking a neighbour to try and destroy their relationship. From there, repeating this could break more Barbarian alliances, or it could result it them concluding relations with you. This tactic is a bit of a gamble, so caution should be exercised.

You seem to have an interesting campaign going there BTW - as you've said, a friendly Brittania, Gaul and Germania is very rare - between Germania and Brittania in particular.

I would probably advise fortifying strongholds on the Northern rivers and, if you haven't already got control of the area, take control rapidly through a blitz tactic. The passes can be defended with forts leaving you with a good area to fall back on if everything does not quite go to plan in any Northern wars.

As you've said, you may want to make Dacia and Germania fall out before attacking either of them. It should stretch both their military resources allowing you to more easily take control.

It would be a good idea to avoid asking factions to attack other factions though. It's rare for them to agree and, if they do, they were probably planning to do it anyway. The AI is irritating like that.

Good luck ~:)

BTW, you can convert ".tga" screenshots by using an image conversion program such as Infranview. Other alternatives can be found through a Google search for "free image converter".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

Welcome to the .Org RLucid ~:wave:
Good luck ~:)

BTW, you can convert ".tga" screenshots by using an image conversion program such as Infranview. Other alternatives can be found through a Google search for "free image converter".

---

Thank you, for your reply. I feel very welcomed, it's interesting to discuss the game. All though the bugs & deficiencies are frustrating, it's still the most compelling game I've played. More time gone into RTW now, than I spent on Civ.II for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

Transgressions do seem to have an attack eventually follow, but this could just be coincidence - if you share borders with the AI, war will almost always eventually occur regardless of current stances and status.It's possible.

---

I'm little less concerned than when I posted. I think Thrace is probably keeping Dacian AI occupied, and having read a detailed post on AI goal selection linked to here. I suspect my settlements are out of line of site. In previous games, Dacians strike out to Luvavum, possibly conflicting with Germania near there, but not southwards. The Macs, sent a 3/4 stack out to siege Segestica once, which was easy enough to dismantle, so I think they're more likely to take the offense there, if I did nothing.

Quote:

---

Allying with a faction and then attacking an existing ally gives them a choice between you and the other ally. Sometimes they will end their alliance with you, but sometimes with them. It's pretty much 50:50 either way, although granting them a small fund each turn does appear to influence them to choose you over them.

---

Germania are neutral with Britain, but allied with Gaul and Dacia. So I was thinking along lines of strengthening them with Neutral/Trade-rights + a bung, at first. The expectation would be that they'd either attack the Brits, or stand up to a British attack better. Then the Gauls would have to choose sides first, may be get drawn into a northern conflict. As the Dacians try to expand westwards and eastwards, rather than south, there's a good chance of avoiding a coordinated attack by Germans & Dacians. I was on end of that at Luvavum, after capturing the town after relieving a siege by the germans, in a game where the germans had defeated a Dacian force attempting to capture it.

Hence the doubts about the cost-effectiveness of capturing it. It isn't worth much, but will require a standing army on the Danube. At same time, it will likely attract an attack by the Dacian AI, which could provoke a war on a long flank at an inconvenient moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

You seem to have an interesting campaign going there BTW - as you've said, a friendly Brittania, Gaul and Germania is very rare - between Germania and Brittania in particular.

It would be a good idea to avoid asking factions to attack other factions though. It's rare for them to agree and, if they do, they were probably planning to do it anyway. The AI is irritating like that.

---

These mega-coalitions seem to develop in response to very rapid expansion. They may be more likely in Short Campaign, due to Player faction getting nearer to victory conditions, and being a leading faction, and perceived as highly aggressive land-grabbers (guilty as charged! :shame: )

Yes, that matches my experience. I think the problem is, that the deal is that you attack immediately, for the money. The Diplomacy isn't wanting to take on the commitment of building an army and getting into an all out war. If they agree, it'd probably be because they'd be doing it anyway.

Perhaps it's a matter of the amount of money. The difference in this campaign versus my Jullii Barb-bashing previous, is that I actually do have funds to grease the wheels of diplomacy. As the Jullii diplomatic moves could only succeed, when you're wealthy, and at that point, you're so strong that it's moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

I would probably advise fortifying strongholds on the Northern rivers and, if you haven't already got control of the area, take control rapidly through a blitz tactic. The passes can be defended with forts leaving you with a good area to fall back on if everything does not quite go to plan in any Northern wars.

As you've said, you may want to make Dacia and Germania fall out before attacking either of them. It should stretch both their military resources allowing you to more easily take control.

---

I think a fort to East of Luvavum, on Dacian border as early warning system, plus a Javelin heavy army, bolstered by cavalry to defend the river crossing would be best border defence. Once I did build a fort, but the Germans then get to fight a siege, rather than a battle in open field, so I thought that was a mistake I made in my first Imperial campaign.

Then a fort to act as staging area for any relieving force of the town, fallback position, delayer of any southern attack, adds depth to the strategic defense.

But mulling this over, I think the "Diplomatic" solution is really superior. I have a fort on the border, last turn, as my instinct was not to get embroiled northwards, which is what got me investigating the intricate string of alliances.

In past, I attempted alliance with Germania, but was told they "didn't need such an arrangement and weren't interested". I suspect the AI may be tuned against non-barbarian alliances.

In which case, maintaining a financial incentive via trade + tribute, to keep the peace may be the soundest investment, concentrate on Macedonia. Let's secure the Aegean for Roman Trade!

Looks like I succeeded. Here's the strategy map :

https://img170.imageshack.us/img170/...61bcwu5.th.jpg

Frankly I regret lifting the FOW now. Whilst interesting seeing the other faction holdings, it skews the perspective, and provides rather a "spoiler", the Britons are doing rather better than usual, and looks like Germania needs propping up.

The Jullii will take Mediolanum very soon, I'm sure. Hopefully it's clear, why I took Patavium, the AI needs all the encouragement Westwards it can get, so cutting it off from N & E adventures seems a logical step. It may have got stalled by the stack that I defeated, as it doesn't seem to mobilise it's forces properly, despite undertaking a crude frontal assault, with no diversion.

Brutii have Sparta & Corinth in grasp, but want to take both from Greeks rather than stir Macedon into attacking the lightly defended strip of land Salona-Appolonia-Thermon-Athens, whilst main force is in Peloponese.

Thrace likely will take Dacian capitol soon, or suffer a crippling defeat when a Dacian relief force arrives.

I'm wondering now how the Briton-Germania border was established, usually they war, and it looks like Germania lost a province, but perhaps they stayed neutral and the Brits acquired Rebel settlements first. Germania has some forces in Trier though, perhaps they stalled there for some reason.

The Julii campaign is way easier than the Brutii campaign, i slaughtered about 2000 gauls, losing around 100 Hastati, and thats it. This was also in seperate battles too, and different captains trying to flank me, and ending up being surrounded by my elite Hastati

The Jullii versus Gaul, should watch the Gaul Noble Cavalry, when your forces are outnumbered and the Gauls field a line of skirmisher warbands. Particularly if you get caught without a General, it is then possible to get massacred, once the line cracks, and the whole army routs. This may be more of an issue with Hard or Very Hard battles, than on medium.

Probably the real challenge is avoiding strategic over-stretch, and into a 4 front war, yet gaining enough prime territory to stand up to the other Roman factions, once they've broken out SE into Greece and Asia Minor, and North Africa.

But yes, in a short campaign, the Jullii have huge advantage for beginners, that you can concentrate on 1 job, holding the 15 settlements and destroying Gaul in the process.

hi im playing as julli at the moment ive taken luvavum but now the germans are sending huge amounts of men to take it.

what would be a good army for defeating the germans? And also what should i do to stop the germans attacking?

@Insane: Yes the Julii have a far easier time of battles (to begin with anyway), than the other roman factions. However, when the civil war comes around the Scipii and Brutii will tend to have a better position. A Brutii dominated Greece is... :skull: ... to face alone, particularly post-marian. Playing as the Julii and not just going north (in fact holding a static border with occaisional incursions) while covertly undermining the other roman factions, by expanding into their areas and stopping them from acheiving a totally dominated area from which they can concentrate armies quickly, is much more difficult.

@Salemty: What are these Germanic armies made up of mainly? Spear warbands can be easily defeated by flanking with hastati or Principes. Axemen also can be pinned in place and flanked. Both of these troop types are relatively vunerable to missiles, but imo, velites aren't worth the effort. Archers, if you can train them, will wreak havoc.

I'm guessing you're fairly early in your campaign.

To defeat the germans, normal tactics such as holding their infantry in place with yours, and then a cavalry charge into the flanks or rear of the enemy, work well.

In order to stop the germans from attacking. If you're already at war... good luck, you reap what you sow. 'Barbarian' factions don't tend to accept ceasefires lightly and will try to take back what is theirs. If not yearly gifts of 100 denarii could discourage them from attacking you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

@Salemty: What are these Germanic armies made up of mainly? Spear warbands can be easily defeated by flanking with hastati or Principes. Axemen also can be pinned in place and flanked. Both of these troop types are relatively vunerable to missiles, but imo, velites aren't worth the effort. Archers, if you can train them, will wreak havoc.

---

You often get attacked by the Britons with chariots too shortly after and javelin men are very useful then to screen off against archers, and do chariot hunting.

Velites are fast enough to withdraw and maneuver around Spear warbands. They also can catch routers, if they're fresher once they've run out of missiles and light cavalry are otherwise engaged. Necessary to disable skirmish mode and babysit though. They're also disciplined and less likely to disobey orders and get involved in unwanted combat, which is a failing of the harder hitting Illyrian mercenaries.

For backup of my points see HamilcarX's advise in this thread on defeating them with Iberian Infantry Using Phalanxes

The Hastati only have 2 pila, and are slightly slower and more inclined to turn and engage spear warband frontally, rather than retreat at the double.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

To defeat the germans, normal tactics such as holding their infantry in place with yours, and then a cavalry charge into the flanks or rear of the enemy, work well.

---

Yes, you'll win, but with far greater losses than if you destroy them from a distance, and only permit Hastati to engage from flanks or rear, once a warband has been softened up.

The provinces in Gaul, often have Shrine to Abnoba and Practice ranges in them for skirmishers, so any losses due to mouse slips and inattention, are cheaper to make up (270 v 440).

Barbarian heads without helmets, and unprotected chests are soft targets for javelins, just like unarmoured ponies pulling chariots.

Having tried to play "historically" I've really learned to appreciate the synergy of HI backed up by solid missile and cavalry forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

The Jullii will take Mediolanum very soon, I'm sure. Hopefully it's clear, why I took Patavium, the AI needs all the encouragement Westwards it can get, so cutting it off from N & E adventures seems a logical step.

---

Patavium is a very rich province though-- insane base farming rate and decent sea trade too. The Julii AI might have an easier time with it-- it usually exapnds westwards anyway, in my experience. It might take Iuvavum, but that usually caps Julii expansion in that area, since Iuvavum is a pathetic hovel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salemty

hi im playing as julli at the moment ive taken luvavum but now the germans are sending huge amounts of men to take it.

---

Ahhh..... not much advice here, except to keep ferrying men from Patavium. Try not to train too many troops in Iuvavum itself. Eventually the German hordes will peter out-- the lousy population growth of their homelands means that the Germans will be severely weakened after a few major battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

Patavium is a very rich province though-- insane base farming rate and decent sea trade too. The Julii AI might have an easier time with it-- it usually exapnds westwards anyway, in my experience. It might take Iuvavum, but that usually caps Julii expansion in that area, since Iuvavum is a pathetic hovel.

---

Then they'll get split between Germans & Gauls, and their likely weakness may attract rather than deter Dacia into interest on the Patavium area, which I hope to keep peaceful.

So far, things panned out as I expected, captured the Sparta & Corinth in next 2 turns (fell to Greeks as I hoped), the Jullii were dog-slow taking Mediolanum by comparison. Launched an opportunistic attack grabbing purely family garisonned Larissa, as Macedon appears to have gone walk-about with it's forces, possibly attacking Thrace, who are weakened by the failure in Dacia.

But as Germania seems to need a friend, and now the Germania-Dacia alliance is cancelled, I've decided to switch and attempt to capture Luvavum from Rebels, with view to use it as part of the dowry with Germania, who I will try to prop up for a bit and cultivate.


An experiment, at least I'll see if I have any luck "giving it away". Briton seems strong, and as there appears to be friction developing on Germanic borders, I'm looking forward to trying out a bit of "Divide & Conquer" rather than, start Blitz-krieging through poor barbarian lands, yet again like the Jullii.

Quote:

---

Ahhh..... not much advice here, except to keep ferrying men from Patavium.

---

I tend to build up Segestica & Salona as priorities, as with the mines and port, they have more long term development potential. Luvavum just isn't profitable, accept as an early-warning centre.

Luvavum is tiny frontier town, limitted resources, that just happens to be near the junction of natural invasion routes along/across Danube.

258BC Last 2 Mac cities under siege, 2 big Mac Phalanx + Cav stacks totally chewed up in decisive battles, actually by my secondary Javellin + Cavalry heavy stack rather than the slinger/archer supported main force.

On Question 1

Dacia still have not made a move against me, despite attacking their allies Macedonia. They withdrew a small party, seeing my army sent to capture Luvavum, after I changed my mind about leaving it in rebel hands. Typically a German family member on own was nosing about near there to but didn't attack, the stronger force.

Reasons - Dacia stay peaceful, At war with Thrace (my ally)
Incursions by small German parties
Probably Dacia AI will want to make a large stack before it moves


On Question 2 - Divide & Rule, try to cultivate Germania

Diplomatically this seems moot. Following a sale of Cease Fire (150dn 10 turns) with Gaul (they demand Patavium back at first) Germania turned down this offer :

Region : Luvavum
Tribute : 500/20 turns
Alliance

Basically was told they'd never accept an alliance, as it was against their interests.

Reason - Probably German AI is intended to be uneasy neighbours with Romans, and Neutral with Trade is best you can get.

Ridiculous that accepting (with idea of backstab) isn't more in their interests than honourably declining. The settlement and money would support expansion eastwards against Dacia, and help deter the Britons who they remain neutral with.

On Campaign Difficulty -

Insane834, you're very wrong about Jullii being easier than Brutii. With Brutii there's no scratching around, penny pinching. You have the dosh to build what you need, finance enough navy to Dominate Adriatic & Aegeann.

In 258BC, I've gained whole Adriatic shore (except Arinium Jullii held), the whole of modern Greece, about to kill Macedon. Rebel settlements on Crete and the H. one in Asia Minor with the Mausaleum. Rhodes is under permanent blockade, Pergamamon was be-sieged by Pontus, but they got bored, so I'll have to quickly move an army across Aegean for victory conditions (they're not able to trade with anyone so they are dead.

With Jullii at this stage, I'd probably be finishing off Gaul in France, but then having issue of mopping up loads of Rebels and turning round offensive to take Numantia (very easily upsetting Spain), whilst also probably fighting the Britons, who attack at some point even if you are allied.

The big difference, is loads and loads of money. I'm 9/10 with the Senate for some reason, which I've never managed with Jullii despite being dutiful about possible Senate Missions. Money for temples and such may be the difference.


The Mac Phalanxes + Cavlary are as easy, perhaps easier to smash than the Gauls, because you can easily raise the right force composition to crush them.

10:9 battle, where main force was "Reinforcements" (AI control removed in check box). The strategy is to establish Cav superiority and take any opportunity to route Mac. skirmishers who tend to be out on flank.

The General + Equites force, counter-charge on flank, Mac Heavy Cavalry, and other Equites engage Light Lancer units, in echelon groups. This allows 2nd unit to charge in on rear or flank.

Then destroy the slow Phalanx units at leisure, mainly at a distance with missiles, who are helpless once the Missile & Cavalry support have been stripped away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

Reason - Probably German AI is intended to be uneasy neighbours with Romans, and Neutral with Trade is best you can get.

---

I don't think that's the case with just the Germans, but with any faction regardless of culture or military strength. Sharing borders with a faction gives a near 100% chance of war eventually breaking out between the two parties and, due to this, the chances of the parties ending up very friendly through alliances always appears unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

Insane834, you're very wrong about Jullii being easier than Brutii. With Brutii there's no scratching around, penny pinching. You have the dosh to build what you need, finance enough navy to Dominate Adriatic & Aegeann.

---

I'm not sure if it's just me, but I've always found the Julii to be easier than the Brutii or the Scipii.

Early conquest seem un-challanging due to the disorganised nature of the Barbarians and the lower strength of their early military force. The Brutii always has seemed the hardest for me to deal with in this regard, facing mighty phalanxes with low quality flanking cavalry, equites, always is rather difficult.

It's probably is just me, but as the Julii financial problems never have been an issue. As the Scipii I nearly entered bankruptcy when trying to deal with Egypt and once after Carthage managed to obliterate my non-Italian cities. As them, I always am able to expand fast enough to feed my military forces and have some left over.

The big thing I despise about the Brutii though, is their lack of the best sort of temple - a law bonus temple. Law bonuses negate one of R:TW's worst problems - distance to capital penalty. The penalty causes corruption, which subtracts money from the overall income, and also removes happiness from the populace. This is especially critical in the case of vast empires, where the peanlty is especially noticeable.

~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

The Brutii always has seemed the hardest for me to deal with in this regard, facing mighty phalanxes with low quality flanking cavalry, equites, always is rather difficult.

---

My comment relate to the Short Campaign, but probably apply to longer to, as for long campaign, slowing the Scipii by taking Carthage first is more relevant.

Phalanxes are dog-meat, if you use the Light-Infantry mobile tactics strategy which put them out of business historically. I think having Skirmishers begin out of front, causes the game AI to charge it's best cavalry at them, ignoring the flank counter charge by in-range General + light cav who then win, even if the General would have been out-classed 1:1 (remember the skirmishers not running aid, once the enemy cavalry charge has stopped due to melee).

If you're lining up your forces, and allowing them to clash and fight frontally in a linear static battle then you'll have issues. Just because the AI impales it's Infantry on Phalanxes doesn't mean you have to do it to.

Quote:

---

The big thing I despise about the Brutii though, is their lack of the best sort of temple - a law bonus temple. Law bonuses negate one of R:TW's worst problems - distance to capital penalty.

---

Corinth +4 Law bonus Wonder. With temple of Mercury trade sky-rockets and you can buy your way out of any corner.

Every city I've got 20% Wonder Happiness, and I don't think the Greeks or Mac. armies are any tougher to beat than the Gauls. Never been able to set taxes so ridiculously high and still have monster growth rates.

The only main city with a slow rate is Croton at 2% with 10,000 already. It's always taken me ages to get, to the 6,000 level with Julii, even encouraging growth, to get the replacement archers. With the Brutii the superior Cretan archers are available in Greece, and on Crete, which is easily taken as it's ignored by the AI factions.

The Jullii tangle with the Germans, if they expand naturally, in order to get the money flowing in. So you still have to learn how to carve up, obsolete Phalanxes just like the Brutii player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

I don't think that's the case with just the Germans, but with any faction regardless of culture or military strength. Sharing borders with a faction gives a near 100% chance of war eventually breaking out between the two parties and, due to this, the chances of the parties ending up very friendly through alliances always appears unlikely.

---

If they plan that then they should agree and backstab.

Briton allied with me and cancelled once, and attacked in a different game. They seem to be easy to agree to alliances, but willing to break them.

So why are the Gauls and Britain allied, why don't they get into scraps? Why the only time I saw Gaul & Spain fighting, did they move rapidly to cease-fire and ally as soon as the Jullii hit Southern-France?

Why have I seen Germans have alliances with various neighbours, but never been accepted as Roman faction, despite it being an assistance to them in the war that they were fighting?

I've read around that the Diplomacy AI is stubborn, and won't go against some presets, and I think now that as historically Germania & Rome had their differences, that must be the explanation.

So until otherwise, the best rational explanation I have of the stoooooopidity in the Diplomatic AI is that it's fairly well confined to rails and is futile to try and mess with.

Taking the adriatic shore, Segesta & Salona in many games, the only time Dacia has shown interest, was after they'd been repulsed from Luvavum, and later on in game, I'd had a consolidation period of economic development (as Jullii), and *all* the neighbouring non-Roman factions plus Rebels put a pretty coordinated attack on me.

In this game as Brutii I could not ally with them, as they soon had a deal with Macedon, one of my victims. And my ally Thrace was attacking them, rather than troubling the Macs, as I'd hoped.

If you make diplomatic contact with Germans before you share a border then there is no predispostion by the AI to oppose Roman factions. On two separate occasions I've had an alliance with them as the Julii, which lasted for a long time (before eventual and inevitable betrayal). I don't think that the diplomacy is preset, there is actually a guide floating around somewhere on the forum, the main thing I remember is to soften up the target faction with smallish gifts (100den.) every couple of turns. They don't take it as a bribe (as they might if its massive) but are less inclined to attack and are more inclined to listen.

What I've noticed with the AI, particularly the 'barbarian' factions is that they're unwilling to accept an alliance that they are already planning to break (ie: they're already gearing up for war). Betrayal only happens due to an oppurtunity that arises somewhere down the track.

As to the difficulty of Julii and Brutii, Julii is easier for battles, Brutii is easier for campaign overall. The lack of a law temple for the Brutii is offset by the seizing of the Statue of Zeus at Olympia (Corinth), which provides a massive happiness boost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

If you make diplomatic contact with Germans before you share a border then there is no predispostion by the AI to oppose Roman factions. On two separate occasions I've had an alliance with them as the Julii

---

OK, that's kind of why I decided to consult others many years back. Could have tried that suggestion. When you have Neutral-Trade Rights what would you suggest in exchange for regular tribute?

Frequently the "Offer something sootable" option tends to result in, them saying they have nothing to offer, or it's against their interests. I even suspect the AI is dumb enough to turn down paying a tribute of 1dn/turn in exchange for 101dn/turn.

I've attempted without border in past, and received the same message, implying they'd never get hitched.

This time, it was a super deal they turned it down. Now Germania is at war with Britain and they sent a diplomat to ally with me immediately.

There's info about, Diplomats with lots of Influence having better chances of acceptance to. Think this is one main reason to send them round the map, offering Trade Rights.

I find the Julii easier mainly because of the barbarian armies-- even though the warcry ability will mince your troops, the barbarian armies aren't as hard to deal with as, say, a Greek hoplite unit. The phalanx is annoying, and even if you catch them in the flank, higher-tier Greek hoplites are still pretty good in the melee. And the Macedonian cavalry means that it's harder to flank their armies, and their long-arse sarissae means that mercenary hoplites can't reach them.

I've never run into significant money problems as the Julii-- i.e. I've never been in the red. Coastal cities in Gaul and Spain like Massilia, Narbo Martius and Osca, plus your starting cities, rake in a respectable amount of money.

I've not that problem, even my raggy force was able to chew up Spartan double Chevron Hoplites and spit them out, and when I just had minimal holding force to start a siege. Was caught out when they sallied at 3:2

Perhaps a shot of my battle stats, will convince how effective skirmishers can be. It was not exactly elite units that did the damage. You need space to fall back on in most battles, in this one my small force was deployed back in a strong position, to give time for my re-inforcements to intervene, and they would have space to operate.

What my Mil. History books have to say about the decline and defeat of Phalanxes, holds true in the game. Yes the Battle AI is stooopid, and doesn't maximise the difficulties, but if you can kill at a distance, and they can't hit back, then you Dominate. There's nothing they can do but be on defensive and static defense fails.

Whilst things can go wrong, particularly if I get caught with an army that's imbalanced (say light on Cavalry, without anti-cav spearmen and lack of long range missile troops). Or I simply mess up bad on the field; I'll take more typical losses, like Infantry v Infantry battle. That actually happened in the last battle, when their 2nd stack disappeared (despite my spies), then popped up, after I'd sent most of the Cavalry off to support a different force, which opportunistically besieged the other Mac city and had few missile troops to stiffen 2 barb mercenaries, 1 Hastati, 1 Illyrian Merc plus understrength unit Equites.

This is actually a typical Phalanx pasting, it's the Macs so lots of Light Lancer Cavalry, hence their rather high survival rate. I had a small 'bait' army on the hillside which got attacked and deployed at top of steep hill. Rushed my Cav reinforcements to them, and got rest infantry up there before the Macs got up the hill, as AI was pressing the assualt.

Pre Battle Odds 10:9 - In my favour.

Some of my units never did a thing, 1 Equites didn't even make it onto field, as I was in a bit of a hurry and failed to Withdraw Town Watch unit in time to make room under 20 limit and bag more routers.

Battle Result : https://img374.imageshack.us/img374/...eresld7.th.png

Note I had no Archers, nor slingers. See how much critical damage the Javelin Skirmishers did, so the Cavalry could mop up, once the Mac cavalry was routed off the field.

Battle Statistics :
https://img353.imageshack.us/img353/...tatswm5.th.png


The Barb mercs suffered losses due to heavy cavalry, fixing them in place for my General & Equites who charged in from flank. The Velites unit was running, and got caught on Phalanx bit later on through my carelessness.

Sometimes, I've destroyed Phalanx stacks without losing a man. I just don't see why ppl rate them.

My boys would suffer fewer casualties if I learned to hit the P button, and pause when there's lots of contact areas rather than do the battle in realtime.


As Julii against the Gauls it's hard to reduce your losses so low, as their Noble Cavalry may be Dominant (with more family members) and if not they tend to smash in, at same time as their swarming frontline warbands. When they employ a 2nd line of skirmishers, they can take quite a bite, before they're beaten off.

More reasons why Brutii is easier :

Wonders
Compact position with decent Islands like Rhodes & Crete, better than Caralis & Palma
Relevant Senate Missions

With the Jullii, you could do an easy land based campaign, and just fight barbs to get the territory and elminate the faction. You might not worry about economic development of Gaul. But if you're trying to keep in with the Senate, earn the Jobs going to improve influence, and play with an eye to weakening your Roman rivals then it's much harder. Very tempting little expeditions, can easily lead to strategic over-stretch, with an army stuck on somewhere like Crete, not doing anything, and costing you money.

The Macs & Greece war with each other, so a little bit of timing, and you may be able to sweep in, taking Sparta & Corinth easily, just after they've fought, and are very weak.

These are all basically strategic arguments. To make the battles easier v Greeks & Macedon, you need to look at what kind of armies they're fielding and plan accordingly.

As Gaul, Britons, Germans and Spain all fight with different twists, you still need flexibility of approach to get the best results, when you can't afford overwhelmingly strong armies, but are trying to conquer as fast as possible, to strengthen your position.

this probably sounds stupid but i hear people saying they try not to have anymore than 50 000 denarii at any one time because of corruption. i try to do that but after ive taken about 5 provinces i cant stop it getting way past 50 000 anyoene have any tips that could help me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salemty

this probably sounds stupid but i hear people saying they try not to have anymore than 50 000 denarii at any one time because of corruption. i try to do that but after ive taken about 5 provinces i cant stop it getting way past 50 000 anyoene have any tips that could help me.

---

It may be irritating watching the traits appear, but in the end, if you expand sucessfully, getting over 50,000 denarii in your treasury is sadly inevitable and almost unstoppable, regardless of what you do.

This doesn't really matter - by then you have a large enough income to not have to worry about the corrupt habits of your governors.

You can counteract these traits if you want though, which typically reduce the levels of "Law" in a settlement.

Law is something which decreases the amount of corruption, caused by distance to capital penalty, in a settlement and increases happiness. Building law temples/buildings is the obvious way around it, but there are others.

You could also try moving the capital closer to settlements with more corrupt governors. This reduces the primary cause of corruption, distance to capital penalty, preventing the governor in question taking as much as he would like to.

Alternatively, you could try keeping your more corrupt governors out in the field while using your more Spartan family members in governmental positions. Sending governors out of a city for an occasional field mission, or simply a walk, also can be a good idea - generals outside of settlements cannot gain traits relating to corruption.

~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salemty

this probably sounds stupid but i hear people saying they try not to have anymore than 50 000 denarii at any one time because of corruption. i try to do that but after ive taken about 5 provinces i cant stop it getting way past 50 000 anyoene have any tips that could help me.

---

Build a bigger army, or increase size of navy or build one if you don't bother.

Develop your towns more. I find I need a lot more than 15 provinces (even rich ones like in Greece) before I'm left with a surplus at end of turn.


Tried giving a region away, to my long term ally Thrace, and this was rejected; yes faction now has a border with me, but has received assistance in it's war. Without the region it cannot proceed.

Bottom line, seems to be that Diplomacy is not very useful in RTW. The AI factions are deliberately not very active and not very aggressive in their wars against each other, because Creative Assembly want variety for Human player, and have constant battles, hence the rebel faction to. Indeed, as a beginner the game is made more exciting, but at cost of strategic depths, and greater and greater frustration as number of owned provinces increase.

[ BTW: I do know forts with small garrison, suppress rebels handily and use them ]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

It may be irritating watching the traits appear, but in the end, if you expand sucessfully, getting over 50,000 denarii in your treasury is sadly inevitable and almost unstoppable, regardless of what you do.

---

You also might like to try applying the mod, bugfixer (part1 only required for RTW-1.5, part2 larger patch is for BI).

There's extensive tweaking of trait system, and more logical consistency, so you don't get traits like good farmer and poor farmer at same time.

The disadvantage, is if you want to try online battles, as the datafiles become incompatible with the most common RTW-1.5 games.

I think single-player RTW is more fun with bugfixer, they have addressed lots of common annoyances.

Objective Achieved - Foul Macedonians and Perfumed Greeks destroyed.

The Rhodes battle, could have been undertaken 2 turns earlier, ended up fighting without much cavalry, as a siege, with a HI Dominated stack backed up by lots of missile troops. Meant to fight a defensive battle on open plain, with Cavalry coming as re-inforcements, got quite messy instead, as I was 1/2 way in only when the AI came with full stack, trying to use same spy opened gate as I had.

Now never had such advantages of money & troop quality so early in game, with such strategic harmony. Dacians, never showed any signs of aggression; took their best city and have 2nd one under siege. Want to continue it a bit, as I have a plague fleet with 5 agents nearing the Scipii Island of Sicily.

Checked out the faction info, and am by far leading faction. No way, I'd have sorted out the money & have such troop quality with the Julii.

I'd actually plan a surprise attack on Capua & Rome, if I had a choice, with Scipii & Julii armies unable to return in time. Am churning out ships for fun to keep the upkeep up, and corruption down, so I think I could control the western med and disrupt rival factions re-deployments.

So what would be fun & good long campaign strategy next? As you see my Senate popularity is currently sky high 9/10, next mission is easy 8 turns to capture Aquincum from the Dacians. I'll eliminate them, for the provinces and pleb popularity, in order to prepare civil war.

May be, I should tear up Egypt in interim, sending couple big armies, perhaps try and establish Plague there to soften them up? I read they're supposed to be a handful pre-marian.


The current situation, Senate : https://img292.imageshack.us/img292/...toryrd1.th.png


Faction Ranking :
https://img260.imageshack.us/img260/...ory2cw1.th.png

Suggestions anyone?

Maybe you can try sending a stack or two down to, say, the East, and help the Seleucids against the Egyptians, just for the heck of it. Don't take any cities, just try to destroy as many Egyptian armies as you can, and see if the Seleucids can actually survive the next few decades.

Or try it with Brittania, so that the Gauls get powerful-- after all, you have no direct border with them, and it's in your best interests to slow down the Julii, yes?

They don't actually do much for you, but it is fun to play with the destinies of far-off lands, wouldn't you say? :evilgrin:

Taking Patavium and Segestica, seems to handicap the Jullii severely enough. They still haven't even taken Massilia, which is on my list and usually captured 3rd turn as J's.

So by doing nothing, they move their forces out to Gual and slowly fight, way through. Expect when civil war starts they'll find their Italian army totally outclassed and their frontier will be too far away to protect their Italian cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

The big thing I despise about the Brutii though, is their lack of the best sort of temple - a law bonus temple. Law bonuses negate one of R:TW's worst problems - distance to capital penalty. The penalty causes corruption, which subtracts money from the overall income, and also removes happiness from the populace. This is especially critical in the case of vast empires, where the peanlty is especially noticeable.

~:)

---

You overstate the importance of a Law bonus. It reduces unrest, yes, and it reduces income lost to corruption. It has no effect on distance to capital penalties, other than offsetting them, the same as any other public order generating building does.

And Jupiter is the best Julii temple by far. Bacchus is trash, it destroys any governor in the city with horrible vices, and generates no more public order than Jupiter. Ceres is OK in some provinces, but not many - and is strictly inferior to the Brutii Juno temple. Add to that that the Julii have no militarily applicable temple, nor any cash generating temple, and you should recognize that the Julii have, easily, the worst temple selection of the Roman factions. Their only advantage is marginally easier access to an Awesome Temple of Epona, in the extremely unlikely event that the Gauls or the Spanish ever bothered to build a Sacred Circle of Epona in any of their cities. Frankly, I'd rather just build a Mars temple and call it a day.

To fix the Julii temples, replace Bacchus with, well, almost anything else. Potentially, shift Ceres from fertility to farming, which is entirely appropriate anyway.

Note: I have applied a mod that puts in the law bonus for academy buildings, as the 1.5 patch notes said should already have happened. This does reduce the perceived benefit of a law bonus in my games - but I still build Jupiter in pretty much every city when I play Julii, because even with access to law from academies, Jupiter is still better than Bacchus or Cerres in pretty much all circumstances - not because law is awesome, but because at least it's better than happiness + tons of vices, or population growth.

The Bachus aren't "trash", because they gain governers influence. Avoid the bad traits by keeping young governors in Ceres towns, where they can usefully sow their oats. But, you need to have the older governor in Bachus towns, and shift the Priest Retainers, to add influence to the younger ones, taking on roles in more sober cities. Early in game, the Ceres tempes are good, boosting population, and encouraging larger family. The Jupiter are best for far provinces which become very prone to corruption.

A balance of temples, allows you to grant retainers to gain Influence, making Senate appointments more likely and help the Marian reform along.

The problem with the temple model, is that they exaggerate the tendencies of factions, Brutii has access to rich resources, so it has the trading bonus line.

All the fiddly micro-managing of these details, becomes annoying once your empire is large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

The Bachus aren't "trash", because they gain governers influence. Avoid the bad traits by keeping young governors in Ceres towns, where they can usefully sow their oats. But, you need to have the older governor in Bachus towns, and shift the Priest Retainers, to add influence to the younger ones, taking on roles in more sober cities. Early in game, the Ceres tempes are good, boosting population, and encouraging larger family. The Jupiter are best for far provinces which become very prone to corruption.

A balance of temples, allows you to grant retainers to gain Influence, making Senate appointments more likely and help the Marian reform along.

The problem with the temple model, is that they exaggerate the tendencies of factions, Brutii has access to rich resources, so it has the trading bonus line.

All the fiddly micro-managing of these details, becomes annoying once your empire is large.

---

I have to disagree - Bacchus really is trash. Yes, the Priest of Bacchus is a great retinue. The Drunken Uncle is also quality - NOT! Yeah, you might want one or two temples of Bacchus to be tended by some loser too lazy, cowardly, or insane to ever amount to anything who runs out and distributes the few worthwhile retinues every so often while not carring a whit for his own traits because he's already worthless. Then again, you might realize that even in a VH/VH game, some things are too nitpicky to fall on the favorable side of the effort/reward ratio.

Also, don't the reforms happen at the first imperial palace in italy, which has nothing to do with influence? Patavium will hit huge city size soon enough no matter what. A high influence governor will help maintain public order Patavium, but I've never had major issues with public order in culturally Roman cities that are a days march or so from my capital.

The older mature governors don't pick up the bad traits. You need the mix to gain retinue to boost influence, you can only have 1 Priest of X of each type, so optimum is a mix, to gain maximum influence with those retainers. Have impression that Jupiter benefits come slower than the other temple types anyway.

You get far more, fun influential charactheristics with Bachus than the other temple types. I suspect that's deliberate design balancing decision.

There's also one that's useful for the battlefield generals giving a +1 Morale boost.

It may not be the "best" temple, and I'd rather have Mercury or Mars, but it is not "trash", and ought to be used in cities near to capitol, with high growth.

When a Governor does acquire an undesirable trait, it's not the end of the world is it?

I don't know..... the drink and gambling vices pretty much negates any advantage the Bacchus retinues give, IMO..... as Praetor Rick says, it doesn't give more public order than the Jupiter temple, and without the corruption-reducing bonus of law. I do build Bacchus temples late-game, though, in backwater cities, and stick my most degenerate family members that I'm not likely to use, just to see what kind of vices they rack up. =D

What is the age above which family members don't pick up bad traits?

Those vices aren't a problem if they don't do you any harm. Hence cities that are near capitol and easy to control in heartland. Fairly often a trait which permits you to lower taxes, benefits you by encouraging population growth.

There's some kind of balance to it all, and part of strategy is finding the right spots to minimise the downs and max the benefits.

What they do allow you, is access to another line of Retainers, so you can boost Influence of Governors post-conquest in tricky areas, and give +1's to newly blooded Generals and such.

Unless you've got a Puritan streak, and are in high dudgeon over a spot of gambling or drinking, I can't see how those traits do significant harm.

An example is "Poor Farmer" can be very annoying, but if that Governor is put in a city subject to over-population it almost becomes a benefit.

The only one I really hate is "Useless Assessor", can't see any upside to reduction in tax income.

With Bug Fixer, I think a General with a +ve trait is immune to the flip. So someone "sober" will not benefit from becoming a drunkard. Someone with "social drinker" should probably be one with Ceres, or Jupiter though...

Anyway I think the game designers, intend a mix of Temples as being the optimal strategy, and the double-edgedness of a temple line is compensated by it being free with benefits.

Where it falls down, is that it just becomes far too tedious to manage all this properly once you've grown an empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

Where it falls down, is that it just becomes far too tedious to manage all this properly once you've grown an empire.

---

To each his own. I find the incredibly marginal benefits of the Bacchus retinues to be not worth the tedium of managing them when I'm sitting on less than a dozen settlements, much less later. I also don't like having massive influence penalties on any of my family members. I want my generals to be able to eventually retire to be useful governors, not just have to charge them into spearmen to get rid of them so I can get a family member who isn't weighted down with horrible traits to replace them.

I'll stand by my opinion on the Julii temples. Jupiter is great. Ceres is OK in some towns, but would be better as a farming or healing temple line. Bacchus is, if not completely worthless, at a bare minimum inferior to literally every other temple in the game in nearly all circumstances. I might be inclined to use Bacchus if Jupiter weren't available - playing Germania has led me to appreciate the real benefits of a temple that does well at squashing public disorder. But as long as Jupiter is available, building a temple of Bacchus just seems like a way to have a bunch of extra work to do for an unbelievably tiny benefit.

I don't get what you mean by the vices not causing any harm. AFAIK drink vices reduce command, influence and management significant.

The only advantages I see to having drink vices is that their sons have a chance of getting 'sober'. In one of my Greek Cities games, all my starting family members were drunkards, but most of the family members after that were sober.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

An example is "Poor Farmer" can be very annoying, but if that Governor is put in a city subject to over-population it almost becomes a benefit.

---

It only reduces the income from farming, correct? It doesn't reduce the base farming rate, which is what drives population growth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

The only one I really hate is "Useless Assessor", can't see any upside to reduction in tax income.

---

Yeah..... that and 'Poor Farmer'. It's ridiculously common, even in VBM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

I don't get what you mean by the vices not causing any harm. AFAIK drink vices reduce command, influence and management significant.

---

If they don't hurt you (by causing serious tax revenue loss or a rebellion), they don't matter. Many towns cope fine, despite the Governor being a raving loon, things go on, simply because closeness to capital, and shared culture make them hard to screw up. Some places are easy to manage, and your great Governors best deployment is in the hard places, not the easy ones.

To maximise influence, you need retainers, from all the 3 Temple types. So mixing things is optimal. Then because Bach, seems to dole out retainers faster than other types, you can gift the retainers, to improve influence of the Governors with the hard jobs (or to the main man who's gonna play Marius).

Quote:

---

It only reduces the income from farming, correct? It doesn't reduce the base farming rate, which is what drives population growth.

---

My understanding was that it lowered production and cost 0.5% growth, I've used a "poor farmer" in Patavium few times as a result, and got them out of places like Segestica where the 0.5% cut in growth is very harmful. I distinctly remember the growth rate moving as a result.

Look it's a bit like, turning up on the battle field with, some low quality troops. You can say, this is undesirable, be better to have the perfect army. Not fight, and wait until you can fix. Or you can deploy in such a manner to minimise the weaknesses, maximise the strengths and carry the field.

Weaknesses (like having an old soak in charge) don't matter if they aren't exploitable and don't cause anything to go wrong.

Jupiter's weakness is the low rate of retainers. Also you tend to get very staid, non-influential governors, who ppl don't like much. You don't get the entertainment retainers, to move to places where you need influence, and increase chances of getting senate jobs.

Having Bacchus in 1 or 2 towns near your long term capitol, where you can shift Govs in and out, is better than just using Ceres & Jupiter. I agree that the micro-managing is tedious, unfortunately features and graphics, and immediate impact to get great reviews, are a priority over long term playability in commercial games.

My point is, is it worth it, though? i.e. Is a drunkard, gambler governor with Bacchus retinues better than a regular ol' governor without the Bacchus retinues?

Using all three Julii temple types may improve immersion in the game, but it's hard to vouch for their effectiveness purely gameplay-wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

My point is, is it worth it, though? i.e. Is a drunkard, gambler governor with Bacchus retinues better than a regular ol' governor without the Bacchus retinues?

Using all three Julii temple types may improve immersion in the game, but it's hard to vouch for their effectiveness purely gameplay-wise.

---

You can pass the retinues around. Before I got disgusted with Bacchus and just stopped building the temples entirely, I'd usually have some poor pathetic loser or two parked in a city with a Bacchus temple. Whenever one of the good retinues popped, he'd run off to some governor who wasn't a pathetic loser and pass the retinue on, then run back to my token Bacchus temple to resume his wasted, dissolute life of addiction to perverted sex, drink, and gambling.

Free influence from the Drinking Companion and free management and influence from the Priest of Bacchus are nifty. But they're not really free, because they turn one of my settlements into a black hole of corruption where I don't dare park any of my real generals or governors, and which is far less productive than it could be with a governor who wasn't a hopelessly crippled psychotic wastrel racing to see whether he dies first from liver failure, venereal disease, or a knife in the back from an angry loan shark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praetor Rick

You can pass the retinues around....

---

Exactly. You give the Retinue to governor in order to boost Influence. The fighting Generals do not need Influence, or the Hero's, they benefit from things that give Morale bonuses, and Attack against that enemy.

So for instance, Merc. captain & Hero is best transferred to a Governor of your main unit production centre. Somewhere that builds the premium troop types & ships, so you gain the discounts.

Quote:

---

But they're not really free, because they turn one of my settlements into a black hole of corruption where I don't dare park any of my real generals or governors,

---

Near the capitol corruption is not a problem, nor is population happiness. So the only real benefit of most temples is growth, increased trade, better units, or the retainers that you get. By the stage of the game where population growth and capitol moves make it a problem, then you can have re-dedicated the city to another Temple Line.

Old Governors, should have their retainers removed to younger ones, and "retired" to a less challenging city (to help it grow), so you don't lose retainers on a death, nor have rebellion problems when highly influential governor kicks the bucket at an inconvenient moment.


Playing with Bug Fixer, probably aids a sound strategy, as the character traits are more fixed, I don't think a "sober" character, picks up the drunken or gambling traits which concern you. Even with plain Vanilla RTW 1.5, starting a young governor off in Ceres & Jupiter towns, and waiting till they're 25+ and "formed" characters appears to avoid a serious Bacchus problem. Social Drinker is actually a battlefield asset, so a fighting general to be, can benefit from not being a strait-laced dull, Jupiter character.

Finally, it's perfectly possible to run cities which are near the capitol with awful governors, who have no influence, and many -ve traits; being completely barking mad. It may even be desiriable, where you want to encourage population growth, without jeopardising future tax revinue with that annoying "useless assessor" trait.

I read in one of the guides somewhere that the way to stop the 'useless assessor' trait was to make sure that taxes in a governed city are the maximum they can be without a rebelling population (ie: most of the time on very high). Having a ridiculous number of people with this trait I decided to give it a go with my next campaign. It works amazingly well. The issue is that population growth is cut, but this can sort of balance out your other issue ('poor farmer') as you are forced to build farms, which then negate this. It is annoying and distracting you from other aspects of your campaign, but it works.

With the whole Bacchus thing, I tend to build other temples as a personal preference, but occasionally build one or two in some provincial backwater. I like things to progress at least semi-historically, and AFAIK, Bacchus wasn't really accepted as a Roman God, his cult was more of an underground thing, not sure, but Jupiter Optimus Maximus was the chief god of the republic so my cities are dominated by his temples. Again thats a personal, and very strange, reason.

The problem I find, is as Jullii you often want the growth rate. You don't gain population so rapidly, capturing large cities through slavery, as the regions you naturally capture fighting barbarians tend to be small and less civilised.

Being made to set tax high, against your own long term interests, to protect future tax take, is a bug in the game. I think Bugfixer's alteration to this makes sense. Poor farmer, also seems much easier to get than good farmer, though that may be something to do with strategic map difficulty setting.

All in all, I think these bad traits are generally just a minor inconvenience, after all if you get too rich, corruption becomes a significant issue, so don't think they're worth obsessing about. Growing empire economy and winning your battles is!

It's a different game for everyone. Me, I put more significance in the strategy map-- the battle map is a very nice addition, but the real meat of the game for me is building an empire and managing my family.

Quote:

---

Social Drinker is actually a battlefield asset, so a fighting general to be, can benefit from not being a strait-laced dull, Jupiter character.

---

Very true, but I find that Social Drinker normally advances to "Likes a Drink" in a few years time, making it -quoting you- against your long-term interests.

Quote:

---

Look it's a bit like, turning up on the battle field with, some low quality troops. You can say, this is undesirable, be better to have the perfect army. Not fight, and wait until you can fix. Or you can deploy in such a manner to minimise the weaknesses, maximise the strengths and carry the field.

---

Very true, but this 'problem' is easily remediable: build the law temple which gives exactly the same bonus to public order. It's more like intentionally building low-quality troops, than to be caught with a low-quality army.



A governor has a chance of getting "Poor Farmer" every turn he doesn't build a farming upgrade, which, since farming upgrades can't be destroyed, means pretty much every turn, making it inevitable for a long-term governor. It's just one of my nitpicks of the system. Same thing for "Poor Trader", but it's slightly rarer because other than markets, ports roads and trade temples also count as "trade buildings".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

A governor has a chance of getting "Poor Farmer" every turn he doesn't build a farming upgrade, which, since farming upgrades can't be destroyed, means pretty much every turn, making it inevitable for a long-term governor. It's just one of my nitpicks of the system. Same thing for "Poor Trader", but it's slightly rarer because other than markets, ports roads and trade temples also count as "trade buildings".

---

Slightly rarer? Other than an occasional family member born with the trait, I don't think I've *EVER* seen anybody have the poor trader traits. Useless Assessor, sure, quite often if I'm silly enough to park a governor in a city where I want to keep low taxes for population growth while still building stuff - but not poor trader. Poor farmer is a constant companion, though. THe one time it frustrated me was when playing as Germania, where my core cities were so poor that I built every farm upgrade I could in most of them - and still had a couple of governors as poor farmers. ARGH! :wall:

Ah, yes, I suppose it's pretty rare. :sweatdrop:

About 'Poor Farmer', I've noticed that farming temples like Tanit and Ceres tend to offset that a little bit. Doesn't Germania have a growth temple? Frejya or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

Ah, yes, I suppose it's pretty rare. :sweatdrop:

About 'Poor Farmer', I've noticed that farming temples like Tanit and Ceres tend to offset that a little bit. Doesn't Germania have a growth temple? Frejya or something?

---

I believe that only farming temples count. Ceres is a fertility temple - nice to have, but not the same thing. Tanit is farming, as is Bendis (Dacia) I think, and possibly some others that I've forgotten. If the temple doesn't have increasing farm production as an effect, I'm pretty sure it won't help prevent poor farmer traits or nurture good farmer traits.

Note that Ceres probably *SHOULD* be a farming temple, but it's not. Just another reason why I don't like Julii temples very much. The Juno temple, for the Brutii, is arbitrarily superior in temple effects to Ceres in absolutely every situation - and the Ceres retinues aren't even especially good either. At least Bacchus, which I despise, does generate some nice governor-ish retinues.

Oh... my mistake. Odd.... I was under the impression that a priestess of Ceres gave bonuses to farming.... Maybe I noticed a corollary between Ceres temples and good farmer traits because, in a Julii game, I would build both Ceres temples and farms in my low-growth settlements, i.e. Northern Gaul and Germania.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

Oh... my mistake. Odd.... I was under the impression that a priestess of Ceres gave bonuses to farming.... Maybe I noticed a corollary between Ceres temples and good farmer traits because, in a Julii game, I would build both Ceres temples and farms in my low-growth settlements, i.e. Northern Gaul and Germania.

---

I'm fairly sure that the Priest of Ceres retinue is population growth, not farm production, but I don't have a Julii save game handy any more, deleted them all to deal with save folder clutter.

Priest of Ceres gives +1Command +1Influence, if I'm not mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

Priest of Ceres gives +1Command +1Influence, if I'm not mistaken.

---

Bah, now you have me wondering.

. . . goes off to start a Julii game and find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

Oh... my mistake. Odd.... I was under the impression that a priestess of Ceres gave bonuses to farming.... Maybe I noticed a corollary between Ceres temples and good farmer traits because, in a Julii game, I would build both Ceres temples and farms in my low-growth settlements, i.e. Northern Gaul and Germania.

---

It turns out you were correct. I just checked, Priest of Ceres is in fact +1 Management and +1 Farming Output. The temple itself, however, is +5% happiness and +0.5% populaton growth, per level. And I am awfully sure that the temple will not stop poor farming traits because I have a poor farmer parked in one of my cities with a Temple of Ceres where I left him to try to get the Priest of Ceres. I could be wrong, but I'd be truly shocked if I were. Germania, which likewise has a Temple of Fertility line (Freyjia) still gets poor farmers sometimes when I play it, and I build Freyjia *EVERYWHERE* as Germania, since I'm relying on recruiting 120-man Spear Warbands recruited from settlements that are typically struggling to hit the 2000 mark.

Of course, I never actually leave my generals in cities as Germania, so that may be the problem.

The +1 Farming Output with "Priest of Ceres" is a good retainer to stick on invasion follow up governors, who take over slow growing places, and can do with population boost from later enslavements, and allow development of a useful port and/or mining etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

The +1 Farming Output with "Priest of Ceres" is a good retainer to stick on invasion follow up governors, who take over slow growing places, and can do with population boost from later enslavements, and allow development of a useful port and/or mining etc...

---

Well, +1 Farming isn't too bad. It's a bit of cash and a bit of population growth. Not really what I like from a retinue, but not terrible. It is nice for, as you said, a governor specializing in getting small settlements up to proper speed.

Saddest thing ever: I continued the Julii campaign I started to check on the effects of the Priest of Ceres. Upgrading one of my temples to a Large Temple of Ceres earned the governor the Poor Farmer trait. That is *SO* wrong.

More likely to be your dislike of farm upgrades. I think if one's available and you don't construct it, there's a chance of gaining the trait every turn.

Anyway, you should like "poor farmer" as you say you face too much trouble with over-population later in the game.