|
Because I was interested, I decided to do a game where I integrated every family with more than 10 members after taking out a country. After a certain point, it isn't cost effective to make 1-stack army generals/navy admirals to keep the scorned families happy; you're better off just clicking the "wages cost more" button on the economy screen and never worrying about loyalty (outside of events) again. I think there might be a cap on the number of families you can have as well, because I feel like when I browse through the character UI "show families" there aren't nearly enough scorned dudes, so here's the best way I can find to represent that noble's upsets don't mattterrrrrr.  Also doing a dictatorship, and...man, the benefits just don't seem worth the drawbacks unless you really want to RP.
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Half-wit posted:Because I was interested, I decided to do a game where I integrated every family with more than 10 members after taking out a country. Ah poo poo, you're right, I forgot about increased wages giving precisely enough loyalty gain to counter the scorned penalty. That'll be useful.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 12:58
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Ah poo poo, you're right, I forgot about increased wages giving precisely enough loyalty gain to counter the scorned penalty. That'll be useful. I find it's easy to forget about most of the economy buttons. For instance, in the early game you can safely have the increased commerce income button selected, because you're unlikely to have enough slaves anywhere for the +20% surplus requirement to matter. And for the brief moments where it does matter, switching back and forth is free. I also ride increased taxes when I'm a tribal nation with no research to speak of anyway. Just another obvious pleb tip for y'all. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 13:14 on May 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
I can't tell if I'm playing as the nation or the ruler. If I've got a powerful tribal elder with really good stats should I be trying to weaken him or trying to make him ruler?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
You're playing as the nation so you want the good stat guys to become your leader. But you don't want high stat guys with low loyalty to lead armies or provinces because they will start civil wars. e. In a tribe only the clan leaders can become the tribe Chief. Usually this selects for the character with the best stats anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 13:35
|
|
|
Yeah he's the heir currently. I thought maybe I could provoke him into rebelling and then just let him win, but looks like you're not allowed to lose a civil war. It feels a bit unsatisfying that I have to wait for my lovely ruler to die, while spending resources keeping this guy loyal when I'd much rather he took over.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
Thread already on the 4th page  MP has been surprisingly stable. Until we decided to give the hot join feature Paradox always brags about a shot, and instantly everyone went out of sync, all the alliances broke, etc. EDIT: Rehosts also take 30 minutes, even if you manually have the save downloaded, which is another regression from other Paradox games. Man. Don't buy this for a bit. Beamed fucked around with this message at 21:56 on May 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Was Phrygia a powerful successor state in this period? I don’t remember reading much about it but it always seems like it’s guaranteeing the whole of Greece.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
This game is so uninformative, it's really damaging it. So i had a disloyal clan chieftain, that was aiming for civil war. Everything was fine, until my king died, and 3 other chieftain died in rapid succession, leading this disloyal dude to have 50% of the nation cohorts. with 0 loyalty, i couldn't just bribe him either. So i could either prepare for civil war, or give him his own country. It did say he would form Maran, and take his family with him. but nowhere did it say what he would take. So i checked if it was a region, no, checked if it was a province, nope.. i search, and i find a single city named maran. With no other hints or clues, i think maybe he will take one city like the barbarians do, when you create a client state. so why not, better then a civil war right? So one click, no warning or eye opener to what he will get, this dude just take half my loving country, about 1/3 of the landmass. But not only that, the civil war countdown didn't stop somehow(maybe he took all the loyal provinces, i dont know), and a month later it breaks out, taking another 1/3 of my country with it. Not only didn't I prevent the civil war, but I lost twice the amount of land. not to mention the border gore. Btw, i was playing samartia, about 2500pops from english channel to the black sea, and this disloyal dude had about 150 cohort retinue. now i'm stuck with 700+, and one hell of a cleanup job to do... it looks like 3 nations fused together randomly.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Was Phrygia a powerful successor state in this period? I don’t remember reading much about it but it always seems like it’s guaranteeing the whole of Greece. Eh kind of. Technically Lysimachus ruled a tone of Asia- Minor close to where ingame Phrygia was, though from what I remember that fell apart quickly and Pergamon ended up being the main Anatolian power with the Seleucids ruling the other parts.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Good luck on your own personal crisis of the third century.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
More news from the game with all of the families. It appears that there is (at least a UI) cap on families of 125. Also, as a dictator, if all eligible family-members that could be heir die: it appears that the game creates an entirely new family for you! Hooray! I wish I'd taken screenshots of the family before and after the last heir died, but I didn't so I guess you'll all have to take my word on it. /shrug
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Was Phrygia a powerful successor state in this period? I don’t remember reading much about it but it always seems like it’s guaranteeing the whole of Greece. irl it lasted for 5 years from the game start and then got smashed and partitioned in 301 BC
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
 The save screen doesn't display the ironman icon, although it did the first few loads. Achievements have all become disabled. I am unable to use the console because I'm in ironman mode. IDGI.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Zohar posted:irl it lasted for 5 years from the game start and then got smashed and partitioned in 301 BC It makes me madder than it probably should that there is absolutely no way for a even vaguely historical outcome to happen even though it was very shortly after the start of the game and it would be easy to make it work almost exactly like Burgundy in EU4. They put in a super half assed revolt event which happens when Antigonus dies but it's extremely non-threatening, at worst they lose a couple of provinces. I know that a lot of people are super hostile to "railroading" but it's equally boring for Phyrgia to just sit with a giant army of feudatories doing nothing, if there were constant huge wars between the Diadochi I wouldn't mind so much that the historical outcome never happens. Though the Seleucids being a completely failed state in the majority of games is probably a bigger problem
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Eimi posted:I do think there should be more tension between the noble families and the state, because I guess if you had to boil down internal issues for a lot of the big players, the dynamic between people supporting the state and themselves drove a lot of that tension. That's why many societies developed as they did, trying to herd the nobles into making what's good for them good for the state, and the one's that imploded couldn't manage those tensions. I'd prefer CK style playing as a family, so that you are directly in that role, of perhaps not wanting to do what's best for Rome, but do what's best for your family, siphoning off funds, incurring tyranny by taking out rivals, that sort of thing. Or they could code the AI doing that, however if it wasn't an act you were in control of that would be insanely annoying. Or pointless, as all interactions that use a character's personal wealth do now. Yeah the more I think about it, I think the whole family vs state dynamic might be the best way to try and push this games mechanics going forward for PDX. It might make the game seem like a herding cats simulator if you as the player control the state and the nobles are constantly messing around and pushing agendas and plots, but that would be pretty close to how things were at the time. For all three types (Monarchies, Republics and the Clans/Tribes) families were the big basis of power and influence in society. I'm not sure if a CKII style family dynasty simulator is the way to implement it, but having the mechanism for game interaction be the families might be the best method for the game to really find its groove. Like one thing I've been mulling around, but I think would be interesting would be the rule that unless its your ruler leading an army, you can't directly lead a force (i.e tell it where and when to exactly move), you instead have to rely on others characters to meet objectives (giving a kind of quasi-HOI4 map painter and selector to pick where you WANT armies to go), but have to hope that the "glory seeking" general won't decide to attack another city because it'll give him more wealth or prestige. Conversely it also forces you to put your leader in the front lines since Kings/Consuls/Chiefs were supposed to lead their soldiers so not leading an army makes even more risk. This also helps introduce more uncertainty into monarchies since kings dying in battle happened enough that it caused a few succession issues in history. In terms of war it also can help add more fun uncertainty that some general won't pull a Ceaser and decide to expand waaaaay more further than they were supposed to, especially if they can implement some kind of character wealth mechanic that allows families or rich people to raise their own armies. With families too (for monarchies), the pretender system could be modified to that families are the "pretender" faction (say its your heir vs the 3 most prominent men of the most prominent families) since in real life usually this is what monarchies at this time had to juggle. These families need to be given positions since you need good staff for your empire but you need to juggle who goes where since that can help them out in any kind of succession crisis. Republic can do something similar with certain families favoring certain factions (like Catos family being warhawks, while the Gracchi were reform minded populists). Clans already kind of have this with each family having their own retainers. For culture, having families also helps neatly solve the issue of instant conversions too. In real life, quite frequently, people of other cultures in the ancient world ended up being ruled by someone else. Usually it wasn't much of a big deal, they just traded who they paid taxes too, so having families be the big culture focal point makes more sense (nobles were much much more concerned about blending in or resisting cultural changes so they could fit in or resist easier). For monarchies maybe having pro and cons for having families assimilate could be having foreigners in court is beneficial since you know they depend on your kings good graces, but you have the downside of them possibly plotting for their own peoples. For republics, maybe have voting be a cultural issue (like it was for the Romans).
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
Descar posted:This game is so uninformative, it's really damaging it. This just happened to me too. I thought I was givin a dude a city and he took the whole province. After he took the province, the civil war timer started tooking down because I had too many pops in disloyal provs/subjects despite both my remaining provs being at 100% loyalty and my brand new tributary (and only subject) being very happy with me. I don't get it
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:It makes me madder than it probably should that there is absolutely no way for a even vaguely historical outcome to happen even though it was very shortly after the start of the game and it would be easy to make it work almost exactly like Burgundy in EU4. They put in a super half assed revolt event which happens when Antigonus dies but it's extremely non-threatening, at worst they lose a couple of provinces. I know that a lot of people are super hostile to "railroading" but it's equally boring for Phyrgia to just sit with a giant army of feudatories doing nothing, if there were constant huge wars between the Diadochi I wouldn't mind so much that the historical outcome never happens. Weird, I've only played 3 campaigns so far and in all 3 Phrygia imploded pretty spectacularly. In two of those campaigns the Seleucids also… not quite imploded but definitely lost a lot of territory. Egypt however, sits there all game doing nothing but being stable as hell.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Game is fun, hail Macedon
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:Like one thing I've been mulling around, but I think would be interesting would be the rule that unless its your ruler leading an army, you can't directly lead a force (i.e tell it where and when to exactly move), you instead have to rely on others characters to meet objectives This sounds cool but right now the AI is super frustrating due to the decisions it makes. It constantly abandons sieges and I've seen a force of 64k refuse to engage a group of 90 total.The naval AI also ain't great. I can put it on independent operations and it won't ever leave port. The ships also won't pick up multiple units at once and will merge if they're on the same mission (which I don't want). As a result it is extremely fiddly and you basically need to remove AI control to guarantee they won't abandon sieges left and right. TTBF fucked around with this message at 23:45 on May 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Armenia AAR: 1. Got smaller 2. Got bigger 3. Got bigger 4. Got bigger 5. My king died? Might have missed a popup 6. Got bigger 7. Waiting for Seleucids to be vulnerable 8. Still waiting Fun!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:It makes me madder than it probably should that there is absolutely no way for a even vaguely historical outcome to happen even though it was very shortly after the start of the game and it would be easy to make it work almost exactly like Burgundy in EU4. They put in a super half assed revolt event which happens when Antigonus dies but it's extremely non-threatening, at worst they lose a couple of provinces. I know that a lot of people are super hostile to "railroading" but it's equally boring for Phyrgia to just sit with a giant army of feudatories doing nothing, if there were constant huge wars between the Diadochi I wouldn't mind so much that the historical outcome never happens. Based on the wikipedia articles for the historical era, at the game's start date Phrygia should already be in the middle of a war with Macedon and Thrace and fighting on fronts in both Greece and northern Anatolia. A year or two later, the Seleucids would come in with 1,000 Indian elephants courtesy of his son-in-law Chandragupta and EUIV Burgundy them. But not exactly, because the Phrygian heir Demetrius would survive in exile and then through a series of elaborate shenanigans become the king of Macedon, which makes the Antigonids the dynasty that ruled there for the rest of the Hellenistic era. So it's a pretty convoluted situation, but having Phrygia start at war with Thrace and Macedon may help make things more dynamic (Also, maybe make Pergamon exist as a vassal of Phrygia from the start rather than a poorly auto-named breakaway from that one dynamic event). BTW, are there any good books out there that review the whole Diadochi / Early Hellenistic period?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
The reason that Macedon and Thrace don't start at war with Phrygia is almost certainly because Phrygia would roll the gently caress out of them without even trying. Thrace and Macedon have way more raw manpower for their respective sizes but lack the funds to actually pay for a large army, meanwhile Phrygia has a relatively small manpower pool but can actually afford a decently sized army and also has a ton of vassals assisting them. Also Paradox game AI has traditionally had a really bad time dealing with being at war on day 1 of the campaign. If you had the Seleucids in there as well then things are a lot more balanced and Phrygia would probably lose most of the time
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 08:27
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Though the Seleucids being a completely failed state in the majority of games is probably a bigger problem My Tylos ->Babylon run would be a whole lot harder if the Seleucids didn't collapse into a couple dozen warring kingdoms.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 09:44
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:Like one thing I've been mulling around, but I think would be interesting would be the rule that unless its your ruler leading an army, you can't directly lead a force (i.e tell it where and when to exactly move), you instead have to rely on others characters to meet objectives (giving a kind of quasi-HOI4 map painter and selector to pick where you WANT armies to go), but have to hope that the "glory seeking" general won't decide to attack another city because it'll give him more wealth or prestige. This would probably be a good idea. I strongly suspect that they wanted to do something like that even in HoI4: that game seems to be very hostile to player attempts to microcontrol armies (you lose all preparation bonus IIRC). I'd argue that it would be much more interesting and player-friendly if you couldn't control your armies, they say it plays much more interesting that way and is even somewhat realistic. Contrary to what people think even when Hitlers had told his generals to do dumb poo poo he didn't micromanage specific divisions, he painted a new frontline on the map. But imagine the fan uproar. I bet that lack of control over your armies would make people very angry. Indeed it would give you a plausible Caesar situation and you'll have much more reasons to use your ruler as a general. It will make you think about your general traits - maybe he's greedy and just walks around enemy territory looting all, maybe he's honourable and wants to fight the enemy even if the position is unfaourable. It would even out the playfield against AI - even though military side of it is fine, I think. There's a hope they'll implement something like that in the future and make it an option.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 10:12
|
|
|
My first thought is that the culture and religion being such an important destabilizing factor in this game causes historically successful multi-cultural entities to be unstable and weak and historically failed entities with homogeneous culture to be overly stable and powerful. I really wish culture and religion didn't have this role in the game, as it feels completely at odds with the period and much more at home in Europa Universalis. It feels weird that Imperator has culture as much more important than Crusader Kings. I get that a mechanism is needed to slow down expansion and conquest, but I'd much prefer if this was done by having to invest in establishing administrative and military control - and by making governors of rich provinces a stronger potential threat. Currently generals are much more dangerous than governors, which seems like something more suited to the later imperial period.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 10:12
|
|
|
Why do you think culture and religion shouldn't be as important? I guess it's a little strange that culture and religion are separated in this period but it looks like a future-proof thing: the game already has cults that are prominent by the end of the game, and as the state religion is important it would only make sense for POPs to have it too. I know that this period is often portrayed as multi-ethnic, but still, it's the time when people were segregated because of their culture both in Rome and Greece at the very least. It's a time when most nations considered everybody else barbarians.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 10:23
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:BTW, are there any good books out there that review the whole Diadochi / Early Hellenistic period? Check out "Ghost on the Throne" by James Romm.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 11:19
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Why do you think culture and religion shouldn't be as important? Because it hurts gameplay (by messing up which nations are stable/unstable) and flavor (the cultural and religious conversion of entire populations). It doesn't add anything. I do agree that there were cultural conflicts - but these were based on (perceived) level of civilization and tribalization more than anything. Dalmatian tribes which rebelled against the Romans in real life, would have been unruly just as easily under a Greek or Etrurian overlord. The Romans never needed to convert the Egyptian population. There are tons of examples from history that cultural "compatibility" just wasn't an important aspect of the period. It's currently way too easy currently to absorb massive tribal populations. These were extremely volatile in history and while they contributed important manpower to various empires, they were also the source of much trouble. Keeping them under control should require forts and armies. On the other hand it's too difficult to make conquered civilized cities and provinces productive and loyal. Taxation and autonomy should be much more important factors than culture when it comes to civilized conquests. It feels like the game backports the culture/stability mechanics of much later (EU-era) fledgling nation-states rather than utilize the unique characteristics of the ancient world. CK2 does a great job at making culture and religion relevant, but in a very different way than in EU. Imperator suffers from having (imo) pretty anachronistic mechanics. It's the same for subject states and vassals. They feel like EU mechanics - and I miss any attempt to represent colonies, municipia, foederati, etc. I guess I'm somewhat disappointed the effort to make the game a good map painter and well-paced multi-player game seems to have trumped any desire to add era-specific flavor. But I'm also sure mods and expansions will fix this in time. Edit: Mercenaries are another mechanic that feel weirdly game and anachronistic. Where are my Auxilia?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/imperator-development-diary-13th-of-may-2019.1176811/ New devdiary. Co-councils and ruler spouses, special government actions, civil wars. A lot of stuff here. Seems that this patch is a long time in the works.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 11:41
|
|
|
I really like the Power Base mechanic. Much better than loyal cohorts.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 11:47
|
|
|
PederP posted:Because it hurts gameplay (by messing up which nations are stable/unstable) and flavor (the cultural and religious conversion of entire populations). It doesn't add anything. I do agree that there were cultural conflicts - but these were based on (perceived) level of civilization and tribalization more than anything. Dalmatian tribes which rebelled against the Romans in real life, would have been unruly just as easily under a Greek or Etrurian overlord. The Romans never needed to convert the Egyptian population. There are tons of examples from history that cultural "compatibility" just wasn't an important aspect of the period. It can probably be handwaved with the fact that Romans used local puppet governors often which in-game rules help with cultural incompatibility. And Romans should not be considered as the only example; we have Alexander's empire where he famously dreamed of a cultural melting pot and thus saw culture differences as a problem. Successor states have happened not because of cultural differences but each of those states had to adapt to local culture. Before that, Middle Eastern conquerors like Assyrians saw necessary relocating people so that they don't have a cultural power base. Also, why do you say it's easier to convert tribes, is it just cause cities are more populated? I'm not very knowledgeable in the period but as I see it barbarians of Iberia and Gaul were "converted" relatively quickly while people in Middle East and Egypt kept their identity. And rebellion is not the only measure of culture tensions, it's also about the allowed level of autonomy. Jewish and Armenian cultures had lived on, while no one remembers Belges and Suebi. Not that I'm saying that it proves that culture conversion worked just like it's portrayed in the game, but I don't see this approximation quite as problematic. If I would change anything it would be a balance of that stuff. Maybe I'd make it so that converting or assimilating someone of both alien religion and culture would be more costly so that you have to chose between spending more religious or oratory power. Maybe add a timer so that conversion required at least some symbolic time.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 11:53
|
|
|
Beamed posted:
Yeah, this felt like a real step back from previous games. Thoughts from playing more last night: When playing a monarchy, it would be really great to have some more alerts when your kids come of age, before you realise your heir is 30 and you've not married him off yet, and some form of browser for looking for spouses outside your country? It's such a big part of royal relations in the Hellenistic East at this time, marrying off daughters to various rivals/friends/minor powers. Please, let me have a button to press that says 'I want to found a big city named after me' in this province, which over time moves pops towards that single province/creates citizens etc. City foundation/refoundation/synoecism is one of *the* features of the regional and local experience of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. (see, for the most recent published scholarship, the excellent City and Empire in the Age of the Successors by Ryan Boehm) (Speaking of province names, there's an awful lot of places named after Roman emperors who won't be born yet for 500 years at the start of the game. I will literally send Paradox scans of the necessary maps they need if it gets rid of bloody Diocletianopolis) In the longer run, there really needs to be some mechanic to stop the Successor states swallowing up the Greek city states and other minor kingdoms so quickly. Ultimately the story of the Greek East in this period are the twin and linked processes of increasing fragmentation/regionalisation and the arrival of the Romans on the stage. Macedon should not be swallowing the Peloponnese whole in a decade. ilitarist posted:It can probably be handwaved with the fact that Romans used local puppet governors often which in-game rules help with cultural incompatibility. And Romans should not be considered as the only example; we have Alexander's empire where he famously dreamed of a cultural melting pot and thus saw culture differences as a problem. This is a quite out-of-fashion view of Alexander's policies these days. Though scholarship is probably swinging back away from the trend of 20/30 years ago of Alexander the brutal conqueror which was itself a reaction to ALEXANDER THE GLORIOUS UNIFIER OF MANKIND Astroclassicist fucked around with this message at 12:02 on May 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 11:59
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Also, why do you say it's easier to convert tribes, is it just cause cities are more populated? The base happiness of tribesmen is 100%. You can conquer a big bunch of tribesmen pops and move on to something else. Historically, the tribes of conquered provinces were a huge source of problems. Whereas subjugated cities were much more docile. (The tribes were also an excellent source of military strength for Rome and rivals alike). Example: Rome conquers Illyria and Dalmatia. The cities with citizens and freemen will be unhappy and unproductive until converted to (hellenistic) romans. The tribal populations of "cities" will be close to or at 100% and immediately provide manpower and a bit of tax. So as a player you will convert the citizen and freemen first. You never really need to worry about the tribesmen. This should be the other way around! The citizens and freemen should be an economic boost right away, while the tribesmen should require constant military presence to avoid them rising up and breaking things. Rome should be colonizing Dalmatia and creating Roman citizens/freemen representing the various settlements and fortifications being created. Perhaps building a marketplace, fort, etc. should spawn a new Roman pop. Currently it's this weirdly anachronistic conquest followed by assimilation (in an insanely short time span) and slow shuffling around of pops. It's very very gamey. Much more so than other Paradox games, that while certainly abstracted and not entirely realistic, have a much closer connection to historic reality. PederP fucked around with this message at 12:08 on May 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
I was also reductionist, of course. I meant that Alexander was either personally fascinated by the cultures of the Middle East or thought that he and his people should adapt to it if they want to rule. Either case, he's a good example that culture did matter. The many examples of ancient people who do not care about the culture we find are nobles and intellectuals, but those people always cared about power and ideas more. Even in the nationalist era of the 18-20th centuries, there were plenty of mercenaries and people switching allegiances among elites. So I'd ignore how nonchalant was Alexander about agreeing to become an Egyptian god and concentrate more on how he wanted/needed/planned a melting pot of sorts. Or perhaps how Roman people were angry about Caesar and Mark Antonius supposedly abandoning Roman ways and seduced by Egyptian crocodile gods - not sure how wide spread this concern was, but the fact is that we know of it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 12:12
|
|
|
PederP posted:The base happiness of tribesmen is 100%. You can conquer a big bunch of tribesmen pops and move on to something else. Historically, the tribes of conquered provinces were a huge source of problems. Whereas subjugated cities were much more docile. (The tribes were also an excellent source of military strength for Rome and rivals alike). Yeah, I see a problem in that tribesmen do not really care about who rules them until baths and forums and theaters appear in the city. But I think tribesmen are supposed to be just a dead weight for an advanced civilizations. You don't get laws or techs that improve tribes production. Maybe the idea is that they sit in their villages and have almost no interactions with supposed conquerors?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 12:16
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Yeah, I see a problem in that tribesmen do not really care about who rules them until baths and forums and theaters appear in the city. But I think tribesmen are supposed to be just a dead weight for an advanced civilizations. You don't get laws or techs that improve tribes production. Maybe the idea is that they sit in their villages and have almost no interactions with supposed conquerors? That may be the idea, but they still provide manpower and taxes while sitting in those villages. And they should care about who rules them - ideally they shouldn't be culture-convertible at all and continually make trouble unless local garrisons deter them. Making them dead weight is completely at odds with history and (imo) makes for worse gameplay. Tribesmen present a viable alternative to the much-maligned conversion spamming for making territorial expansion bothersome. The current system is great for a boardgame-like map-painter - but there are better solutions for a grand strategy game. Some of which don't require massive overhauls of the game. But they would make it a game with a much bigger focus on internal empire management - while the design goal seems to have the opposite: Minimize internal management and make the game suitable for multiplayer and focusing on wars. But as I mentioned I think mods and expansions will fix this eventually. Currently it's just very much a game that looks to be made for casual MP games more than grumpy grognards of a similar disposition to me. And that's probably a good business decision.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
Good stuff in that patch. Personal wealth actually having relevance will make a lot of decisions a lot more interesting
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 12:35
|
|
|
Culture conversion should be able to cause revolts. I’m not sure about other groups of people but attempts to hellenize/romanize the Jewish people ultimately failed and caused massive loving wars.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
guns for tits posted:Culture conversion should be able to cause revolts. I’m not sure about other groups of people but attempts to hellenize/romanize the Jewish people ultimately failed and caused massive loving wars. They were converted by governor policy which raises unrest. Things would be much better if Tiberius spent his religious points wisely and dealt with all those Jewish shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 16:08
|
|