Game size and dificulty

[Caius]

I have proved it by myself, game size and dificulty are factors who are relationated.

For example, with Germania you can't manage to do something in huge. But you can do it in Small. I've changed this size, and I could do something more than capturing Vicus Gothi and Bordesholm. Then, I'm constantly attacked by Britons and Gauls.

Now, is there any kind of guide that tells me which faction is more harder with Small/Normal/Large/Huge?

Thank you in advice.

Caius

[Paradox]

You could check the line graph that represents the faction rankings in the faction overview and set the rankings based on military strength.

[CrazyGuy]

I'm confused. Why should unit size affect your success? Presumbably this is down to increased upkeep costs?

[Charge]

Well unit size affects population and by population. that means that factions with very low growth (eg germans), will be doomed by ai especially, coz it recruits units as fast as possible - never will upgrade cities, low quality troops, etc...
on small-size both grmans and egyptians can train xxx number of units withing fixed time, on huge germans will run out of pop., so nor armies, nor taxes...and territory they have needs lots of troops.

I have played only one campaign on medium, and it's the only campaign there germans managed to become real power btw :)

[Monsieur Alphonse]

This thread made me realize that on my old computer the Germans were much stronger than on my new one. I used to play with medium sized units and I now play on huge settings. This has a negative effect on the Germans and the Seleucid's.

[Lt. Pinard]

Ok so basically you make it harder for yourself by playung a slow growth, population wise, faction and have the unit size at huge.

[The Wandering Scholar]

On huge settings armies are much harder to move on the battlefield, yes especially barbarian towns run out of population quickly making it a steam-roller for Roman faction with large towns and wise micro-management. Upkeep costs and base costs will stay the same regardless.

[Quirinus]

Well unit size affects population and by population. that means that factions with very low growth (eg germans), will be doomed by ai especially, coz it recruits units as fast as possible - never will upgrade cities, low quality troops, etc...
on small-size both grmans and egyptians can train xxx number of units withing fixed time, on huge germans will run out of pop., so nor armies, nor taxes...and territory they have needs lots of troops.

I have played only one campaign on medium, and it's the only campaign there germans managed to become real power btw :)

Really? I always play on large unit scale, and the Germans always become a major continental power.

But yes, I've noticed that too-- the barbarians and especially the Germans lose momentum in a lengthy war. But that also means that when I finally captured their little hovel towns, their populations are pathetically low-- often in the 500-800 range. Resulting in my best general and his veteran legions babysitting it for a considerable period of time.

[Punicus]

The Germans on my game with Huge unit size are dominating Northern Europe, which is odd, because when I used to play on Large size they didn't have a chance against the might of the Britons. Perhaps the Britons are more affected by the hefty demands on population that Huge unit size has?

Quirinus, I feel the same regarding Barbarian towns. Sometimes the towns I already have are just too large and full of unrest for me to enslave just 1/2 of the population, so I'm forced to exterminate (they'd probably rebel otherwise, especially with my capture-and-move mentality). Not fun at all. But then again you could just send Peasants from your populated cities nearby and send them to that town for easing unrest, or disband them for extra population.

[Hannibalbarc]

Why do Barbarian towns have so little growth?

[Quirinus]

I guess maybe to reflect the fact that they are under-developed/-populated at the time of the start of the game.

The Germans on my game with Huge unit size are dominating Northern Europe, which is odd, because when I used to play on Large size they didn't have a chance against the might of the Britons. Perhaps the Britons are more affected by the hefty demands on population that Huge unit size has?

Really? That's odd, considering that the Britons should have the least problems among the barbarians, other than maybe the Spanish. The Britons have chariots-- elite units with small numbers. But I'm not sure. I never played as the Britons. In almost all the games I've played, the Britons usually dally a lot even with their numerous armies, and even then they tend to attack Gaul instead of Germania.

Quirinus, I feel the same regarding Barbarian towns. Sometimes the towns I already have are just too large and full of unrest for me to enslave just 1/2 of the population, so I'm forced to exterminate (they'd probably rebel otherwise, especially with my capture-and-move mentality). Not fun at all. But then again you could just send Peasants from your populated cities nearby and send them to that town for easing unrest, or disband them for extra population.

That's what I do too, but a strategy like that requires time, and really is more befitting of a slow, deliberate player like me. For example, it took me more than twenty years for Iuvavum to grow to pop:6000.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

... But then again you could just send Peasants from your populated cities nearby and send them to that town for easing unrest, or disband them for extra population.

Now that sounds like a exploit of the game cause AI will never do it!!
But then again .. I use this a lot when I want to boost the population some smaller settlements like Segesta or some barbarian towns

I play on large settings and seems like the barbarians can do pretty well .. britons always beats the germanians far away to the east .. so seems like the unit size do not have an effect for them .. at least in my games ...

[Charge]

I play on large settings and seems like the barbarians can do pretty well .. britons always beats the germanians far away to the east .. so seems like the unit size do not have an effect for them .. at least in my games ...

Germans are not barbarians ...? They have lesser pop growth (that's why stupid ai always build that one screeching-women shrine) and they suffer more than Britons from large size. Infact they should push Britons not the opposite.

[Quirinus]

Now that sounds like a exploit of the game cause AI will never do it!!

Haha, if exploits are defined as 'things the AI would never do', then I'm sure every single one of us would be guilty of exploiting.

I do it all the time-- not only to alleviate population pressures, but also to boost the growth of the slower towns. I hate seeing those barbarian round walls. Also, I think it makes the game a little more realistic. I see the upkeep and recruitment costs as incentives I dole out for citizens to move to the barbarian provinces.

[Good Ship Chuckle]

Enslaving can ameliorate populations depleted by huge unit size. Not by much however. Once you enslave a town, for the next 20 turns you will see a slave population boosting the population growth, under settlement details.

However for the hapless germans, enslaving Trier isn't going to do a whole lot.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Adding a grain export to trier should help out the northern towns

[Good Ship Chuckle]

Adding a grain export to trier should help out the northern towns

I think you're corporating some EB lingo into this thread for vanilla RTW. The term in vanilla is land clearance.

[The Wandering Scholar]

A grain resource then LIke Alexandria/ Syracuse

[Quirinus]

I think you're corporating some EB lingo into this thread for vanilla RTW. The term in vanilla is land clearance.

I don't think that's what he had in mind. He means like how Egypt or Sicily has grain exports.

Edit: Oops. Tom0 got here first.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Germans are not barbarians ...? They have lesser pop growth (that's why stupid ai always build that one screeching-women shrine) and they suffer more than Britons from large size. Infact they should push Britons not the opposite.

Sry .. I meant that barbarians - especially britons - can do pretty well ..
but germanians can win only on the hands of a player and not AI

[The Wandering Scholar]

Would grain work. I mean it will add a boost of population so with more population more warriors can be trained.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Would grain work. I mean it will add a boost of population so with more population more warriors can be trained.

Having the grain resource being imported/already existing in a region does boost population growth fairly dramatically.

Sadly the level of exports/imports are uncontrollable, so the population size can spiral out of control once the player/AI has moved out of the earlier stages and the population is growing faster than men can be conscripted. Also where the grain is exported to cannot be controlled, preventing you from directing it to the cities which are expanding much more slowly rather than the ones which don't really need it.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Hmm yh so somewhere like "home sweet home" should export around the neighbouring settlements which are all small. But if you put it in Damme or Londinium then that would spiral way out of control.

[Quirinus]

Though Tanais has grain imports too. Putting one in Domus Dulci Domus would mean that the whole northeastern region has grain imports. Pretty much defeats having low base population growth, no?

[The Wandering Scholar]

YH you have a point there, although low base rate pop growth is not what we want.

[Quirinus]

Yer, I guess. Just saying that it would sorta detract from the realism of the game. After all, it would be just weird for, say, Vicus Venedae to grow faster than, say, Alexandria or Carthage.

[The Wandering Scholar]

another good point