Roma Surrectum 1.6a: Questions, Suggestions & Discussion

[endel2005]

It says "Increase tradeable goods" "-1% Population Growth"

You can even test. Start new campaign. Add money then add pop to rome to 24. then process_cq up to cities then you will see its -500 before its build then -2400 after its build.

no positive affect anywhere else. after that building is build your economy TANKS especially the more of them that are built in different cities. you can always destory it but that means you have to manager every city so it doesnt get rebuild.

sorry. as to your other question its a progress build. suburbs then town then.. cities (TANK) No money for legions oops LOL

[Alavaria]

Uh huh, the settlement details are confused because it can't understand a negative bonus.
From the EDB:

cities requires factions { barbarian, nomad, carthaginian, eastern, parthia, egyptian, greek, roman, } and building_present_min_level core_building proconsuls_palace
{
capability
{
population_growth_bonus bonus -2
trade_base_income_bonus bonus -12
}
construction 6
cost 14000
settlement_min huge_city
upgrades
{
}

Basically, by building that you actually REDUCED your trade. By 12 points, which is MASSIVE. Don't do it unless you need to.
---A curia (level 5 market building) gives you at most 5 trade bonus, to put it into comparison.

That actually seems rather harsh to me, lol but I like big populations (they trade and pay more taxes)

If yo need to decrease income, you'd be better off with just the first level:

suburbs requires factions { barbarian, nomad, carthaginian, eastern, parthia, egyptian, greek, roman, } and building_present_min_level core_building proconsuls_palace
{
capability
{
population_growth_bonus bonus -6
taxable_income_bonus bonus -5
}
construction 2
cost 2000
settlement_min city
upgrades
{
villages
}

I don't believe that the population_growth_bonus stacks from tier to tier. Some of these oddities are present in the EDB, and I'm rather aware of them because I ... uh .

Regardless, remember that that line costs more for less benefit as you upgrade.


.... hmm, lol I see that it uses the old mine code. (You can only attach mining income to gold&silver, not copper/iron/tin/lead.

[Beetlecat]

So it's basically an attempt to stymie city growth, but at a huge trade penalty. Allright. Sounds like a terrible deal. I'll keep the income and just train a dozen cheap units to disband somewhere else that needs the population.

[Alavaria]

Hilariously enough, some cities don't even have population_growth_bonus to take away, so you're spending money and time building something to lose you money.

Bye in any case, looking at the settlement details would have told you that it would cost you money and what it would do for your population.

And yes, I'm amused that the AI-governmor thinks it is a good idea to build it for you.

[endel2005]

I have a hard time believing "cities" was modified for a -12 trade. It has to be a mistake. It even gets worse the farther from your capital the city is. It would really be bad if this were happening inside of that caesar mod cant remember name but bundled with 1st tri. Where the script constantly goes back to automanage and begins to recruit and build.

On another note. I never realized Alexander had better AI than BI. I am playing surrectum with that and the computer is a lot harder. I attacked a free people who had elephants in the italian states! They must of recruited them as mercs or something. I was like OH CRAPOLA.

I am playing the Senate Campaign. And this part is the even worse than the "cities" building. They have 7 stacks and 1 city. I have 4 stacks and 8 cities. And im making 6000. They continue to build more and more stacks I see them growing. How are they able to maintain such an army and I can barely keep the 4 stacks I have fed, clothed and payed LOL I could understand if a portion of my money was going to them (like in reality) but they obviously are getting income from somewhere.

[Beetlecat]

@li:

Rome gets to play by its own rules... Benefits of being an AI faction, I suppose. I just can't wait to have to suddenly take on those 7 stacks when they decide I'm no longer to be trusted with the reins of the "rest" of the republic/empire.

[endel2005]

exactly lol. It was 7 stacks this morning.. now its 9 LOL. By the time im ready or try to do a reinactment of ceasars trimpth in gaul they will have 50 stacks LOL. Somethings definately not right LOL. If I were to attack them I would have to make a quick trip to the prefrence file to shut unlimited men off lol, then even at that clear my day with no interuptions and then when I have finally takin Rome I will have acomplished nothing but help send 60 thousand digital souls to their death LOL

[Alavaria]

I have a hard time believing "cities" was modified for a -12 trade. It has to be a mistake.

I am playing the Senate Campaign. And this part is the even worse than the "cities" building. They have 7 stacks and 1 city. I have 4 stacks and 8 cities. And im making 6000. They continue to build more and more stacks I see them growing. How are they able to maintain such an army and I can barely keep the 4 stacks I have fed, clothed and payed LOL I could understand if a portion of my money was going to them (like in reality) but they obviously are getting income from somewhere.

Oh? On hard an AI obviously gets 10000/turn. However, if you can get a spy into Rome and examine their buildings.

EDIT: Their core building gives then 2000% tax bonus. This means with regards to tax, it is like 21 settlements.

EDIT2: Moreover, it is for ANY settlement that they have which has a Tier 4 or 5 core government building. So beware of letting them expand even a little, or they'll have the equivalent of 21* (number of actual settlement) regions of income worth to bash you with, lol.

[King_Darius]

i have a question....

why cant i move siege engines around on the battle map when in deployment mode? its really frustrating i cant deploy where i want them to be....

is this a glitch?

[Alavaria]

It's the forest thing. The terrain is defined as "forest". Tone has made the actual "tree models" kind of spread out, like in a real forest, however the engine sees the terrain as "this is forest land" and won't let your siege engines though.

It's being worked on, still.

[King_Darius]

damn....

so my AAR wont be as good as i hoped it would be....

[Confederate Jeb]

I have a question. If I have installed RS 1.5 into a copied folder so that I can still play the vanilla (as I did a long time ago), will downloading 1.6 over 1.5 break vanilla, or will it still be playable? I don't download mods often, so...yeah.

[Alavaria]

Don't put 1.6 on top of 1.5, it'll most probably mess up. A lot of things were changed, its likely that *something* will mess up and cause CTDs.

[Abreas]

Just wanted to say that I downloaded 1.6 and am impressed with these new improvements; it will truely be something great when 2.0 comes out. Currently trying out the senate campaign . . . pesky old togas will be crushed soon enough . .

So thanks to the guys on the RS team who put this together

[Darkside]

I have read many entries that speak about the AI; how they move around a lot and lose their stamina. I would like you to know that in my case, this is not the truth. As a matter of fact, the AI is a thousand fold smarter than it was before. I'm not sure what you guys did, but the AI in my battles is incomparably clever: they position themselves generally better, and they also react more dynamically to my movements. Like most veteran players, I rarely see more than 10-20 percent casualties. This new AI has a generally much better response than it's previous generation had. I've fought 3 battles so far, and each of them has resulted in 20-30 percent casualties to my soldiers. It does make my relative situation a little more dire, and I have to admit that I love it! I try to balance historical stratagem with practical application, and the result has been both surprising and IMHO wonderful.

Of course the graphics detail and map layout is infinitely better. Thank you for this, and I hope to see such things in RS II.

PS: seriously, whatever you did to the AI is beyond great.

[Alavaria]

... Hmm, lol. I see. 10% to 20% is usual for me against greek/macedonian armies. (I use militia in the front lines). It gets steeper for Romans (who have pila kills a plenty) and barbarians (with high attack)*.

Of course, I'm abusing the AI's inability to properly control units once they're stuck in melee. Props to the AI for knowing how to flank with cavalry, though. Sadly, all there is for those horsemen to fight is spearmen, so it doesn't help the AI much >>___<<

----

*Note: it's actually still 10% to 20% against Romans/barbarians, but that's because I tend to bring 50% more men to the field since I know pila and falxes kill.

[tob]

im not sure if this has been mentioned before but i noted some visual discrepancy, its about the roman principe shield, the buldge at the front is missing, but is visible on hastati and triarii

another thing, the sword is longer then the Scabbard, and the sword itself seems a bit to long to be historically acurate, maybe the last part is just me, but the rest has to be noticeble by the rest

cheers for an awsome mod!

[youdig66]

I've got a few questions. However, forgive me if they sound real stupid.

I've played RTW (and later RS 1.5) for over 4 years or so but it was a copied version. After all the patching up sequences and so on, I've now decided to delete all the RTW data (including RS) 'cause I had the idea that RS was not working as good as it could and that the whole (crap)construction around the way I played it (copied version, no cd-crack and so on) made it unworthy for RS to be played under such conditions. Now, I will buy RTW Gold Edition (that will be RTW and BI) and Alexander. Do I understand it all correctly by thinking that, once I've installed RTW, BI over RTW and for the finish Alexander over BI, I can just download and install RS 1.6 over it and it will all be fine?

[Squid]

Yes. Follow the installation instruction and you'll be fine.

[dvk901]

I have read many entries that speak about the AI; how they move around a lot and lose their stamina. I would like you to know that in my case, this is not the truth. As a matter of fact, the AI is a thousand fold smarter than it was before. I'm not sure what you guys did, but the AI in my battles is incomparably clever: they position themselves generally better, and they also react more dynamically to my movements. Like most veteran players, I rarely see more than 10-20 percent casualties. This new AI has a generally much better response than it's previous generation had. I've fought 3 battles so far, and each of them has resulted in 20-30 percent casualties to my soldiers. It does make my relative situation a little more dire, and I have to admit that I love it! I try to balance historical stratagem with practical application, and the result has been both surprising and IMHO wonderful.

Of course the graphics detail and map layout is infinitely better. Thank you for this, and I hope to see such things in RS II.

PS: seriously, whatever you did to the AI is beyond great.

This is something a number of team members have noted as well, but I doubt it's an issue of the AI getting 'smarter', it's more an issue of the AI (and the player) being able to use the terrain to better advantage during battles. Since the landscape is no longer flat and often like a golf course, the AI can hide better, use high ground to better advantage, as well as stands of trees. The AI in RTW does know how to use the landscape to it's advantage, it just wasn't given much of a chance in the older environments.