Slowing down the game

[Quinn Inuit]

Ok, all y'all have had it too easy in the ExRM. I'm seeing too many screenshots of AI and human empires conquering vast swathes of territory by 240 B.C.

Well, you might be Alexander reincarnated*, but the AI sure isn't. So I think we need to kick up the difficulty a notch. My preferred method is to increase upkeeps by 50% across the board and go from there, but Caligula Caesar makes a good case for upping the strength of certain rebel garrisons.

Personally, I think smaller garrisons make it easier to expand once you've raised an army, but that we should make raising an army more complicated. What do you all think?



*I think one of my collaborators on 3.0 might've been Pyrrhus reincarnated. Long story, and probably made up.

[despot_of_rhodes]

First of all, i would like to see a much more significant difference between the levy troops and the Elite, and i don´t mean troops like Triari or Agema or Sacred Band - they are to few and are allready quite expensive. I mean the professional, well drilled and high morale soldiers, no matter, wether barbarian or civilized. The levies´upkeep can be raised by 50%, but the elite should costs should be doubled ( at least ).
Btw: Gaul prof. units are actually allready at this stage - but in 1on1 they still "suck" against the Romans ( additionaly pila + disziplin ).

I would also grant AI generals additionaly morale boosters, since AI cannot transfer retinieus, but a human player can - and one can gain up to +3 moral boost just through adding some priests or other chars to one´s general.

The key to the fast expansion, and i think, i´m one of the players who tend to expand quite fast, is the cheap troop support from your core cities.
An example:
All i have to do, playing Romans for instance, is to build up huge amount of Velites/Itallic Skirm./Warbands from C.Gaul, and i can move on and conquer farther, leaving those garrisons behind in the fresh invaded cities.
Cut this ability, and also a huge merc pool of cheap skirmishers and tribe units, and the legion, wich conquered a province, would have to stay there for a while, to maintain the order ( just as they had to historicaly, right? ). Maybe one can achieve this by lowering the population growth in the conquered cities, and only when you finish your "auxila building line", the growth will jump to the normal. This could prevent a player, and the AI, to build masses of cheaper allied troops. ( klient kingdom system would definetly improve and correct this factor ).
The only problem i see ( at least for the Roman Leadership ) is, that you still need your general to gouvern the conquered town, but then, his "counter" stops, and this makes it more difficult, to get them at least to become a Legate, before retiring for civil duties.

As i said: Some units are drawn from the peasents and citizens, and i.e. of Pontus, you have a really tough decission, wether to build up a quick and strong phalangitai army, wich costs a huge amount of upkeep ( at least for a small kingdom like Pontus ), or to build up your army slowly, and wait 2 turns for the regular, fresh drawn phalangitei, not the vetereans.
This fact should be calculated for every faction, especially the Romans, since their infantry were all drawn from the citizen class. And therefore, i would make, once more, a difference, between the original faction units and the AOR units. To do that, one could tweak a bit more with morale settings.

One more thing: I love it, since i often use my generals to pacify a fresh conquered province, but it is, imho, to easy to gain the title "Conqueror" ( +6 Influence is enough, to keep order in any city, there are 30-40% bonus for the public order! ). I think, this trait should be made bit more challenging - Victor not after 4 but after 10 won battles; Famouse Victor after 20, and Conqueror should maybe require 5 couquered cities additionaly ( now idea, if that´s so easy, as i think ).

Personally, i newer recruit generals. I know, it would be a super easy way, to build my cavalry just out of this guys, but i see it bit as cheating. I also never recruit any general to manage a province, because leaving a "newbie" in a province full of corruption, low taxes and maybe a "terrible" temple, would make a full idiot ot ouf him in no time
But, as i said above: If a Legion has to stay in a province, to pacify it first, one wouldn´t need any extra gouverneur. And if the "client kingdom" system is going to work once, there would be a perfect alternative. Another thing is: Roman example again ( sorry ): In the early republic, and 280 - 200 bc. definetly belongs in this timeframe, the legions used to be disband after their return. Unless playing with houserules like that, a player actually loves to keep ( merge or retrain ) his experienced vets, and raise up an elite army. I don´t know ( yet ) how to manage it, but i would like to see this scenario ( Roman example again ):
You raise up an expensive ( recruiting & upkeep ) army of semi professional soldiers ( hastati + princeps as a core of a legion ).
You manage to defeat your enemy, severall stacks of barbarians or so, and to conquer a province.
Then you will have a choice, to keep that high end army there, spending thousands of denari for their upkeep, or to send them back to Rome, after the province is at least pacified, but not really developed or colonized.
Or you bring the boys home, disband the legion(s), and when you need another fresh army to deal with "problems", you raise new legions, but the troops should be more experienced then normal ( +2 exp. i.e. ).
I think, this could be esily made by adding exp. bonus to some building, but i don´t really know, how to simulate this, if a player won´t disband the old legions, but instead decides to raise a knew one.

Well, i wrote now more than i intended, but the question was, how to make expansion more difficult and challenging, and the points i mentioned above are, imho, the key for "rush" strategy.

Greets,
Despot.

P.S: Quinn - do you remember, how i was telling you about the uber Equites? Well, after a "briton documentation" ( there are 2 more attachments in that thread, btw. ), i started a new barbarian campaign, playing Gauls. All i can say is: The roman cavalry, in this case Equites Consulares, definetly own their gaulic pendants. Even in numerios and qualitativ advantage, i had to bring a warband in, to break roman Generals. Can´t explain why, i´m playing on "hard", but that´s nothing new, so...:hmmm:

[Mister S]

That's a good idea - but there is one more thing.

Is it possible to adjust the public order (garrison) bonus to the unit upkeep cost?
That way, you can't recruit useless troops to stay in cities, as you said, but stronger troops will do. This will also raise the total upkeep costs, so there is no need for further increasing.
It's also more realistic: I wouldn't riot against a bunch of well-armed, veteran soldiers, but I would against a bunch of useless morons, who hardly know how to hold a spear.

And I agree with your idea to make experienced soldiers more expensive, at least for the Romans, but since that would be unfiar, you could also do it for all the factions. You've got to pay those who make you win battles!

[despot_of_rhodes]

That's a good idea - but there is one more thing.

Is it possible to adjust the public order (garrison) bonus to the unit upkeep cost?

IIRC, playing BI i´ve noticed, that peasants there were only half(?) effective in maintaining public order then soldiers. I don´t know, if this effect was restricted on peasants only, but if not, then it could work ( i like your idea of giving different units different public order effects ).
If this works, one could even make mercenaries quite ineffective or even contraproductiv due to public order ( mercenaries are hired for loot, giving them police job would actually mean to "trust the cat to keep the cream" ).

Oh, and btw: I remember, in BI, if you were playing as a horde and hired mercs, you had to pay a part of the loot to them. Would it be possible to "transfer" this rule to all no faction units and to simulate i.e. the part of loot, wich Allys of Rome used to gain after a war ( the reason, why they were so glad to accompany the Romans ), and a much hihger part, if you really have mercs in your army? Or is this feature hardcoded?

[Caligula Caesar]

I'm not saying that you need HUGE garrisons, I'm just saying that some of them definately need to get bigger. For instance, how is this supposed to last even twenty years, let alone a hunderd years?

;rebel garrison, Atropatene, Phraaspa
character, sub_faction parthia, Khortdad, named character, age 16, , x 242, y 72
traits Immovable 1, Untouchable 1, Leader_Bonus 1
army
unit aor asia cavalry custom exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit aor eastern spearmen custom exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit aor eastern spearmen custom exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit aor eastern spearmen custom exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit aor asia archer custom exp 1 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit aor asia archer custom exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit aor asia skirmisher custom exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit aor asia cavalry custom exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0

Eight units are never going to hold the place for long.

[Pat89]

Ok, all y'all have had it too easy in the ExRM. I'm seeing too many screenshots of AI and human empires conquering vast swathes of territory by 240 B.C.

Well, you might be Alexander reincarnated*, but the AI sure isn't. So I think we need to kick up the difficulty a notch. My preferred method is to increase upkeeps by 50% across the board and go from there, but Caligula Caesar makes a good case for upping the strength of certain rebel garrisons.

Personally, I think smaller garrisons make it easier to expand once you've raised an army, but that we should make raising an army more complicated. What do you all think?

*I think one of my collaborators on 3.0 might've been Pyrrhus reincarnated. Long story, and probably made up.

Maybe simply a combination of the two?

Increase rebel garrisons and increase upkeep costs

[pannonian]

Oscillating auxilia buildings. First, there is level 1, which gives a small happiness bonus. Then there is level 1a, which negates that happiness bonus, and adds a certain amount of unrest. After that is level 2, which removes that unrest, and adds back that happiness, plus a little bit more. Then level 2a, which again removes the happiness, and adds back some unrest, but a bit more this time. And so on. Depending on the amount of unrest given, even with progressive incorporation into one's empire, there are still cyclic risks of revolt. Make certain provinces even more rebellious at base, and holding down that empire could be trickier than usual.

This idea could be used for other happiness buildings as well.

[Scutarii]

I would do both. Increase the upkeep costs and increase rebel garrisons. Both are too small, imo, and the game devolves into a few superpowers to quickly now. I think a huge factor in that is balancing the east. The Ptolemies and Seleucids need to be stalemated consistently. I don't know about your campaigns, but mine always involve TSE rolling over in the face of the Ptolemaic onslaught. Hopefully this is partially remedied by your nerfing Cyprus (I think you've done this on 3.4, I haven't d/l'd it yet because I need to finish my Rome camp. first on 3.3.4).

[lelouchx99]

If you can fix the Macedonian stacks in PE wouldn't it better or as good as Exrm? I mean if you just keep increasing the time / upkeep cost / recruitment cost wouldn't the game will just drag on forever?

The Britons are just a waste of space looking at 240BC they only managed to get lower half of Britain, which is very historical accurate.

The Galatians is another problem, *side effects*, they are hindering the pontus's growth in Asia Minor.

Regarding the Macedon's starting point, their economy is almost as bad as the Epirote.

[Quinn Inuit]

First of all, i would like to see a much more significant difference between the levy troops and the Elite, and i don´t mean troops like Triari or Agema or Sacred Band - they are to few and are allready quite expensive. I mean the professional, well drilled and high morale soldiers, no matter, wether barbarian or civilized. The levies´upkeep can be raised by 50%, but the elite should costs should be doubled ( at least ).
Btw: Gaul prof. units are actually allready at this stage - but in 1on1 they still "suck" against the Romans ( additionaly pila + disziplin ).

That seems reasonable. FWIW, the Gauls will be getting better elites as soon as I get around to adding them in.

I would also grant AI generals additionaly morale boosters, since AI cannot transfer retinieus, but a human player can - and one can gain up to +3 moral boost just through adding some priests or other chars to one´s general.

I think we already use some code to do just that. Not sure...it was added in before my time.

The key to the fast expansion, and i think, i´m one of the players who tend to expand quite fast, is the cheap troop support from your core cities.
An example:
All i have to do, playing Romans for instance, is to build up huge amount of Velites/Itallic Skirm./Warbands from C.Gaul, and i can move on and conquer farther, leaving those garrisons behind in the fresh invaded cities.
Cut this ability, and also a huge merc pool of cheap skirmishers and tribe units, and the legion, wich conquered a province, would have to stay there for a while, to maintain the order ( just as they had to historicaly, right? ). Maybe one can achieve this by lowering the population growth in the conquered cities, and only when you finish your "auxila building line", the growth will jump to the normal. This could prevent a player, and the AI, to build masses of cheaper allied troops. ( klient kingdom system would definetly improve and correct this factor ).
The only problem i see ( at least for the Roman Leadership ) is, that you still need your general to gouvern the conquered town, but then, his "counter" stops, and this makes it more difficult, to get them at least to become a Legate, before retiring for civil duties.

Clever. You can't stop the population boom, but I think you're right that something needs to be done about the easy availability of mercs and cheap garrison troops. Expansion would probably be slower if your garrisons cost twice as much. What do you think?

As i said: Some units are drawn from the peasents and citizens, and i.e. of Pontus, you have a really tough decission, wether to build up a quick and strong phalangitai army, wich costs a huge amount of upkeep ( at least for a small kingdom like Pontus ), or to build up your army slowly, and wait 2 turns for the regular, fresh drawn phalangitei, not the vetereans.
This fact should be calculated for every faction, especially the Romans, since their infantry were all drawn from the citizen class. And therefore, i would make, once more, a difference, between the original faction units and the AOR units. To do that, one could tweak a bit more with morale settings.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

One more thing: I love it, since i often use my generals to pacify a fresh conquered province, but it is, imho, to easy to gain the title "Conqueror" ( +6 Influence is enough, to keep order in any city, there are 30-40% bonus for the public order! ). I think, this trait should be made bit more challenging - Victor not after 4 but after 10 won battles; Famouse Victor after 20, and Conqueror should maybe require 5 couquered cities additionaly ( now idea, if that´s so easy, as i think ).

Personally, i newer recruit generals. I know, it would be a super easy way, to build my cavalry just out of this guys, but i see it bit as cheating. I also never recruit any general to manage a province, because leaving a "newbie" in a province full of corruption, low taxes and maybe a "terrible" temple, would make a full idiot ot ouf him in no time
But, as i said above: If a Legion has to stay in a province, to pacify it first, one wouldn´t need any extra gouverneur. And if the "client kingdom" system is going to work once, there would be a perfect alternative. Another thing is: Roman example again ( sorry ): In the early republic, and 280 - 200 bc. definetly belongs in this timeframe, the legions used to be disband after their return. Unless playing with houserules like that, a player actually loves to keep ( merge or retrain ) his experienced vets, and raise up an elite army. I don´t know ( yet ) how to manage it, but i would like to see this scenario ( Roman example again ):
You raise up an expensive ( recruiting & upkeep ) army of semi professional soldiers ( hastati + princeps as a core of a legion ).
You manage to defeat your enemy, severall stacks of barbarians or so, and to conquer a province.
Then you will have a choice, to keep that high end army there, spending thousands of denari for their upkeep, or to send them back to Rome, after the province is at least pacified, but not really developed or colonized.
Or you bring the boys home, disband the legion(s), and when you need another fresh army to deal with "problems", you raise new legions, but the troops should be more experienced then normal ( +2 exp. i.e. ).
I think, this could be esily made by adding exp. bonus to some building, but i don´t really know, how to simulate this, if a player won´t disband the old legions, but instead decides to raise a knew one.

Well, i wrote now more than i intended, but the question was, how to make expansion more difficult and challenging, and the points i mentioned above are, imho, the key for "rush" strategy.

Greets,
Despot.

It's cool.

I don't think we can do the XP bonus that you're discussing. I've actually been pondering ways to mimic the hire/disband cycle of armies of the period for a couple of years now, and I don't think there's any way we can do it. Especially 'cause the AI can't disband armies.

Do other people find conqueror too easy to get? I hadn't noticed that.

I'm not too concerned by a singel general getting high public order mods, since that locks him down and slows expansion, too.

P.S: Quinn - do you remember, how i was telling you about the uber Equites? Well, after a "briton documentation" ( there are 2 more attachments in that thread, btw. ), i started a new barbarian campaign, playing Gauls. All i can say is: The roman cavalry, in this case Equites Consulares, definetly own their gaulic pendants. Even in numerios and qualitativ advantage, i had to bring a warband in, to break roman Generals. Can´t explain why, i´m playing on "hard", but that´s nothing new, so...:hmmm:

No, I'd forgotten about that. You're right that's no good, though. Were the Gauls beating them and they just weren't breaking, or was the fight even?

Wait, if you're playing the battles on hard, that will make your enemies much harder to break IIRC.

That's a good idea - but there is one more thing.

Is it possible to adjust the public order (garrison) bonus to the unit upkeep cost?
That way, you can't recruit useless troops to stay in cities, as you said, but stronger troops will do. This will also raise the total upkeep costs, so there is no need for further increasing.
It's also more realistic: I wouldn't riot against a bunch of well-armed, veteran soldiers, but I would against a bunch of useless morons, who hardly know how to hold a spear.

That's not possible, sorry. It would be a neat idea, though.

And I agree with your idea to make experienced soldiers more expensive, at least for the Romans, but since that would be unfiar, you could also do it for all the factions. You've got to pay those who make you win battles!

That makes sense, but I'm not sure we could implement it.

IIRC, playing BI i´ve noticed, that peasants there were only half(?) effective in maintaining public order then soldiers. I don´t know, if this effect was restricted on peasants only, but if not, then it could work ( i like your idea of giving different units different public order effects ).
If this works, one could even make mercenaries quite ineffective or even contraproductiv due to public order ( mercenaries are hired for loot, giving them police job would actually mean to "trust the cat to keep the cream" ).

I'd forgottent that about peasants. I think that might be worth looking into.

I'd rather not make any units counterproductive, though. The AI probably isn't smart enough to get that, which could really hamstring it.

Oh, and btw: I remember, in BI, if you were playing as a horde and hired mercs, you had to pay a part of the loot to them. Would it be possible to "transfer" this rule to all no faction units and to simulate i.e. the part of loot, wich Allys of Rome used to gain after a war ( the reason, why they were so glad to accompany the Romans ), and a much hihger part, if you really have mercs in your army? Or is this feature hardcoded?

I'm pretty sure that's hardcoded to limit to hordes, which is a shame.

Oscillating auxilia buildings. First, there is level 1, which gives a small happiness bonus. Then there is level 1a, which negates that happiness bonus, and adds a certain amount of unrest. After that is level 2, which removes that unrest, and adds back that happiness, plus a little bit more. Then level 2a, which again removes the happiness, and adds back some unrest, but a bit more this time. And so on. Depending on the amount of unrest given, even with progressive incorporation into one's empire, there are still cyclic risks of revolt. Make certain provinces even more rebellious at base, and holding down that empire could be trickier than usual.

This idea could be used for other happiness buildings as well.

Some provinces are already more rebellious. Should I increase that across the board?

Alternatively, increased upkeep will make large garrisons prohibitive, which should have a similar effect.

I'm not sure I can implement the oscillating auxilia bonuses. Building bonuses and building-conditional recruitment don't get along well.

I would do both. Increase the upkeep costs and increase rebel garrisons. Both are too small, imo, and the game devolves into a few superpowers to quickly now. I think a huge factor in that is balancing the east. The Ptolemies and Seleucids need to be stalemated consistently. I don't know about your campaigns, but mine always involve TSE rolling over in the face of the Ptolemaic onslaught. Hopefully this is partially remedied by your nerfing Cyprus (I think you've done this on 3.4, I haven't d/l'd it yet because I need to finish my Rome camp. first on 3.3.4).

Ok, I'll increase both. That seems to be the consensus. How much, though?

And I'm sorry about Atropatane. I didn't realize they were so lightly defended.

Cyprus is definitely nerfed, but I think we need to scale back Parthia and Bactria before the Seleucids are able to stand up to the Ptolies in the early game.

If you can fix the Macedonian stacks in PE wouldn't it better or as good as Exrm? I mean if you just keep increasing the time / upkeep cost / recruitment cost wouldn't the game will just drag on forever?

The Britons are just a waste of space looking at 240BC they only managed to get lower half of Britain, which is very historical accurate.

The Galatians is another problem, *side effects*, they are hindering the pontus's growth in Asia Minor.

Regarding the Macedon's starting point, their economy is almost as bad as the Epirote.

Eh, Epirus usually does ok for itself. I will boost the Macs a little, though.

The Galatians should be hindering Pontus's growth...that town ain't, and wasn't, big enough for the both of 'em.

I don't want the game to drag on forever, just longer. If it's possible to recreate the Roman Empire at its height by 200 B.C., I think we may be doing something wrong.

[Antonov]

I went through the posts here and I think I've came up with something not mentioned so far: Besides increasing upkeep costs and slowing down population growth, how about simply lowering provinces' incomes? If the AI has less money, it will train less units, regardless of the amount of population it has.

Edit: I'm not sure to what extent province income is directly modifiable and wether it's not completely a derivative of other factors like governor qualities, trade and population. But even if it's completely derivative, let's focus on the factors it depends on?

I suggest we look up info on estimated demographic figures for the period (3rd-1st century BC) to adjust initial population and growth modifiers for different regions.

And really, let's beef up rebel garrison sizes for provinces from regions which were not active during mentioned period, because I'm getting quite disturbed at the Thracians' creating this Absurdistanic Eurasian empire... The same applies to the Seleucides' expansion in the same direction. I believe if everyone had less units, they wouldn't be able to expand so huge.

Another problem I have with the Seleucides (yes, I'm really annoyed with those guys ) is about them wiping out everyone east of Byzantion, save for, probably, the Ptolemeic empire, by the time I can reach that region while expanding historically.

I'm playing with the 4tpy mod and it's a great mod but the way it "slows down time" means that around 250 BC there's no one else in Asia besides the Seleucides, which is disappointing. What I love about ExRM is the variety of, well, everything -- units, factions, provinces. And the greedy Seleucides just eat everyone away

[despot_of_rhodes]

About the Equites Consulares: The roman generals are accompanied with highly trained and disciplined bodyguards and have a slightly higher defence skill, while their gaulic counterparts are impetous and untrained, but got higher charge and attack bonus. In a prolonged duel between them, the Romans just seem to be tougher, after the charge bonus of Gauls is over. That must be a reason, why 2 gaulic warlods with silver chevrons ( each about 16-18 bodyguards couldn´t break roman general with about 30-35 bodyguards ( i was playing Gauls and charged him from the flank ). That was my last example. Well, the roman guy was a faction heir, maybe that was important too? The point is, my guys were just loosing their bodyguards every 2 seconds, while the roman heir just stood there taking definetly lighter causalities ( though, i play on hard, wich means 3 moral boost to my foes, most of my generals got about 3 morals boosts, caused by traits like "fearles", additionaly priest(s) etc. My guys were both quite experienced - silver chevrons, as mentioned above, but the roman heir had none, and he got also none retinieus or traits to boost morale of his troops! ).

To faction units built up from citizens: it concerned the upkeep of hastati and princeps particullary and i was trying to make a parallel to the veteran phalangitai from pontus, wich cost about the half of the fresh recruited ones and can be trained in a single turn, but their high upkeep ( twice of regular phalangitai ), symbolises, that in time their serve, many men cannot work on the fields ( see unit card description of the pontic unit ). I found it quite logical, but there is not such a difference within the roman faction. Tweaking morale i ment, that original roman troops should still have a high morale ( though, princeps should definetly be stronger and tougher in any disciplin, take pila attack for example: hastati and princeps are equal here ), but the italic troops should be significantly cheeper in relation to the roman troops, and that should force the player, and also the AI, to recruit them in larger numbers, to avoid bancropcy ). And the "client kingdom" system could correct this factor additionaly, since suck clients or affiliate towns would mean lesser income, but faster and easier access to the AOR italic troops.
I hope, i could express myself clear this time

[Wien1938]

There is an idea that comes to me. Now, this might not be possible, but could we make garrison/citizen units that have NO strategic mobility? That is you can recruit them but they cannot leave the city?
This would mean that you have cheap garrisons (once the civic institutions are in place) but the mobile units would be REALLY expensive because you're taking men away from the economy?
Incidently, this would also make taking cities much harder as garrisons could then be proportionately larger...? And if the civic troops had no impact on population unrest?

[Scutarii]

IIRC, playing BI i´ve noticed, that peasants there were only half(?) effective in maintaining public order then soldiers. I don´t know, if this effect was restricted on peasants only, but if not, then it could work ( i like your idea of giving different units different public order effects ).
If this works, one could even make mercenaries quite ineffective or even contraproductiv due to public order ( mercenaries are hired for loot, giving them police job would actually mean to "trust the cat to keep the cream" ).

Oh, and btw: I remember, in BI, if you were playing as a horde and hired mercs, you had to pay a part of the loot to them. Would it be possible to "transfer" this rule to all no faction units and to simulate i.e. the part of loot, wich Allys of Rome used to gain after a war ( the reason, why they were so glad to accompany the Romans ), and a much hihger part, if you really have mercs in your army? Or is this feature hardcoded?

The BI peasants have the is_peasant attribute, which makes them only half as effective in garrison duty. I suppose you could attach that to other units as well...

And hard difficulty gives +4 morale and +4 attack to the AI units. Don't base anything on 1on1 battle results on anything but Medium.

That said, Gallic units are far too weak. The swordsmen especially die like flies and don't really do much. I think the swordsmen and chosen swords could use a boost.

[Quinn Inuit]

There is an idea that comes to me. Now, this might not be possible, but could we make garrison/citizen units that have NO strategic mobility? That is you can recruit them but they cannot leave the city?
This would mean that you have cheap garrisons (once the civic institutions are in place) but the mobile units would be REALLY expensive because you're taking men away from the economy?
Incidently, this would also make taking cities much harder as garrisons could then be proportionately larger...? And if the civic troops had no impact on population unrest?

That would be awesome, but I've done some research and I don't think I can create/modify a troop type to have so few movement points. You can have movement modifiers via generals, but I think that's it.

The BI peasants have the is_peasant attribute, which makes them only half as effective in garrison duty. I suppose you could attach that to other units as well...

And hard difficulty gives +4 morale and +4 attack to the AI units. Don't base anything on 1on1 battle results on anything but Medium.

That said, Gallic units are far too weak. The swordsmen especially die like flies and don't really do much. I think the swordsmen and chosen swords could use a boost.

I'm tempted to attach the is_peasant attribute to all low-level units, but increased costs and upkeep might be a better way to go.

Agreed. We can't really work with battle results from anything but medium, I suppose.

Ok, I'll give the swordsmen a little boost. Maybe create an intermediate swordsman unit, too. Not sure.

[pannonian]

Ok, I'll give the swordsmen a little boost. Maybe create an intermediate swordsman unit, too. Not sure.

Something like the ambacti from TIC?

[Quinn Inuit]

Precisely. I've already got permission to use that unit.

[Scutarii]

Precisely. I've already got permission to use that unit.

That would be awesome.

[Quinn Inuit]

Definitely. It's going to be the new elite Celtic sword unit, with the main swords acting as somewhat tougher medium infantry. I feel like this lineup is missing something, but I'm not sure what.

[despot_of_rhodes]

Considering the fact, that my generals usually got at least 4 command stars ( mostly up to 7 ), having usually a "War Priest" ( +1 morale ), are "bave", or at least, "untouched by fear" ( +1/+2 morale ), and are therefore nightfighters ( mostly "noctofilactics - up to +3 command stars in night battles ), and often are good attackers ( +1/+2 command while attacking, additionaly to the war priest bonus of +2 in attack ), - there is no advantage on the AI side concerning the moral or command ability, if it´s general got only 2 command stars and nothing else, despite the "hard" battle difficulty. But if you mind different, it´s your prerogative, of course

About the "conqueror" trait: Maybe it´s because of my "Roman Power House War Machine", but i normaly got about 5 conquerors in the "family" at the same time. When i play barbarians, there are maybe only 3, but thats because i more often use the same generals with high influence and good other traits ( especially the faction leader and heir ), to pacify the civilized towns far away from the capital, wich i can´t hold with other FM efficiently ( high tax, law corruption etc. ). But the "eagle taker" trait makes it more then up