Temples bugs or intentional disadvantages?

[GoldShield Guard]

Hi everyone.

Playing as GCS and being now at about 220 BC, with over 80 provinces in my possession, I have noticed these weird facts about the temples:

1. Temples of Poseidon do NOT have an increasing trade effect after the second level. If I choose to upgrade them to the third level, the trade income does not increase. This does not happen with other temples that increase trade, like Hermes.

2. Temples of Athena in some provinces increase happiness due to law (you know, the symbol with the balance), in some they do NOT. In the provinces where they do not increase happiness due to law, though they decrease corruption. But in some provinces in the far east (former Armenian provinces in Caspia, like Mtshketa) they do not decrease corruption either. In every occassion though, they increase happinness due to... happiness.

3. In the former Armenian provinces, where temples of Athena do not have a decreasing effect to corruption, also academies do NOT have.

Are these intentional or are map bugs? If they are intentional, why does this happen? Which are the criteria?

[DimeBagHo]

The temple of Poseidon is working as intended. At levels 3-5 the naval temples give extra naval units instead of extra trade. I'm not sure about the strange law bonuses though. I'll have to look into it.

[CaesarVincens]

I can explain the apparent lack of law increase. If you take over an AI monument, it has a negative law bonus. This means that all your settlements start with negative x law, x being the number of AI monuments you've taken. If you continue to increase the law bonus in these cities, you will see it appear. I the temple truly had no law bonus as you suspected, then corruption would not be reduced.

I am not sure what is going on in your Armenian cities however. All I can is that you may need to reach a certain threshold.

[GoldShield Guard]

I can explain the apparent lack of law increase. If you take over an AI monument, it has a negative law bonus. This means that all your settlements start with negative x law, x being the number of AI monuments you've taken. If you continue to increase the law bonus in these cities, you will see it appear. I the temple truly had no law bonus as you suspected, then corruption would not be reduced.

I am not sure what is going on in your Armenian cities however. All I can is that you may need to reach a certain threshold.

I will try this and report. I believe you may be right with your explanation, because the non-increasing-law effect is the same with either temples of Athena or academies or walls. But what I can't understand, is why they reduce corruption at the same time that they do not increase public order due to law. I mean, if there is really a negative starting law bonus, shouldn't also be absent the corruption reduction?

In any case, I find this fact very annoying, because lack of public order and increased corruption mean law profit in the whole empire, which restrains from having elite troops.

The explanation of the negative law bonus of the monuments, is the unrest of people because a hostile faction conquered their monumet? In that case, shouldn't be more logic that unrest should be higher, but the law bonus of buildings still be present?

[CaesarVincens]

It's not possible to create unrest from a building in RTW, but there are a few ways around that, negative bonuses being one. The beauty of a negative law bonus is that it doesn't subtract from PO (other than lessening an existing bonus), but it does increase corruption.

This effect is actually a game balancing one, an "anti-snowball effect" if you will. As you noticed, decreased law across your emile means less money, which is exactly what is desired. It slows down the player or large AI empires. There is a counteracting happiness bonus however, so public order does not decrease because of this. Indeed, it can even increase in places that had no law bonus anyway.

[Publius Quirinus]

Ah, I see. That makes sense. I was looking around in the EDB and was wondering why there were lines of -1 law followed by +1 happiness.

[GoldShield Guard]

It's not possible to create unrest from a building in RTW, but there are a few ways around that, negative bonuses being one. The beauty of a negative law bonus is that it doesn't subtract from PO (other than lessening an existing bonus), but it does increase corruption.

This effect is actually a game balancing one, an "anti-snowball effect" if you will. As you noticed, decreased law across your emile means less money, which is exactly what is desired. It slows down the player or large AI empires. There is a counteracting happiness bonus however, so public order does not decrease because of this. Indeed, it can even increase in places that had no law bonus anyway.

That is exactly the problem I have right now, but I don't think I agree with that solution. I had the impression that having so many provinces would allow me to have plenty of money, meaning plenty of troops, indeed elite troops. I was expecting this to be my prize for the so much effort (playing H/H), so much thinking about the economy and what building to build, where to spend the last one denarii. I thought that in this stage of the campaign, it would be no more necessary to spend so much thinking about the expenses, and that I would have the freedom to focus only in military matters.

But now, that I have to think what and where to spend in over... 80 provinces, it is really really frustrating and certainly NOT fun. I need over an... hour in every turn! And, although I have the necessary buildings to recruit heavy cavalry, generals, hypaspists or elephants, I do not have the money! I really really do not like this, and I didn't have that problem in other mods. I am so frustrated, that really I think I will stop playing the campaign, if not the whole mod.

The other solution that I have, and I am really thinking using it, is of course add_money.

In conclusion, I think this negative law bonus in my opinion should NOT be present.

[Scutarii]

Vanilla is really the quintessential "I am now this big, please roll over and die in the face of my Praetorian-spamming factory cities" game. The XGM anti-snowball effect is good, I like it. If the game isn't a challenge, why continue playing it? If you use the construction scroll, and quickly browse your cities, without battles a turn shouldn't take more than 5 mins. I know mine don't. With battles of course, sure, an hour is reasonable when you're that big.

What we really don't want is the game degenerating into elite-spamming. That's what happened in vanilla ("Ah, I see you have a couple of fullstacks guarding your capital, Egypt. Would they like to have dinner with my 6 STACKS OF URBANS!! MUAHAHA...") If you don't like economy being part of the game, then go ahead and use add_money. But removing the anti-snowball effect isn't a positive change, in my opinion. Once I'm swimming in money, its time for me to start a new campaign. The economy (macromanagement) is, for me, as much a part of the game as the battles, and using the awesome high end troops.

[CaesarVincens]

I think Scutarii put it nicely. The net effect is not to reduce the total amount you make, but to lessen the effect of being so large. If it's so big a deal, just give the AI those cities.

[Publius Quirinus]

If you use the construction scroll, and quickly browse your cities, without battles a turn shouldn't take more than 5 mins. I know mine don't. With battles of course, sure, an hour is reasonable when you're that big.

I dunno, for me a turn in the late game still takes at least half an hour to get through. It's not just the constructions, it's moving around the armies and agents, ferrying troops to and from the front for refitting. For example, on my campaign with 70+ regions, I started at winter 227 BC yesterday noon and concluded at summer 223 BC at around dinnertime. And that's with me auto-resolving the majority of my battles.

[GoldShield Guard]

Ok, everyone has the right to have his own opinion. I like very much the micromanagement in the economy, but not in a vast empire of 80+ provinces. Having 80+ provinces and making only 35.000 per turn (and with only about two spartan perioikoi or the equivalent in some of my stacks), is really a financial disaster, because in this stage of the campaign you need 10.000 for a Royal Palace, 9.000+ for a Merchant's Quarter, 4.800 for every other building in the lots of your cities that have population over 12.000. So either you build some financial buildings in only a few cities and wait a long long time to increase your profit, or you recruit some elites and your profit goes under 20.000, where you have a real public order problem in your cities, because of the lack of the positive law bonus and your inability to improve public order through some happiness buildings due to the lack of money.

So you are forced to use your money for buildings and the cheapest units for garrisoning the cities, and you never see elites in your troops any more. Sorry, but I can not accept this, and because I don't know how to get rid of the negative law bonus, I made my decision and already added 40.000 denarii, which proved not to be enough, as it vanished for buildings of 9.000+ value. If it is necessary, I will do it again in the next turn, but I put a self-restriction that the extra money will be used only for buildings, not recruiting.

[Scutarii]

I'm not seeing your money problems. How is it that you have Greece + much of the east (I'm assuming Egypt, Anatolia, Armenia, etc.) and are struggling for money? By the time I have Greece, I'm building the 4th level barracks in Pella, and can then build Hypaspists and Armoured Phalangites.

That aside, the solution is moderation. Don't build the enormously expensive buildings that don't get you much (ie: highest level market, walls, etc.). And don't count on making stacks composed only of elites. You should be putting a few elites in every army, instead of making a bunch of armies w/ only Hypaspists and Companions.

For example, my Macedonian armies usually look like this (I restrict elites to 3 in each army, usually two infantry and one cavalry):
7x Phalalangites
1x Foot Companion
1x Companions
1x Agema Hypaspist (or regular Hypa if I can't get these)
1xHeavy Cavalry (don't really consider these elite... And the alternative is Light Cav, so bleh)
2x Thessalian Cavalry
2xThorakitai (or Galatians if I can get 'em)
1xGeneral
4xmissiles (Usually 2 Kestros and 2 Archers)

That isn't really elite-spamming, and that stack is damn expensive, so yeah, I wouldn't expect any empire's economy to churn out a couple of elite stacks. Add_money if you need to, but a better solution is to manage your borders well. eg: Conquer Italy, but don't go into Gaul. One stack can hold the entire peninsula in Mediolanum. In Sicily, stop Carthage's attacks by invading Africa. Its not poor by a longshot, and has one border, Iberia, which is also not poor and has an easily held chokepoint (Pyrenees). If you go east, then maybe that's your problem. The east is big, huge borders, and plenty of cities are landlocked and aren't that rich. I usually take Egypt + Anatolia, and then reconsider my objectives at that point.You could, potentially, hold that border with 3 stacks (Antioch, Amaseia, and one convering the Levant + Petra), and could turn your eyes west, to richer places like Italy and Africa.

[Zarax]

You must have some stray stacks or half stacks eating your income.
Even with much less than that I keep having huge stockpiles of cash...

[DimeBagHo]

An average stack (city level units with a modest number of elites, cavalry, etc) will cost about 10,000 per turn in upkeep. So the difference between an income of 30,000 per turn and 60,000 per turn is just three stacks.

At it's peak the Roman Empire managed with just 23 legions - because keeping an Empire full of people happy was expensive.

[Elvis]

Sorry in advance for necromancing this thread, but i think the topic is still kind of relevant.

Scutariis comment about planning your expansion is neat in theory. But the concept clashes heavily with many victory conditions.

If you are expected to conquer an expansive TSE, or hold the entire mediteranean cost, you can not "plan smartly where to go". Simple as that.

And yes, you can do a work around. Use the force_diplomacy script to give some of the richest cities in the game to the enemy. So that you improve your income.....
....anyone else notice the flaw with that?

[Celestial Oblivion]

Sorry in advance for necromancing this thread, but i think the topic is still kind of relevant.

Scutariis comment about planning your expansion is neat in theory. But the concept clashes heavily with many victory conditions.

If you are expected to conquer an expansive TSE, or hold the entire mediteranean cost, you can not "plan smartly where to go". Simple as that.

And yes, you can do a work around. Use the force_diplomacy script to give some of the richest cities in the game to the enemy. So that you improve your income.....
....anyone else notice the flaw with that?

I honestly am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you complaining about the negative law bonus? And no one said anything about giving your cities away to improve income.

[DimeBagHo]

I think Scutarii meant that you should follow the money as you expand your empire. Go after the richest regions first. For example, when you play Rome it is very easy to get sucked into Gaul and Germany after you conquer Italy, but you will find things a lot easier if you go Italy > Islands > Greece > Africa > Asia Minor > Egypt > Spain > Gaul.

You shouldn't try to avoid the law penalties from capturing the capitals of other factions. It's just part of the game. If you expand sensibly you will have plenty of money.

[Elvis]

I think Scutarii meant that you should follow the money as you expand your empire. Go after the richest regions first. For example, when you play Rome it is very easy to get sucked into Gaul and Germany after you conquer Italy, but you will find things a lot easier if you go Italy > Islands > Greece > Africa > Asia Minor > Egypt > Spain > Gaul.

You shouldn't try to avoid the law penalties from capturing the capitals of other factions. It's just part of the game. If you expand sensibly you will have plenty of money.

Ah, i meant the comment about conquering regions that have an easily defensible bottleneck. So you do not need more armies as your empire grows.
This strategy is not compatible with many of the victory conditions.

In general, i like the idea of an anti-snowball effect. But the fact that it is linked to single cities might be problematic.

[Celestial Oblivion]

Ah, i meant the comment about conquering regions that have an easily defensible bottleneck. So you do not need more armies as your empire grows.
This strategy is not compatible with many of the victory conditions.

In general, i like the idea of an anti-snowball effect. But the fact that it is linked to single cities might be problematic.

At the very end perhaps not, but its standard strategy tactics to create a defensible position throughout your Empire's borders and focus on conquering one area/destroying one faction at a time. If you do this going for the bottlenecks is a very sound strategy, and then just conquer the outliers at the end.

There really is no other way to create the snowball effect other than buildings, so sadly there isn't much to be done about it. I've modded my game though so that those cities provide other benefits (that don't have to do with the law bonus) so that they are still worth holding. The Greek monument for example I gave +1 to armor and melee weapons, so you could keep the temple of Nike and still get gold weapon troops in Sparta, making it the best recruiting center in the game.