The RTW II Economy - Research, Tips and Strategies

[Oleander Ardens]

I always loved to play the eco game in every TW game and I also graduated in this direction. In any case there are some new features in the game and it would be nice if we could share our knowledge and dig a bit deeper in some areas. I think it works best if you guys write what you impressions and conclusions are and then we try to confirm it by other posters. Links to hard evidence of pages in the encyclopedia are very wellcome.

Maybe this could also help other persons to write a guide. So first the rough ideas and afterwards the fine filter. It should help also myself to throw a couple of questions for myself into the room.

Personally I could not play all that much and I'm only 50 turns in my h/h Suebi campaign in which I have just conquered Silesia, Bohemia, Suebia, Germania Magna as well as Germania Minor. All in all 13 regions within 5 provinces, with 4 tradable ressources - glass, leather, timber and lead - as well as a single gold mine. I'm earning 9000+ per turn and have trade agreements with most Celtic neighbours, some Iberian factions plus Rome, the Illyrians and Athen.


So lets get started:

Trade

It seems pretty straightforward. Not every ressources seems as valuable as a trade good. The Glasswares from Germania minor are getting me roughly three times as much as leather with factions which have none of them and do neither import them. To produce more you have to upgrade your city and this causes increasingly hefty penalties on public order and food. Obviously with limited ressources those city upgrades make more sense for the player to go for the goods with a much higher return for similar? penalties and similar? monetary cost. As usually a ressource in a big province is more valuable then one in a small one!

Obviously export is more valuable then import, but it you can make some decent denarii from the latter. Trade partners with more tradable ressources and more regions are more valuable then those will less of both. But how much? Another with which needs to be checked.

I also have to investigate if your own goods are consumed at home. In my current game everything seems to get exported. Needs a check.

BTW has anybody seen a ressource in a provincial capital? I so far not and I looked at many regions on the map planner. This makes it more likely that the capital city of the province boosts the economy of the whole province. I will try to understand that in more detail later.

Overall trade works pretty much like in Shogun II apart form the fact that you have no trade nodes and more ressources in your provinces. A very important and highly valuable part of your economy.


Macroeconomics


Trade politics

I had no luck with trade agreements in the first 25 or so turns as the Suebi, later it became a lot easier, even if I had to send roughly 5x the trade value per turn to a neutral faction (yellow face) to get a deal. Some factions offered it, with a meager monetary demand. Now I seem to be a highly sought after trade partner.

Important! Trade agreements are united with a non-aggression pact an excellent stepping stone towards a confederation. I got access to the Silesian lands after offering it to my green faced friends in the east which were struggeling in a war against a Scythian faction.


Faction-wide

Obviously gold and food are faction-shared ressources. The tax level is global as well as a faction bonus, be it natural, obtained by an event a technology and possibly a leader. Needs to get checked.

A food surplus gives you a nice faction-wide bonus in growth & army replenishment, however I have no idea which amount of food if needed, possibly in relation to the number of owned regions and if there are different levels.

Provincial level

Public order gets calculated for the whole province. Effects from the provincial capital & various buildings too? Bigger provinces are certainly more attractive in economic terms, but how much? This means of course it may be wise to upgrade there first (Smaller ones, especially at the frontiers may be better for military reasons, especially due to more recruitment and relatively more walled cities with bigger garrison troops. Many effects of the military sphere work on this level, for example from temples.

So specialisation should be once again the name of the game. Germania Magna and Suebia are my large provinces and so far I have three military buildings among those 7 regions. They are relatively safe from attack and have a considerable amount of increasingly developed farms and harbours so I will switch the military tech supported by temples to the small frontier provinces and go to more cultural buildings to keep the order in check which is high but going downwards despite the dignitaries doing their work. Right now everything is calm so it should be easily doable.


Please add

Regional level

Most eco buildings deliver at a regional level. The wealth is taxed first there and then added for each province before flowing into your factions coffins.

Overall untangling the links at the provincial and regional levels will take a bit of testing and in this case the loading times are obviously a bit long. While playing they actually bother me very little.


Agents

Dignitary

Can increase the tax rate and growth and increase public order by spreading your culture while managing the civic part. They can reduce the upkeep of our stack while looking into the military business. Needs a lot of research.

General & Statesmen

Can reduce the upkeep and the recruitment costs, have an impact on public order. Need research.



I will leave it there and add more and more as my and your research goes along. Thanks guys.

[Oleander Ardens]

Reserved for further use. Thanks

[BroskiDerpman]

Not trying to derail the thread but if you want to use cavalry in your armies play as Averni and use Noble cav. They can beat Parthia's cataphracts and Rome's praetorian cav head on. Essentially the best heavy cav.

Not sure how much they cost though, does anybody know? I want to know if it's feasible to get an army of OathSworn and a few Noble cav with just a few settlements supporting the army.

[Oleander Ardens]

Army units are due to their upkeep, which is the biggest cost factor of course part of the economy and their specific efficiency does play a considerable role. Still I want to focus that thread mostly one income side of things. The payoffs between occupation, sacking and razing may be of interest though. At the first sight the net gain by sacking & razing is quite high and seems to be linked to the development of the city. So far in my Suebi game I have only occupied, has the land has been Germanic apart from the Bohemian land of the Boii. I could use their buildings without any penalty - no Celtic temples - and wanted to get a couple of core provinces.

BTW, does anybody know if sacking or razing costs a building slot? Another thing to check later, I'm on a short holiday.

[BroskiDerpman]

From my previous TW experience sacking/razing damages a building/slot, you could repair it for a small cost or demolish the building and create something else.

[Bramborough]

About 150 turns into first Roman campaign. Re looting: I've mostly been occupying regions, but entering Libya, decided to sack a few settlements to see how it would work out. I didn't nuke out the specific numbers, but following is my general impression:

Pros:
- Substantial immediate boost to treasury. Self explanatory.
- Boosts slave population, increasing factionwide economy. One doesn't get the enslavement of captives option with straight occupation.

Cons:
- All buildings substantially damaged; repair costs amount to roughly 70-80% of the initial treasury income. This isn't necessarily a big concern, however, if one intends to wholesale replace existing buildings with own-faction structures, AND has sufficient treasury to do so immediately (so all those construction sites don't turn into slums).
- Doubles the provincial unrest penalty (and therefore doubles the number of turns required to eradicate it).
- Boosts slave population, increasing factionwide public order penalties. Not exactly "factionwide" perhaps, but slave pop in all your provinces will increase, although the closer provinces' will be higher. Looting Cyrene/Augila in Libya led to high slave pop order penalties (-10 or worse) in Phazania/Africa, and lower (say, -7 to -9) in home provinces Italia, Cisalpina, etc. This wasn't ALL just from those two cities, of course. I'd been enslaving defeated armies/fleets since beginning my North Africa campaign, but definitely noticed a big boost (or hit, however one wants to look at it) upon the looting of these 2 cities.

Overall, I'd say looting is not the way to go if one wants to permanently retain a province and incorporate as a usefully-functioning economic component of the empire. The headaches of trying to restore public order and tying up one's forces in military occupation just take too long. HOWEVER:

An idea which has occurred to me is using an undesired province (or even just a region or two outside one's own full provinces) as a "training ground" for generals. Go in, loot cities, don't garrison, let public order spiral out of control. Rebel army appears, and your army general now gets to put another whopping on them for more rank boost, with no diplomatic penalties. Rinse and repeat. This might be a good way to keep providing battles to rank up generals in between major campaigns. Just take care to do this to a landlocked settlement, as rebel port cities tend to get blockaded (but not attacked) by AI factions, and permanent stalemate ensues.

[Oleander Ardens]

About 150 turns into first Roman campaign. Re looting: I've mostly been occupying regions, but entering Libya, decided to sack a few settlements to see how it would work out. I didn't nuke out the specific numbers, but following is my general impression:

Pros:
- Substantial immediate boost to treasury. Self explanatory.
- Boosts slave population, increasing factionwide economy. One doesn't get the enslavement of captives option with straight occupation.

Cons:
- All buildings substantially damaged; repair costs amount to roughly 70-80% of the initial treasury income. This isn't necessarily a big concern, however, if one intends to wholesale replace existing buildings with own-faction structures, AND has sufficient treasury to do so immediately (so all those construction sites don't turn into slums).
- Doubles the provincial unrest penalty (and therefore doubles the number of turns required to eradicate it).
- Boosts slave population, increasing factionwide public order penalties. Not exactly "factionwide" perhaps, but slave pop in all your provinces will increase, although the closer provinces' will be higher. Looting Cyrene/Augila in Libya led to high slave pop order penalties (-10 or worse) in Phazania/Africa, and lower (say, -7 to -9) in home provinces Italia, Cisalpina, etc. This wasn't ALL just from those two cities, of course. I'd been enslaving defeated armies/fleets since beginning my North Africa campaign, but definitely noticed a big boost (or hit, however one wants to look at it) upon the looting of these 2 cities.

Good to read. I have started to look more into province specialisation. It differs a bit between the factions but my original approach seems right. It pays off to look very closely at the bonus/malus a building gives.

Military recruitment is an interesting topic as well and profits greatly from detailed planning, possibly more so then in the past, especially for the Roman and Hellenistic factions. The Barbarians, especially my Suebians are starting to look a bit outmatched by the possibilities further south.

I'm on a business trip and will only come back home Sunday, so not much testing recently.

[JeromeBaker]

An idea which has occurred to me is using an undesired province (or even just a region or two outside one's own full provinces) as a "training ground" for generals. Go in, loot cities, don't garrison, let public order spiral out of control. Rebel army appears, and your army general now gets to put another whopping on them for more rank boost, with no diplomatic penalties. Rinse and repeat. This might be a good way to keep providing battles to rank up generals in between major campaigns. Just take care to do this to a landlocked settlement, as rebel port cities tend to get blockaded (but not attacked) by AI factions, and permanent stalemate ensues.

Great idea, I am going to try this out next time I get a chance to play. Combining this approach along with having a champion in my stack should boost up a new army really fast. I might even be able to build up my general to a decent level before someone kills him off.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Just take care to do this to a landlocked settlement, as rebel port cities tend to get blockaded (but not attacked) by AI factions, and permanent stalemate ensues

OTOH, I could see doing this to a faraway port settlement that someone else might desperately need

Cheesy, but what the heck, so are a lot of other things in this game......

[Bramborough]

200 turns in, with associated tinkering of provinces, I'm coming more and more to realize that province specialization is the key. I haven't really figured out the specific formulas, but clearly it's impossible (and probably deliberately so) to fully develop a province's towns/commerce/industry AND also be self sufficient in food. With the limited slots available, just can't be done past Level III. And I don't think that's necessarily a "flaw"...it's supposed to be that way. It kinda makes sense; Rome couldn't have become Rome without drawing tons of resources from across its empire (especially food).

It seems to me that one can balance out a province with Level III buildings...but without much food surplus to contribute elsewhere. Then, introducing a Level IV building into its mix then makes the province reliant on external food...either directly because it requires a lot of food in itself, or indirectly by needing to compensate for its squalor by building other food-consuming public order buildings.

As I've said, I haven't figured out specifics, but my basic idea is that, just as there are different levels of buildings, I'm going to start thinking of "Level II-IV provinces":

Level II Province: Food producer. May not make much money. No buildings higher than Level II (other than perhaps agricultural). The province's function is to provide the food surplus necessary to support the higher provinces.
Level III Province: Self-sufficient in food. Makes decent money, but held back in development so as to not require food imports. No buildings higher than Level III. One could conceivably run the entire empire consisting of only Level III provinces.
Level IV Province: Richest provinces, fully developed with Level IV buildings, and therefore making the most money. To do this, however, the province CANNOT be self-sufficient in food.

The trick will be figuring out how many "Level II" provinces I need to hold back in order to support a "Level IV" province. Will a 1:1 ratio do it? Or will I need 1.5:1 or even 2:1? The other interesting thing is how the tech tree plays into the equation, especially in the way that Level III buildings are available early (or even at start in some cases), while Level IV buildings can take quite a long time. In my own campaign, I've developed the trees roughly equally, and am just now beginning to unlock many of the Level IV buildings. In the meantime, I've also built up my provinces to the "Level III" description, and am now realizing that I may have to "deconstruct" some of them back down to Level II in order to find the food surplus I'm going to need. It would have taken an incredible amount of discipline to deliberately hold back these provinces looking so many turns ahead. Concomitantly, I'm also realizing that the various tech trees may not be quite so independent or even "disconnected" as they first appear. They may not be directly tied to each other, but the buildings/effects they produce are definitely intertwined in developing a functioning empire. On this particular point, we as a community may have been a little prematurely critical of CA.

Note: that last point does not pertain to the ridiculously early achievement of legionary troops. Regardless of what sort of tech development or victory condition which one pursues, it just shouldn't be possible to graduate past hastati/principes/triarii decades before 200BC. Criticism of that one particular feature in the Roman military tech tree is 100% legitimate.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Once again, a very thoughtful post. And the description seems to mirror what one would expect in a RL situation.....outlying agricultural areas providing the subsistence level to their much larger, more developed cousins in the cities. Almost makes me want to go and get the game now just so I can play with the economy (econ was one of my biggest love/hate relationships with R1).

[BroskiDerpman]

Edit: @Posts below

Seriously guys? I wasn't trying being negative. I was just making some suggestions and criticisms; and no I don't want the game right now. You may consider me too vocal but I find it perfectly normal on a TW forum, perhaps a little too silent.

I may have some repetition but each time I try to add something new, I guess nobody bothers about that too and claim that my posts are all repetitive on Ca when there's other people who post that stuff too. Is it because I'm the one who mainly posts? Is it because I'm the main one who has concerns about the game?

Why should I make up flaws too? There are bugs and gameplay issues... My criticisms are only my own tastes and nobody here has to obey it or anything. I am not convincing myself, might as well ask Vuk; He convinced me.

I have interests on this game as it's TW, one of my favorite franchises. Why shouldn't I be concerned? It is in my interests that the TW franchise is still what I think is good. (Of course it's my own opinion.)

All day long? I'm only on when I got to do exercises for spinal stuff. Getting stuck on a traction chair is boring, of course I'm on the forums for a few hours because I'm unable to do anything else! I bought a mobile device just so I won't be bored to death when being in the machine while it does it's work. If I didn't have this disability I wouldn't be roaming the forums all day. (I don't need anybody to feel sorry or anything I just want to make it clear)

[Quillan]

The trick will be figuring out how many "Level II" provinces I need to hold back in order to support a "Level IV" province. Will a 1:1 ratio do it? Or will I need 1.5:1 or even 2:1? The other interesting thing is how the tech tree plays into the equation, especially in the way that Level III buildings are available early (or even at start in some cases), while Level IV buildings can take quite a long time. In my own campaign, I've developed the trees roughly equally, and am just now beginning to unlock many of the Level IV buildings. In the meantime, I've also built up my provinces to the "Level III" description, and am now realizing that I may have to "deconstruct" some of them back down to Level II in order to find the food surplus I'm going to need. It would have taken an incredible amount of discipline to deliberately hold back these provinces looking so many turns ahead. Concomitantly, I'm also realizing that the various tech trees may not be quite so independent or even "disconnected" as they first appear. They may not be directly tied to each other, but the buildings/effects they produce are definitely intertwined in developing a functioning empire. On this particular point, we as a community may have been a little prematurely critical of CA.[/I]

Your experience pretty much mirrors mine. The best food producer seems to be the level 4 farm, which gives 15 food while causing 12 squalor. But that particular tech is in Economy 3; I haven't gotten there yet. I spent way to much time finishing out construction and most of legalism, so I tend to use outlying villages as food producers. Slot one gets a farm, slot two gets a cattle ranch, if it has a port it becomes a fishing port. How far I upgrade depends upon two major factors: do I own the provincial capital (where I can spam happiness buildings) and what buildings can I build there (I really like the gladiator school as Rome; 12 points of happiness for 4 food consumed).

I have to limit military development in order to provide sufficient foot for the empire and keep the provinces happy. But I can't go completely food/happiness or my ability to build good armies goes away.

By the way, has everyone else's experience been that the AI is just incompetent in this regard? Almost every faction at this stage of the game is either constantly having revolts due to unhappiness or can't maintain troops due to attrition because of starvation. They build too many of the wrong buildings and don't have enough happiness, food, or both.

[Shaitan]

...
By the way, has everyone else's experience been that the AI is just incompetent in this regard? Almost every faction at this stage of the game is either constantly having revolts due to unhappiness or can't maintain troops due to attrition because of starvation. They build too many of the wrong buildings and don't have enough happiness, food, or both.

I see this in my campaign too. At first I wondered why other factions armies suffer of attrition in their own land. It is the lacking food.

[nearchos]

The AI is totaly incompetent with balancing the building decisions, ( among uther things), what i tried in my campaign, with 57 my own settlements and 7 of my client states, is i have 4 provinces, (12-16) settlements for food and military training, with high level infrastracture and with 2 full stack armies( from a total of 12) in the area, so when a rabelion is iminent, i moove the army at the spot, with forced march if needed, crash the rebellion. and all over again.
Thwe good think is that since the rebellion, it takes at leest 2 turns for the AI to mone the rebel army, after the increase of the unit naumbers.

[Seyavash]

Besides the number of regions within a province, has anyone noticed much a difference in the food a region or province can produce? I am still trying to sort out which regions are pre disposed to be bread baskets or centers of industry. A better sense of that would go along way toward pre planning.

[Myth]

Patience is key RS, you got to wait for some patches first! Or when the first expansion gets released/ Holiday sale. You'll probably enjoy the game more that way.

You'll have a better impression of the game that way too instead of waiting for the constant patches completing and fixing the game just to enjoy the game.

Plus there's other games to try out while you wait... ;)

Are you trying to convince us that the game is not worth getting now... or yourself? You have been so vocal about it it makes me think you actually want the game but you're desperatly digging for flaws, real or imagined, to justify not obtaining it.

[Bramborough]

Are you trying to convince us that the game is not worth getting now... or yourself? You have been so vocal about it it makes me think you actually want the game but you're desperatly digging for flaws, real or imagined, to justify not obtaining it.

My thoughts exactly.

There's a bit of a disconnect between, on one hand, professing to believe R2 not worth buying...and then, on the other hand, being one of the R2 forum's most active posters, all day long. That seems like an awful lot of interest, Broski, in a game for which you purport to hold no interest.

[Bramborough]

Besides the number of regions within a province, has anyone noticed much a difference in the food a region or province can produce? I am still trying to sort out which regions are pre disposed to be bread baskets or centers of industry. A better sense of that would go along way toward pre planning.

Africa can indeed be a huge breadbasket. At Level II development (long before I started realizing this stuff), that province was pumping out a 40+ food surplus for me. I think a major reason is that all four of its settlements are coastal, therefore it has the four "bonus" port slots. Also, IIRC, one of its minor settlements (Lepcis, I think) builds as a "grain" town, which adds food directly from the city slot. This is hugely helpful; it's not a "free" city food-wise, but definitely a "cheap" one. I later built Africa to Level III with a couple of Level IV buildings, and it surplus obviously dropped, but never approached negative. Although it's going to hurt my income, it's one of the provinces I'm "deconstructing" back to Level II. I need my breadbasket back, as I'm starting to run into factionwide food surplus problems.

Edit: Just now looking at the Interactive Map (thx for linking in separate thread, Hooahguy), Aegyptus has the potential to be an even bigger food producer; two of its four settlements contain the Grain resource and will build as grain towns. Also of note, this province contains two wonders (Lighthouse and Pyramids). Hmm...I haven't taken all of Aegyptus, having been content to let that area be controlled by my client state. Looks like the Nasamones may have to take one for the team now.

I guess this makes perfect sense, as historically Egypt was Rome's main food source during late Republic. This led to its being a focus locale in the struggle between Octavian and Antony, despite its distance from the capital.

http://maps.totalwar.com/

In a more general sense, looks like resources are the key to identifying good ways to specialize a province. Grain obviously helps food production. Haven't really looked, but I suppose iron and timber probably help industry. All resources will boost income to some degree, at least through trade if not some more direct bonus.

[Myth]

Carthage should also be a grain source as it was the main supplier of grain for Rome itself.

[ReluctantSamurai]

In a more general sense, looks like resources are the key to identifying good ways to specialize a province. Grain obviously helps food production. Haven't really looked, but I suppose iron and timber probably help industry. All resources will boost income to some degree, at least through trade if not some more direct bonus.

Tapping one of the better improvements suggested in another thread...how cool would it then be to have provincial resources tied to industrial capabilities (iron>smithy; cattle>leatherworking; timber>shipbuilding, war machines; marble/stone>advanced building structures, paved roads; etc.

Tie this sort of thing together with diplomacy (I'll trade you my iron for your marble, etc.) and trade partners/alliances might actually come to be far more important than they currently are

[BroskiDerpman]

Indeed, later on it was also the only untouched tax base in the Western Roman Empire and when they lost North Africa everything went down the drain.

Though agriculture was starting to increase in Southern Italy after that.

[Bramborough]

Carthage should also be a grain source as it was the main supplier of grain for Rome itself.

Yes indeed, as reflected by the grain resource in Africa (specifically, Lepcis settlement), of which Carthage is provincial capital.

Looking through the interactive map, it appears that the "grain provinces" are: Aegyptus (2), Africa (1), Magna Grecia (1), Dacia (1), and Mesopotamia (1). These seem historically sensible to me. There's also a few "fish-resource" provinces which I assume also contribute to food.

Gotta admit, I only just now clued in to the existence of these location-specific food resources. The trade resources show up on the strategic map, but I don't think the food resources do (if so, must confess I haven't noticed it). I've seen the "grain town" icons in the province tabs, but I haven't really thought about "hmm...how did they get that way?".

[Myth]

It makes sense for Dacia as Dobrudja is possibly added to it, and Romania itself has lots of fields.

[Oleander Ardens]

I already wrote earlier that regions with tradable ressources tradable offer a high ROI if the circumstances like enough trade are right. They should get priority for upgrades and also for building slots. The same goes for fish, grain and gold regions, as they can offer considerable positive modifiers.

So if you need lots of food you will go down the grain farm chain and which better place to built your fields then a Grain region? Level IV is not all too often a good choice, but in those cases it's often a great city upgrade.

[Quillan]

Besides the number of regions within a province, has anyone noticed much a difference in the food a region or province can produce? I am still trying to sort out which regions are pre disposed to be bread baskets or centers of industry. A better sense of that would go along way toward pre planning.

Just a few. First is the number of settlements. Provincial capitals have almost no improvements you can build that generate food; those generally go in the minor settlements. So, a province with 4 towns has higher inherent potential than one with two. Second is how many settlements are coastal. Each coastal town gets one extra slot which can be a port, and a fishing port generates extra food. Finally there is (maybe) a resource. If a region has grain, then the town center building actually produces food instead of consuming it.

[Seyavash]

Just a few. First is the number of settlements. Provincial capitals have almost no improvements you can build that generate food; those generally go in the minor settlements. So, a province with 4 towns has higher inherent potential than one with two. Second is how many settlements are coastal. Each coastal town gets one extra slot which can be a port, and a fishing port generates extra food. Finally there is (maybe) a resource. If a region has grain, then the town center building actually produces food instead of consuming it.

Ok, took me a bit to see the grain resource for Lepcis on the interactive map. I still don't see it as a resource in game so I guess I can use the town center as a way of figuring it out. Of course food is hardly the only thing I was looking at. Another thing was trying decide which ports should be trading ports and which should be military. Since resources seem to be far and few between the thing I am still working on figuring out in general is specialization.

[Backwards Logic]

I think the AI's food and squalor issues are why we don't see huge stacks of armies and mass expansion from the AI players. It's not so much they are 'dumb' and don't want to attack you, it's due to their lack of 'understanding' of food and public order mechanics they are unable to keep large armies from starving and/or keep their populace from revolting. In my game 160 turns in, the 'best' AI's are the ones that control the breadbaskets: the Seleucids in Mesopotamia and the Blemmyes in Aegyptus. The Celtiberian Confederation would have been doing much better, but they keep getting beset by revolts every fifteen turns or so (my spies show their port settlements all having the food boosting port, so they're doing something right). Don't get me wrong, the campaign AI is still bad, but I think it's mostly crippled from their own lack of infrastructure, not because they weren't programmed right to attack people. I'm wondering if they fixed this first before they went after the campaign AI's other decision making (where to move, who to attack, who to trade with, etc), if the game would improve dramatically.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I think the AI's food and squalor issues are why we don't see huge stacks of armies and mass expansion from the AI players. It's not so much they are 'dumb' and don't want to attack you, it's due to their lack of 'understanding' of food and public order mechanics they are unable to keep large armies from starving and/or keep their populace from revolting

Again, you have to shake your head and wonder who did all the play-testing for CA, because if this apparent lack of understanding of how to manipulate game mechanics is a major problem source, then said play-testers should all be flogged and then keel-hauled for such an oversight. If Sega or CA needed any incentive for an open beta-test from selected community players, this would be it.



....yes I know, it's been one big beta-test since release day, but I'm talking about the future

[ShadesPanther]

Again, you have to shake your head and wonder who did all the play-testing for CA, because if this apparent lack of understanding of how to manipulate game mechanics is a major problem source, then said play-testers should all be flogged and then keel-hauled for such an oversight. If Sega or CA needed any incentive for an open beta-test from selected community players, this would be it.



....yes I know, it's been one big beta-test since release day, but I'm talking about the future

Yes there seem to be many obvious issues that you notice if you play a few campaigns. The same one county nations seem to destroy everyone else. For example Carthage always gets destroyed in my game by Garamanetes(?) (They are south of libya, I've seen them in Sardinia and sicily and Sardinia and southern Italy as well as holding all of North Africa) and Cimmeria always goes on a crazy conquest of around the black sea (they seem to love destroying Pontus and Sardes). Nasamones love to conquer Egypt but I havent seen this in my latest campaign. I've also seem Syracuse conquer all of North Africa a few times and fight to the death with Gara

The major nations all seem to get destroyed or severely weakend, especially Carthage.

How this wasn't picked up I don't know