Is that true?Originally Posted by Jambo
I must admit I had not made that connection and if its true its probably making my situation worse as I have tended to keep most of the existing buildings intact after I take a city. Even the temples if they are fully developed.
I mean an Eygptian Exectuion Square still seems to provide a public order bonus, and Egyptian Barracks produce Legionary Cohorts so I figured why destroy them.
Sounds like that was a mistake.
BTW: I bought the Prima Strategy guide in the hope of finding out all this stuff. But it was a TotalWasteof money
I have mixed feelings about this.Originally Posted by Kekkonen
On the one hand I feel I am indulging in gamesmanship by deliberately inciting revolts in my own cities in order to have an excuse to cull the populations.
But at the same time I can't beleive a conquering power like Rome would allow the civil population to indulge in greater and greater unrest without doing something.
I was sort of hoping that investing heavily in Spies and Assassins might help to root out and eliminate the trouble makers but I have been unable to detect any difference.
I am also uncertain what impact the percentage of slaves has on civil unrest. I have noticed for instance that most of my rebellions are Gladatorial which means they are damned difficult to quell. But I'm not sure if that is a consquence of my policy of enslaving captured populations or merely a coincidence.
Logic would suggest that the more people you enslave the more cultural/ethnic friction one creates in the receiving cities, which could explain why some of my home cities are sufferring as well as my foriegn ones.
I'm really dissapointed that there is no explanation of all this, especially after shelling out £12 for the strategy guide.
Bookmarks