RTW - Game Changes Obsoleting Guide Advice

[RLucid]

I dunno, I still think an argument can be made for having an easier time in the late mid-game if you keep population pressure under check. For example, Patavium could be churning out unit after fighting unit instead of constantly being sidetracked into increasing its garrison (and relieving population pressure).

Multiple nearby small towns can produce peasants if you want Patavium to produce high level units. Normally I find, I don't need to produce units every turn, and act early to relieve population pressure by moving peasants from biggest towns to the small ones. I see getting Archers as significant to Julii, and then the Marian reforms, otherwise mercs can make up for army imbalances.

I think that's because, while the cities of Greece are very rich, they are so due to the extensive trade network, not because of the farming. I'm pretty sure none of the cities of Greece have more than 3% base pop. growth.

They're much faster growers than the barbarian lands, I'm pretty sure Athens is an example of high growth rate. You are not in danger of getting left behind tech-wise, if you hold this area and enslave, rather than exterminate.

That's one way to play the Julii.... but I've found that building farms and sewers in the barbarian lands will turn them into a profitable hinterland fairly soon (say, within twenty years?). Of course, as a flip side, that means that, maybe fifty to eighty years into the game, even Romanised Gaul will start to face squalor problems.

All settlement areas are "profitable" if you take them as a block, because your commitments (rebel suppression + border force) increase less, than the force needed to fight an ongoing war. Most barbarians, allow some peace, so long as you don't immediately get in the way of their objectives.

As the Julii, I tend not to aim for Punic Africa unless the Senate orders me there. Not because Punic Africa is unprofitable (because it is), but just because I'd prefer a more epic civil war when it breaks out. The way I used to play as the Julii, the civil war was mainly in Italy, Sicily, and maybe a little of Greece, making it almost a sideshow to, say, fighting the Egyptians. A little underwhelming, IMO.

So you're handicapping yourself to make the game more challenging. Optimum strategy for less experienced players, or those who want to finish game faster (as it gets boring when you have 20+ more settlements than any opposition) is to capture Carthage, and become a stronger Roman faction, rather than the backward "runt".

True, I guess. But IMO while farms are not totally useless, there are simply better alternatives to building them more often than not. Balanced buildings just isn't a strong point in RTW-- some buildings/temples are clearly more advantageous than others, which limits strategic planning.

This is exactly what Guyus and I complain about in this thread. No balance to that statment, no explanation of factors or trade-offs. Just a repetition of a point, without regard to the settlement conditions and lead to myths & game hoodoo. The points made about timing of development, and the short/medium term losses are disregarded; you've made it clear later that you're interested in deliberately spinning out the game, not everyone has that stamina.

This habit of over-simplification of farm upgrade issue, slants the guides and gives newcomers the impression that Guyus already mentioned. Someone who plays Prologue to conclusion sees the issues involved and benefit of stabilising the population, and methods of doing that, and need to plan ahead pop growth. The game, gives temporary relief of rebellion troubles in order to encourage/reward attaintment of victory conditions ie. winning civil war, and the game design is Rome TW, not Ancient Total War, so they must have tweaked things to maintain challenges throughout the long game in attempt to keep it exciting.

Some places need farm upgrades, and in others you should be wary of going beyond basic land clearance. The argument seems to be going round in circles now despite our discussion in more depth than previously seen, which is rather disappointing. I guess it's just easier slagging farm upgrades, than it is to produce a list of generally recommended settlement farm-tech levels, which permit settlement management.

As historically unrest & rebellions occur due to hunger, not plenty, I find this one of the more brain-damaged badly thought out features of the strategy game.