Verdict of BI by a TW Vet.

**Puzz3D** · 10-18-2005, 14:18

Originally Posted by Butcher

I agree, the fact that building farms is counter productive is daft.

It isn't counter productive if you want to increase the population faster. I actually don't care what the game calls it. It's just a trigger to get more people to come to the city. But you are right, the unrest isn't being caused by a lack of food. It's being caused by overcrowding, lack of water, lack of entertainment, lack of organized religion, etc.

**SpencerH** · 10-19-2005, 14:53

I wasn't impressed with RTW and I'm not impressed with BI. So far (playing my first campaign as the Saxons) I see very little difference between the two. Some technical problems have been fixed but new problems have been introduced. I also have to wonder where some of the 'eye-candy' glitz (that I enjoyed a little) such as 'weather effects' have gone? Hordes are an interesting idea, but when my strategy for dealing with them is not to eliminate their last city (so as to avoid spawning a much much larger enemy), I have to be critical of the ideas implementation.

So far, the challenge in BI has been to manage money. Tactical combat, the essence of TW, remains poor in BI in comparison to STW and MTW.

**dismal** · 10-19-2005, 15:19

Originally Posted by SpencerH

I wasn't impressed with RTW and I'm not impressed with BI. So far (playing my first campaign as the Saxons) I see very little difference between the two.

I think, when it comes down to it, the only major difference in game play between BI and RTW is the hordes.

If you play as a horde, the game plays very different than RTW.

If you play as Romans, the primary difference is dealing with the hordes. My ERE game felt very much like a vanilla RTW game most of the time, particulary the long war in the east vs. the Sassanids.

I imagine the Saxons aren't affected much by hordes (they tend to like to go south), so playing them will feel a lot like playing RTW.

**SpencerH** · 10-19-2005, 15:39

Originally Posted by dismal

I imagine the Saxons aren't affected much by hordes (they tend to like to go south), so playing them will feel a lot like playing RTW.

Actually I have had two hordes to deal with, the Franks and the Vandals (who are again 'hording' right now). I came up with my "no final elimination strategy" after fighting the Vandals for many turns.

**dismal** · 10-19-2005, 15:55

Did they attack you or just mill about?

**SpencerH** · 10-19-2005, 16:26

Originally Posted by dismal

Did they attack you or just mill about?

The Vandals migrated through my lands and they eventually attacked me and took a city. Later, after beating off their attacks at other cities, I took back the weakly defended city and I was lucky that the much more powerful horde migrated further west. Thats when I realized it's better to let 'sleeping dogs lie'. Hordes are much less hassle when they are no longer hordes. If they control one small city they are no risk.

**dismal** · 10-19-2005, 16:39

My first campaign I was ERE and had about 7-8 hordes swing by. I cobbled together a couple armies and put them on the bridges and this was enough to get most of them to pass on by.

I had to fight only 2 hordes.. One was a goth horde that appeared inside my borders that I had to scramble to break on the walls of Constantinople. The other was a Lombard horde that sent a stack after one of my bridge armies, was beaten badly and never tried again.

Other than the extra attention paid to the hordes, like you, I mostly played the same way as I did in RTW and got basically the same outcomes as I did in RTW.

Playing as a horde has been very much different. I tend to be a builder by nature, and the hordes are all about plundering.

**Nelson** · 10-19-2005, 16:06

Originally Posted by SpencerH

I also have to wonder where some of the 'eye-candy' glitz (that I enjoyed a little) such as 'weather effects' have gone?

I too wish the Rome weather was like it is in Shogun but my suspicion is that weather effects went by the boards because rain, fog and snow become too intense graphically now that so many polygons are getting tossed around. As it is virtually no one can play with all options maximized and use the largest unit size. At least I have yet to see anyone claim that they can while still enjoying a smooth frame rate at all times.

**SpencerH** · 10-19-2005, 16:28

Originally Posted by Nelson

I too wish the Rome weather was like it is in Shogun but my suspicion is that weather effects went by the boards because rain, fog and snow become too intense graphically now that so many polygons are getting tossed around. As it is virtually no one can play with all options maximized and use the largest unit size. At least I have yet to see anyone claim that they can while still enjoying a smooth frame rate at all times.

I miss those effects too but I was refering to the flooding, volcanos, storms etc that I had with RTW. I havent seen one with BI.

**ChaosLord** · 10-19-2005, 16:46

I keep hearing "Farms are unproductive" being tossed about again now that BI is out. I must be crazy, since I always build them. They do indirectly increase squalor, but squalor decreases population growth. So a balance can be met. Their only use isn't just growth as farm income can be quite nice. In any case I don't think extra food represents the primary reason for city growth, but rather economical growth.

More farms=more trade, more jobs, etc... This is why Markets and the like also increase population growth, but not on the same scale as farms since they're smaller in scale. Eventually growth becomes too much for the city to handle though(as is seen in any major city) and squalor becomes a problem. But if you prepare for it(with health and happiness buildings) you can go for max growth and still end up with a manageable city.

**dismal** · 10-19-2005, 17:41

Originally Posted by ChaosLord

I keep hearing "Farms are unproductive" being tossed about again now that BI is out. I must be crazy, since I always build them. They do indirectly increase squalor, but squalor decreases population growth. So a balance can be met. Their only use isn't just growth as farm income can be quite nice. In any case I don't think extra food represents the primary reason for city growth, but rather economical growth.

It's probably fair to say that in the original pre-patch release squalor was out of balance and you needed to be careful not to overbuild farms. There were cities that would grow beyond your ability to control. Some people seem to have been horribly scarred by the experience.

Now, I think most cities can be kept in balance even with farms.

I still tend not to build buidlings that add to pop growth in cities that have high pop already (> 24,000 or close to 24,000 with growth) just because you're going to lose the extra value of doing it by having to garrison more, build very expensive order buildings, hold games, or lower taxes (which perversely causes more growth). It's also just extra hassle. At some point your time is better spent going out and winning the game than tweaking your cities.

In cities that aren't going to make it to 24,000 farms are the first thing I build. More income and faster growth - what else could you want?

**CountMRVHS** · 10-19-2005, 22:46

In some of my cities, Squalor is the only negative factor of civil order. No unrest, no religion problems -- just the place is so filthy, apparently, people are ready to take up the pitchfork and shake it at their governor if they get the chance.

Not really sure what sort of buildings can counteract the effects of squalor... Happiness buildings, obviously, but there's only so many of those you can make. With Health buildings, I don't really understand how they work. Building the Sewer line of buildings, for example, won't decrease Squalor. Does it decrease the chance of plague or something?

CountMRVHS