Unit Size

[Defmonkey]

What unit size is the intended balance for this remastered game?

[Reinhardt Von Helbrecht]

its all pretty much the same but you can edit it in the files to change the units to whatever size you like with a base of 40 the option in game determines the sizes based off 40

[Defmonkey]

OK. I noticed the game starts you off at High. Or at least in my case. I'm assuming the game has been balanced around that. That seems to be 40 in my case, unless that's been over ridden by the tutorial settings.

[Jambie Lionheart]

Define balanced? Do you make combat balanced or game performance balanced?

[Defmonkey]

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

Define balanced? Do you make combat balanced or game performance balanced?

There tends to be a default size the developer prioritises over the others. It varies from game to game in TW, The numbers in a unit can affect balance, both on the campaign and battles as well as game performance. This can be quite significant in some titles.

I tried giving the tutorial a go and it caps you at 40 man units. This is the medium setting from what i can tell. This carried over into the game when i continued after completing the tutorial turns.

Starting another campaign has reset me back to my original default "high" setting that has 80 man units. There are the ultra and extreme settings above that.

Normally i just dial TW games up to ultra. What i wasnt sure of was whether there were any adverse effects in doing so in this remaster. For example, when you recruit a unit the number of soldiers comes directly out of your population. Recruit too many, no population, crash economy, stall campaign. If you follow, seems like that's not the case from my playing around with it.

in battle it can affect how your units behave and the way the game feels. More men, longer battle lines, more distance to travel across your forces and many other factors. The 40 man setting i was initially set with has made the game really snappy and feels quick and punchy, it actually feels really good to play, as really gets rid of (or at least reduces the frequency of) some of the games latent issues with pathfinding and units sticking on things. though not much of a spectacle. Will probably dial it up along with the difficulty.

[Jambie Lionheart]

Nguyên văn bởi Defmonkey:

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

Define balanced? Do you make combat balanced or game performance balanced?

There tends to be a default size the developer prioritises over the others. It varies from game to game in TW, The numbers in a unit can affect balance, both on the campaign and battles as well as game performance. This can be quite significant in some titles.

I tried giving the tutorial a go and it caps you at 40 man units. This is the medium setting from what i can tell. This carried over into the game when i continued after completing the tutorial turns.

Starting another campaign has reset me back to my original default "high" setting that has 80 man units. There are the ultra and extreme settings above that.

Normally i just dial TW games up to ultra. What i wasnt sure of was whether there were any adverse effects in doing so in this remaster. For example, when you recruit a unit the number of soldiers comes directly out of your population. Recruit too many, no population, crash economy, stall campaign. If you follow, seems like that's not the case from my playing around with it.

in battle it can affect how your units behave and the way the game feels. More men, longer battle lines, more distance to travel across your forces and many other factors. The 40 man setting i was initially set with has made the game really snappy and feels quick and punchy, it actually feels really good to play, as really gets rid of (or at least reduces the frequency of) some of the games latent issues with pathfinding and units sticking on things. though not much of a spectacle. Will probably dial it up along with the difficulty.

I see what you mean :)

K, well I can definitely recommend not even attempted experimental then (but only if siege battle is important to you, otherwise, this doesn't reallllly matter in the grand scheme of things, otherwise it's quite fun). Pathfinding is REALLY bad inside cities on experimental and it can cause crashes. I don't think they're (the devs) are gunna fine tune it any further either. I swear I'd buy a mod that fixed these issues. Of course they'd get copy righted into oblivion by the devs though...

Anyways, if you're including campaign map dynamic too, then in the original game, the large and huge army size (80 and 160 inf unit size for Romans) has the best balance. I always prefered 160 myself. It was the only thing I could do to counter the squalor :D but battles also felt pathetic with anything less than 160 too. At least to me. It's mostly preference here.

40 man inf units for Rome is the standard. But 40 man units make almost no difference to economy even in the early game. Might not even be noticeable. Small is just for people that still use window 98. Otherwise why are you even playing? :D

Purely from a battle interaction perspective, unit size is purely about how long you want the battle to last. Larger units equal longer battles. This mattered way more in the original game than it does in the remaster. In remaster, the difference is much smaller though still noticable. Has a pretty big effect on unit reaction times too which is considerably more noticeable in the remaster compared to original. Late reactions are more severly punished. Especially on phalanx and cavalry units.

Also worth noting that even on ultra (which is just huge size for original game, so gimicky) the pathfinding can also be a little lax in cities but it's way better than experimental. Phalanx navigation still sucks though. They're a mess no matter what. I haven't tested pathfinding on lower size settings. I don't even want to try. If they ♥♥♥♥♥♥ it up that badly I might just send them Taliban style Christmas presents.

[Defmonkey]

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

I see what you mean :)

K, well I can definitely recommend not even attempted experimental then (but only if siege battle is important to you, otherwise, this doesn't reallllly matter in the grand scheme of things, otherwise it's quite fun). Pathfinding is REALLY bad inside cities on experimental and it can cause crashes. I don't think they're (the devs) are gunna fine tune it any further either. I swear I'd buy a mod that fixed these issues. Of course they'd get copy righted into oblivion by the devs though...

Alright, well having played the remastered game a bit and from the input received so far i would say i have a better idea now. Appreciate the feedback / input.

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

Anyways, if you're including campaign map dynamic too, then in the original game, the large and huge army size (80 and 160 inf unit size for Romans) has the best balance. I always prefered 160 myself. It was the only thing I could do to counter the squalor :D but battles also felt pathetic with anything less than 160 too. At least to me. It's mostly preference here.

40 man inf units for Rome is the standard. But 40 man units make almost no difference to economy even in the early game. Might not even be noticeable. Small is just for people that still use window 98. Otherwise why are you even playing? :D

Yeah i remember playing through the original game though im going back to release so +20 years ago now. Things and tech have changed alot since then so was interesting to see how the remaster had fared.

Interesting you mentioned about squalor, since its been a while.... i do recall making armies of peasants / town militia to "forcibly" migrate populations to other areas. I had completely forgotten about that.

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

Purely from a battle interaction perspective, unit size is purely about how long you want the battle to last. Larger units equal longer battles. This mattered way more in the original game than it does in the remaster. In remaster, the difference is much smaller though still noticable. Has a pretty big effect on unit reaction times too which is considerably more noticeable in the remaster compared to original. Late reactions are more severly punished. Especially on phalanx and cavalry units.

Also worth noting that even on ultra (which is just huge size for original game, so gimicky) the pathfinding can also be a little lax in cities but it's way better than experimental. Phalanx navigation still sucks though. They're a mess no matter what. I haven't tested pathfinding on lower size settings. I don't even want to try. If they ♥♥♥♥♥♥ it up that badly I might just send them Taliban style Christmas presents.

Hmmm. Alright, well might give it a go to see how it controls, feels very good with Roman legions at least. Though will try the bigger sizes going forward. At the moment im finding the game rather easy... as Julii ive smashed the Gauls by turn 20 and nearly eradicated the Britons and Dacians by turn 30.

[Jambie Lionheart]

Nguyên văn bởi Defmonkey:

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

I see what you mean :)

K, well I can definitely recommend not even attempted experimental then (but only if siege battle is important to you, otherwise, this doesn't reallllly matter in the grand scheme of things, otherwise it's quite fun). Pathfinding is REALLY bad inside cities on experimental and it can cause crashes. I don't think they're (the devs) are gunna fine tune it any further either. I swear I'd buy a mod that fixed these issues. Of course they'd get copy righted into oblivion by the devs though...

Alright, well having played the remastered game a bit and from the input received so far i would say i have a better idea now. Appreciate the feedback / input.

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

Anyways, if you're including campaign map dynamic too, then in the original game, the large and huge army size (80 and 160 inf unit size for Romans) has the best balance. I always prefered 160 myself. It was the only thing I could do to counter the squalor :D but battles also felt pathetic with anything less than 160 too. At least to me. It's mostly preference here.

40 man inf units for Rome is the standard. But 40 man units make almost no difference to economy even in the early game. Might not even be noticeable. Small is just for people that still use window 98. Otherwise why are you even playing? :D

Yeah i remember playing through the original game though im going back to release so +20 years ago now. Things and tech have changed alot since then so was interesting to see how the remaster had fared.

Interesting you mentioned about squalor, since its been a while.... i do recall making armies of peasants / town militia to "forcibly" migrate populations to other areas. I had completely forgotten about that.

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

Purely from a battle interaction perspective, unit size is purely about how long you want the battle to last. Larger units equal longer battles. This mattered way more in the original game than it does in the remaster. In remaster, the difference is much smaller though still noticable. Has a pretty big effect on unit reaction times too which is considerably more noticeable in the remaster compared to original. Late reactions are more severly punished. Especially on phalanx and cavalry units.

Also worth noting that even on ultra (which is just huge size for original game, so gimicky) the pathfinding can also be a little lax in cities but it's way better than experimental. Phalanx navigation still sucks though. They're a mess no matter what. I haven't tested pathfinding on lower size settings. I don't even want to try. If they ♥♥♥♥♥♥ it up that badly I might just send them Taliban style Christmas presents.

Hmmm. Alright, well might give it a go to see how it controls, feels very good with Roman legions at least. Though will try the bigger sizes going forward. At the moment im finding the game rather easy... as Julii ive smashed the Gauls by turn 20 and nearly eradicated the Britons and Dacians by turn 30.

Indeed. I honestly think Squalor was the final boss. I didn't use the peasant method cuz it felt kinda cheaty and way back then, 12 year old me just wanted all the shiny shields and helmets I could get. When they inevitably revolted I'd just crush the rebel army and decimate the cities population. Later learnt that was a really good way or getting them to eventually stabalize (because eventually pop growth reaches 0.0% (sidenote: It does not work if settlement is too far away from capital)).

The remaster is actually better than not being able to play it at all and the original game was reaching that unplayable point in it's shelf life in my humble opinion. There's just so many oversights and so much laziness on the devs teams part with this one I can't quite forgive it. They made endless battles a non-thing now but they've made siege battle damn near unplayable because of the pathfinding issues. They'd have to resize all of the cities to correct it at this point, I'd say, or maybe even a remodel from the ground up. They didn't even bother adding any sort of variation to maps. No new battle maps, no expansion of original campaign map, no new units and what was a once fine balance is gone forever. They killed the luster as far as I'm concerned.

[jrregan]

Not oversights by the TWRR dev's design limitations and funding due to a set project goal. They did what they could with that master plan. It was designed to reach multi-platform OS's and there has to be concessions with that in mind. They did what they could with the budget and time allocated. IIRC the quirks of both kinda intertwine. You can tell in TWRR's falloff that 2.0.5 wasn't even a planned version as almost all the online and help files peg at 2.0.4 and prior. The dev's did a hell of job sticking to community concerns and faith to that project post pulled plug.

The peasant merc army's and forced relocation was the best solution in RTW as mentioned above. In TWRR I have found out that Hastati factory's for the larger cities is the best. Can't really get a grip on the population in high growth cities if you EVER build farm infrastructure though. Manage that Hates Farming leader well. A much repayable and enjoyable game.

[Defmonkey]

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

Indeed. I honestly think Squalor was the final boss. I didn't use the peasant method cuz it felt kinda cheaty and way back then, 12 year old me just wanted all the shiny shields and helmets I could get. When they inevitably revolted I'd just crush the rebel army and decimate the cities population. Later learnt that was a really good way or getting them to eventually stabalize (because eventually pop growth reaches 0.0% (sidenote: It does not work if settlement is too far away from capital)).

Yeah it added to the late game management. Ive not played the Barbarian Invasion remastered yet. I seem to recall that campaign had you starting with the late game issues to resolve from turn 1. Especially the Western Roman Empire. Will give that a go whenever i get round to it.

I'm a bit early in game at the moment to assess the remastered version on the squalor system and how it behaves. Though yeah i never felt the relocation thing as cheating before :) I did it originally to stimulate growth in towns that were taking too long to develop, as a side affect i realized it helped to slow down the issues in the bigger cities. Just considered them willing participants lol.

Otherwise you just need have a local army on standby covering multiple provinces to police with your town watch and smash the revolts if they become a factor. Demolishing the growth buildings is another consideration but don't seem to recall doing that before personally. So will keep that option in the toolbox.

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

The remaster is actually better than not being able to play it at all and the original game was reaching that unplayable point in it's shelf life in my humble opinion. There's just so many oversights and so much laziness on the devs teams part with this one I can't quite forgive it. They made endless battles a non-thing now but they've made siege battle damn near unplayable because of the pathfinding issues. They'd have to resize all of the cities to correct it at this point, I'd say, or maybe even a remodel from the ground up. They didn't even bother adding any sort of variation to maps. No new battle maps, no expansion of original campaign map, no new units and what was a once fine balance is gone forever. They killed the luster as far as I'm concerned.

Didn't realise i would get the original games with the remastered purchase, didn't read the store page, just had the game on wish-list for when there was a discount. Must of bought this game like 3 times now so already had reasonably good idea what i was purchasing. :)

My first impressions have been positive so far. There are some things i'm noticing that are starting to arise but i don't think these are issues with the remaster itself, i seem to recall these being annoyances that i had with the original game.

- The realistic city management - i really don't understand what its trying to achieve other than to annoy the player. Having an auto-build system is fine i think for those that want that function, however it constantly resets the tax rate to low, meaning the player has to manually reset it every turn. I cant see any point not having the tax rate at very high at all times and not change it until you drop below "disillusioned" happiness state. Im finding growth in general not an issue.

- The character traits - these make absolutely no sense for those you use as governors. For Generals its pretty easy, win fights get better traits. For governors you always seem to end up with them getting a slew of bad traits and not always clear why. Im sure i read somewhere that if you had over 50k in the bank and built certain buildings it would increase negative trait roll. - IF, thats true, thats pretty silly. Some of my generals ive just decided to park outside the settlements now to reduce the negative trait drops. Not tried making specialist administrators, i.e. one building farms, one building ports / trade etc. then just shuffle them around as needed. Just encourages you to do weird behavior for your generals and potentially avoid building certain stuff, if it was just random chance and luck to roleplay then wouldnt of been so bad.

- The adoption candidate spamming. i really dislike that notification. Remember this from Med 2 as well. Probably can switch off somewhere but really wished they had a better system for the adoption aspect.


Ive seen alot of people complain about the UI, personally im a bit indifferent about it. Its a bit in your face and a little bit "busy", but i think the old one was pretty outdated anyway. I do like that we have choice for the modern controls though, the old system is pretty antiquated and the new systems are definitely an improvement.

Oh, and the merchant is a nice touch.

[Defmonkey]

Nguyên văn bởi jrregan:

The peasant merc army's and forced relocation was the best solution in RTW as mentioned above. In TWRR I have found out that Hastati factory's for the larger cities is the best. Can't really get a grip on the population in high growth cities if you EVER build farm infrastructure though. Manage that Hates Farming leader well. A much repayable and enjoyable game.

Lol yeah that could be a negative trait that turns out to be a positive thing :)

Though late game you would have different units. Hastati will be replaced after Marius event if recall. Yet to get to Marius event yet. But guess it doesnt matter as long as its a unit and you have the resources to pay for it.

[Jambie Lionheart]

Nguyên văn bởi Defmonkey:

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

snip

Yeah it added to the late game management. Ive not played the Barbarian Invasion remastered yet. I seem to recall that campaign had you starting with the late game issues to resolve from turn 1. Especially the Western Roman Empire. Will give that a go whenever i get round to it.

I'm a bit early in game at the moment to assess the remastered version on the squalor system and how it behaves. Though yeah i never felt the relocation thing as cheating before :) I did it originally to stimulate growth in towns that were taking too long to develop, as a side affect i realized it helped to slow down the issues in the bigger cities. Just considered them willing participants lol.

Otherwise you just need have a local army on standby covering multiple provinces to police with your town watch and smash the revolts if they become a factor. Demolishing the growth buildings is another consideration but don't seem to recall doing that before personally. So will keep that option in the toolbox.

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

snip

Didn't realise i would get the original games with the remastered purchase, didn't read the store page, just had the game on wish-list for when there was a discount. Must of bought this game like 3 times now so already had reasonably good idea what i was purchasing. :)

My first impressions have been positive so far. There are some things i'm noticing that are starting to arise but i don't think these are issues with the remaster itself, i seem to recall these being annoyances that i had with the original game.

- The realistic city management - i really don't understand what its trying to achieve other than to annoy the player. Having an auto-build system is fine i think for those that want that function, however it constantly resets the tax rate to low, meaning the player has to manually reset it every turn. I cant see any point not having the tax rate at very high at all times and not change it until you drop below "disillusioned" happiness state. Im finding growth in general not an issue.

- The character traits - these make absolutely no sense for those you use as governors. For Generals its pretty easy, win fights get better traits. For governors you always seem to end up with them getting a slew of bad traits and not always clear why. Im sure i read somewhere that if you had over 50k in the bank and built certain buildings it would increase negative trait roll. - IF, thats true, thats pretty silly. Some of my generals ive just decided to park outside the settlements now to reduce the negative trait drops. Not tried making specialist administrators, i.e. one building farms, one building ports / trade etc. then just shuffle them around as needed. Just encourages you to do weird behavior for your generals and potentially avoid building certain stuff, if it was just random chance and luck to roleplay then wouldnt of been so bad.

- The adoption candidate spamming. i really dislike that notification. Remember this from Med 2 as well. Probably can switch off somewhere but really wished they had a better system for the adoption aspect.


Ive seen alot of people complain about the UI, personally im a bit indifferent about it. Its a bit in your face and a little bit "busy", but i think the old one was pretty outdated anyway. I do like that we have choice for the modern controls though, the old system is pretty antiquated and the new systems are definitely an improvement.

Oh, and the merchant is a nice touch.

I ain't dared try BI yet. Honestly might not. Just because I dread to think what they've done to it. Back in the day it was quite fun though. and first turns as either Roman empire, but especially the western empire are tricky for sure. You're likely have half of your empire rebel on you as the barbarians draw in like constrictor. But it's not so bad once you know how to deal with it. It mostly about deciding what to sacrifice and going with it. I've no idea how the new balancing has affected that though. Wouldn't mind playing Saxons again one day though >: ] I'm lying, I'll probably give it a go at some point, if only to satisfy my curiosity. Just ain't gotten around to completing my scipii campaign in RR:TW yet.

How the squalor system behaves is dependant on what games settings you're using. You're either in the remasters or 'original' version. You can even mix the two by picking and choose features from each at game set up. If you didn't touch those settings then the default to begin with is the remaster. In that one... if memory serves, all unit sizes draw the same number of people from settlements regardless or size. I do remember hating the new way because I liked being able to influence population growth by recruitment.

THe worst rebellions were always those garrisons that had gold everything when they spawned :D Even the peasants were rather annoying to go up against on a wall that way
>: ] Onagers did work on those days. Oh did you know blockading ports now hits on public order of it's parent settlement? >: ] IF its on BI we can abuse the ♥♥♥♥ of this. Western Empire will fall fast to players now.

I used city management option once. I never turned it on again :D I just made up this self imposed rule that I can't expand into new territory unless I have a spare general (with spare meaning more than one governor (not including dedicated generals) per settlement). Harder than you think. Can make for REALLY long campaigns though. It's also a way to somewhat combat squalor.
BUUUUUT... did you know you can actually turn off the auto-tax adjustment thing? Go to finance screen in the overview window. There should be an option that says something about auto setting the tax levels for each settlement. Turning that off will allow you to adjust specifically taxes yourself or set blanket tax level for all settlements. You can even turn off auto build so govenorless settlements will just build nothing in their absense.

I don't think the remaster was as bad for the spam and while I don't really mind the UI either I don't find it nearly as immersive. So I can see why it bothers people. The problem with it is that it's too new, they made it for a modern setting with some colouring but no texture. Doesn't have a Roman feel to it in my opinion.

As for the traits, there are actually ways to influences better traits but it requires a lot of macro. Make lots of agent and move them around. The moving around helps the agent more than the governors so that part isn't a must. Having them presen doesn't stop bad traits developing, it does help to balance them out a little though. I can't really prove it though. My govs and generals that are in the presence of agent generally have more positive traits, especially those that are battle active. Which is another thing you can do. Keep the governors active by letting them fight rebel armies. Just every once in a while and in the general region of their home settlement is usually enough. You can also produce some amazing generals by trying to kill them off to. No lie.

I once tried to rid myself of a problem general, He was so bad just being in a province would piss off the local settlement (I'm exaggerating but it felt so at the time. You can't actually go into negative stats but if you could he'd have been somewhere around -5-5-5 on everything). Anyway, I tried to kill this guy off against rebel armies he was hopelessly outmatched again... except he refused to die. He escaped a couple and somehow won once, I let him replenish (because manly honour dictates it be so) and did it again and time after time he'd just refuse to die. It's like the bastard was spiting me or he had the gaming gods on his side. Anyways by the time that was done he'd had 7-ish battles under his belt (3 of which, he won!) so at this point I was just scratching my head and gave up trying to kill him because he'd gained so much stature (I don't care this guy earned the abuse and violation of this word i'm using). I ent up making him faction heir because he was a 10 in all stat catagories by the end of it and my best general by the time he was 30 years.. That was one battle I was pleased to lose but god it was so annoying at the time, lol. I swear it's like the game itself refused to let that guy die. 10:1 odds on some battles! He survived or even won 7 of those in a row. By the fourth I wanted to throw my monitor out the window. He was a solo unit for the first 3 too and those were the worst battles for him too. Good times.

[Defmonkey]

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

I ain't dared try BI yet. Honestly might not. Just because I dread to think what they've done to it. Back in the day it was quite fun though. and first turns as either Roman empire, but especially the western empire are tricky for sure. You're likely have half of your empire rebel on you as the barbarians draw in like constrictor. But it's not so bad once you know how to deal with it. It mostly about deciding what to sacrifice and going with it. I've no idea how the new balancing has affected that though. Wouldn't mind playing Saxons again one day though >: ] I'm lying, I'll probably give it a go at some point, if only to satisfy my curiosity. Just ain't gotten around to completing my scipii campaign in RR:TW yet.

Im sure you will get round to it in time. :)

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

How the squalor system behaves is dependant on what games settings you're using. You're either in the remasters or 'original' version. You can even mix the two by picking and choose features from each at game set up. If you didn't touch those settings then the default to begin with is the remaster. In that one... if memory serves, all unit sizes draw the same number of people from settlements regardless or size. I do remember hating the new way because I liked being able to influence population growth by recruitment.

THe worst rebellions were always those garrisons that had gold everything when they spawned :D Even the peasants were rather annoying to go up against on a wall that way
>: ] Onagers did work on those days. Oh did you know blockading ports now hits on public order of it's parent settlement? >: ] IF its on BI we can abuse the ♥♥♥♥ of this. Western Empire will fall fast to players now.

AH. Good call. I didn't notice the advanced options there for classic and remastered settings. Probably distracted by the "are you a newb?" and.... "are you really sure your not a newb?" pop-ups when you start the game up first time.

Thats really good to know, i wasn't aware that the population numbers for recruitment were capped in the remaster. with the 40 man units im using... well i can switch that back so thats perfect.

Also noted the squalor adjustment. Reads like its been nerfed in the remaster.

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

I used city management option once. I never turned it on again :D I just made up this self imposed rule that I can't expand into new territory unless I have a spare general (with spare meaning more than one governor (not including dedicated generals) per settlement). Harder than you think. Can make for REALLY long campaigns though. It's also a way to somewhat combat squalor.
BUUUUUT... did you know you can actually turn off the auto-tax adjustment thing? Go to finance screen in the overview window. There should be an option that says something about auto setting the tax levels for each settlement. Turning that off will allow you to adjust specifically taxes yourself or set blanket tax level for all settlements. You can even turn off auto build so govenorless settlements will just build nothing in their absense.

I don't think the remaster was as bad for the spam and while I don't really mind the UI either I don't find it nearly as immersive. So I can see why it bothers people. The problem with it is that it's too new, they made it for a modern setting with some colouring but no texture. Doesn't have a Roman feel to it in my opinion.

Yeah that city management is going to switch off next campaign. I think thats probably one of the worst mechanics for this game, but at least its optional. Even though its set to on, im still manually building what i want in the settlements so i just dont understand what the point of it is. I've got the auto manage checked off from what i can see but as don't want AI building stuff unless told to, tax is also off. Though i'm still getting AI adjusting it. No matter, will switch the whole thing off, not a biggy.

Wooow, wont be going with that self imposed rule, campaigns will take ages lol.

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

As for the traits, there are actually ways to influences better traits but it requires a lot of macro. Make lots of agent and move them around. The moving around helps the agent more than the governors so that part isn't a must. Having them presen doesn't stop bad traits developing, it does help to balance them out a little though. I can't really prove it though. My govs and generals that are in the presence of agent generally have more positive traits, especially those that are battle active. Which is another thing you can do. Keep the governors active by letting them fight rebel armies. Just every once in a while and in the general region of their home settlement is usually enough. You can also produce some amazing generals by trying to kill them off to. No lie.

I once tried to rid myself of a problem general, He was so bad just being in a province would piss off the local settlement (I'm exaggerating but it felt so at the time. You can't actually go into negative stats but if you could he'd have been somewhere around -5-5-5 on everything). Anyway, I tried to kill this guy off against rebel armies he was hopelessly outmatched again... except he refused to die. He escaped a couple and somehow won once, I let him replenish (because manly honour dictates it be so) and did it again and time after time he'd just refuse to die. It's like the bastard was spiting me or he had the gaming gods on his side. Anyways by the time that was done he'd had 7-ish battles under his belt (3 of which, he won!) so at this point I was just scratching my head and gave up trying to kill him because he'd gained so much stature (I don't care this guy earned the abuse and violation of this word i'm using). I ent up making him faction heir because he was a 10 in all stat catagories by the end of it and my best general by the time he was 30 years.. That was one battle I was pleased to lose but god it was so annoying at the time, lol. I swear it's like the game itself refused to let that guy die. 10:1 odds on some battles! He survived or even won 7 of those in a row. By the fourth I wanted to throw my monitor out the window. He was a solo unit for the first 3 too and those were the worst battles for him too. Good times.

Lol. Sounds like that general was a bug :)

Yeah, the governors trait system is in a very weird spot for sure. It does seem to dish out a bit too regular the negatives. I had one general that i had in one of the settlements for a very short few turns and he was a drunk in no time. Probably due to shrine of Bachus i bet.

Not that there is an issue with having negative traits and picking them up. The game just seems to be a bit liberal dishing them out without rhyme or reason. A governor with -30% penalties for various incomes is really bad to have. You get to the point like you describe above to suicide them for a fresh start as working these bad traits back the other way is a task onto itself.

EDIT: You might of missed my reply above for previous response. Will copy paste here and delete that post so easier to follow.

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

They made endless battles a non-thing now.

Hold up, isn't that a setting when you start a campaign?

One of my grievances, realistic governance, can be switched off at game start also now i think of it.

[Jambie Lionheart]

Nguyên văn bởi Defmonkey:

Nguyên văn bởi Jambie Lionheart:

snip

Specifically about the endless battles thing: Yes, that is an option but you remember when armies with scorpions would occassionally trigger battles that couldn't be won by either side because they couldn't fire at walls but still counted as artillery?
Yeah that's not a thing now even if that bug was still present.
If a battle stalemates and there's no action or moves being made you'll be offered the chance to end the battle on a draw.

and yes, good call on the self imposed rule lol. I also like manual resolving too pretty hardcore. MY third campaign as Scipii took... I think it was close to one RL year (no not pure gameplay just that general timespan from start to finish) to complete (until victory, not the whole map conquered). Was way too aggressive with my generals >.>

[Bobby]

I’m lost here.
But unit size was originally for GPU performance nothing else. (Same for MTW,Shogun etc)
Like stretching right across your screen and trying to manage and render etc.

If you set it to the lowest it still means you have hundreds of units on-screen but *not* rendered.
It doesn’t affect gameplay at all apart from bogging down going into towns around buildings.

Purely cosmetic.

In ROME: Total War, the standard unit size for Roman units is 80 men. Players can change the unit size in the app settings, but this is a cosmetic setting that doesn't give players more units in battle. Changing the unit size to Larger will double the size of the units, but it can also reduce the game's performance, especially in 3D battles

[Defmonkey]

Nguyên văn bởi Bobby:

I’m lost here.
But unit size was originally for GPU performance nothing else. (Same for MTW,Shogun etc)
Like stretching right across your screen and trying to manage and render etc.

If you set it to the lowest it still means you have hundreds of units on-screen but *not* rendered.
It doesn’t affect gameplay at all apart from bogging down going into towns around buildings.

Purely cosmetic.

In ROME: Total War, the standard unit size for Roman units is 80 men. Players can change the unit size in the app settings, but this is a cosmetic setting that doesn't give players more units in battle. Changing the unit size to Larger will double the size of the units, but it can also reduce the game's performance, especially in 3D battles

Hi. Appreciate the input, but respectfully i would have to disagree on the view that this does not affect game-play or that its purely cosmetic.

If you mouse over the unit size selection in the settings the developer explicitly states that this affects the balance and performance of the game, this actually affects both strategically on the campaign map and in battle.

Rome TW has the population mechanic whereby the number of soldiers are directly taken out of your population. As Jambie kindly points out the remastered game caps this, the original game did not and can have significant results in your game.

I don't know so much about the "hundreds of units on-screen but *not* rendered. It doesn’t affect gameplay" point. However, the army size and background aspects of settlement, bridge chokepoints and field battles in general change the dynamics of the battle from a maths / geometry side of things and do have significant implications on how you play the game.

Im happy to elaborate on the above. :)