How to fight decadence

[Zornvel]

Ok how to fight decadence:
There are culture buildings that improve loyalty, if you click on the building it's the first thing that is written on the right side: you want this building -> high loyalty = low decadence
so build them early even if a region has high loyalty build them because it improves you kingdom loyalty at all.

Building that gives you - 0,20 decadence and so on don't decrease the decadence at all but there are other buildings that increase decadence (but there were also buildings that increase decadence but gives you loyalty)

so build first the minus decadence building than later the + decadence building with plus loyalty.
In the meantime put some people to work on culture this will also increase loyality.
Don't conquer to much at all -> new land means bigger empire = more decadence and other people who are not as loyal as yours so even more decadence.
Never choose a decision where it stand you get minus loyalty thats 90% of the time bad.

Loyalty is the key!

Edit: create provinces then the regions create less decadence so when you conquer go for right regions.

[pascal.difolco]

Originally posted by Gerd:

Originally posted by Zornvel:

actually it is very logical.
You win a war and think: I am the greatest -> decadence
You lose war and think: Now I suffer and I learned something from it.

LOL you joking right? So Rome should have not conquered Apulia and Syracuse and Carthago (and so on) to avoid 'decadence'? This is a game that forces you to play 'on rails' or you lose, simple like that

Well Rome was able to conquer the whole Med, but finally fell to decadence, civil wars, infighting, invasions...I 've not played that far but I think you can have that ingame ie manage to create a big Empire, but it's hard to keep it entire.

[Zornvel]

Originally posted by Gerd:

Originally posted by Zornvel:

actually it is very logical.
You win a war and think: I am the greatest -> decadence
You lose war and think: Now I suffer and I learned something from it.

LOL you joking right? So Rome should have not conquered Apulia and Syracuse and Carthago (and so on) to avoid 'decadence'? This is a game that forces you to play 'on rails' or you lose, simple like that

I still say winning makes the most people arrogant
You can conquer a lot of land but you have to develop you country befor that and during that, just if you win a war and take the land of someone else and make them slaves, do you think this will make them happy ? And this unhappy people lives on your land now.
Romes history is full of rebelions and civil wars, they did not rule their empire with force but with administrative power, later during the time of the soldier emperors, they had make a lot of victories but only in short run after a few years they lost everything again and a new rebelion appeared.
Even later in the history you will find very powerfull empires who stoped conquering land, why because they know that they could not control it in the long term.
It's not about winning a war it's about controling the land in the long term.

[BATTLEMODE]

Originally posted by Gerd:

Originally posted by Zornvel:

actually it is very logical.
You win a war and think: I am the greatest -> decadence
You lose war and think: Now I suffer and I learned something from it.

LOL you joking right? So Rome should have not conquered Apulia and Syracuse and Carthago (and so on) to avoid 'decadence'? This is a game that forces you to play 'on rails' or you lose, simple like that

This isn't the case at all. It nicely simulates the cyclical nature of the rise and fall of large empires. It stops the boring old 4x trope of map-painting and the steam-rolling of the game once you hit a certain point.

I think it's a really interesting and clever game design. How well it works in the long term remains to be seen but it looks good so far.

[Concerned West Virginia Resident]

Originally posted by Gerd:

Originally posted by Zornvel:

actually it is very logical.
You win a war and think: I am the greatest -> decadence
You lose war and think: Now I suffer and I learned something from it.

LOL you joking right? So Rome should have not conquered Apulia and Syracuse and Carthago (and so on) to avoid 'decadence'? This is a game that forces you to play 'on rails' or you lose, simple like that

So the objectives do feel like you get led by the nose, but in general, decadence aside, taking territory is nothing but benefit. You always get more gold, more manpower, more trade goods when you take territory. Also, taking territory gives you legacy. Taking cultural heartlands, even if they're not your objective, is very much worth it.

[Gerd]

Originally posted by (DGS)BATTLEMODE:

Originally posted by Gerd:

LOL you joking right? So Rome should have not conquered Apulia and Syracuse and Carthago (and so on) to avoid 'decadence'? This is a game that forces you to play 'on rails' or you lose, simple like that

This isn't the case at all. It nicely simulates the cyclical nature of the rise and fall of large empires. It stops the boring old 4x trope of map-painting and the steam-rolling of the game once you hit a certain point.

I think it's a really interesting and clever game design. How well it works in the long term remains to be seen but it looks good so far.

I disagree, it happens too quickly and if we are talking about Rome, the fall came after CENTURIES of conquest and domination

[PocusFR]

Also remember that each turn 10% of regional decadence is removed, this is why you can gobble progressively more land. But progressively, not frantically.

[欣怡 (Nathalie)]

Originally posted by Gerd:

Originally posted by (DGS)BATTLEMODE:

This isn't the case at all. It nicely simulates the cyclical nature of the rise and fall of large empires. It stops the boring old 4x trope of map-painting and the steam-rolling of the game once you hit a certain point.

I think it's a really interesting and clever game design. How well it works in the long term remains to be seen but it looks good so far.

I disagree, it happens too quickly and if we are talking about Rome, the fall came after CENTURIES of conquest and domination

Not really, if it happened too quickly then how did I build an empire stretching from Lybia to babylon in 130 turns as Ptolemy? Its only now Im feeling the decadence hit, but careful planning of culture, loyalty and conquest of important resources has helped me. I also have expanded as a way to deal with decadence by taking cities with large culture bonuses like Babylon. Its not easy but thats why its fun, and for every empire that rapidly expanded (like Rome) there were hundreds who collpased, one could even say Rome got lucky ALOT.

[欣怡 (Nathalie)]

Originally posted by Concerned West Virginia Resident:

Originally posted by Gerd:

LOL you joking right? So Rome should have not conquered Apulia and Syracuse and Carthago (and so on) to avoid 'decadence'? This is a game that forces you to play 'on rails' or you lose, simple like that

So the objectives do feel like you get led by the nose, but in general, decadence aside, taking territory is nothing but benefit. You always get more gold, more manpower, more trade goods when you take territory. Also, taking territory gives you legacy. Taking cultural heartlands, even if they're not your objective, is very much worth it.

Exactly, and Ive ignored most objectives, didnt stop me getting a Glorious Empire, so its not railroaded at all.

[Kipsta]

People act like decadance means game over. I've lost my capital multiple times in my campaign, had multiple civil wars and major cities revolts happening throughout the game ( I am in round ~300). Just fight your way back ffs.

AI Rome had like three usurper wars within 80 years. They always came out on top of it while waging war against a dozen tribes. It's actually interesting to see these kinds of results for once. Macedonia went on a crazy conquest spree, they owned everything from Greece to Persia. Now it has all collapsed, but Macedonia still holds onto some land. Losing (and recovering) can be fun in this game.

[欣怡 (Nathalie)]

Originally posted by Kipsta:

People act like decadance means game over. I've lost my capital multiple times in my campaign, had multiple civil wars and major cities revolts happening throughout the game ( I am in round ~300). Just fight your way back ffs.

AI Rome had like three usurper wars within 80 years. They always came out on top of it while waging war against a dozen tribes. It's actually interesting to see these kinds of results for once. Macedonia went on a crazy conquest spree, they owned everything from Greece to Persia. Now it has all collapsed, but Macedonia still holds onto some land. Losing (and recovering) can be fun in this game.

Exactly I think alot of people are treating this game like paint the map TW or Paradox, but thats not the goal, the goal is to get alot of points, and so you can acheive this even if your empire collpases, this game does a great job of simulating the rise and fall of nations.

[BATTLEMODE]

Originally posted by PocusFR:

Also remember that each turn 10% of regional decadence is removed, this is why you can gobble progressively more land. But progressively, not frantically.

Really? I missed that in the manual... excellent, that makes more sense now.

[欣怡 (Nathalie)]

Originally posted by (DGS)BATTLEMODE:

Originally posted by PocusFR:

Also remember that each turn 10% of regional decadence is removed, this is why you can gobble progressively more land. But progressively, not frantically.

Really? I missed that in the manual... excellent, that makes more sense now.

I think also, you have to accept you will lose wars, territory or maybe even suffer through a civil war, but you can always bounce back. No real world empire wasn't faced with major crisis at some point.