RS2.5 Issues and Problems:

[coinich]

Ok, fixed. But the trait requires a 'forum' or above (Regional Trading Networks). The problem was in the trigger, which would only trigger if there was a forum present. If you built a great_forum (next level), then it wouldn't work anymore.

Thanks. It doesn't require the Tribal Knowledge and that building tree though?

[dvk901]

No, it does not. My rationale here is that the Dacians had far more relations with the Greeks through their merchant enterprises, rather than through the Barbarian versions of the 'academies', which are basically word of mouth traditions and passing on their heritage.

[coinich]

No, it does not. My rationale here is that the Dacians had far more relations with the Greeks through their merchant enterprises, rather than through the Barbarian versions of the 'academies', which are basically word of mouth traditions and passing on their heritage.

Fair enough. It just didn't seem too intuitive to me.

[Ovidius Empiricus]

I started noticing a weird little bug I had with RS 2.1 as well, playing Rome 1-turn BI.exe.

When I first open a saved game, Crotona's growth rate is much lower than it ought to be, by a couple percentage points. Once I change the tax rate one way or another, suddenly the growth is back to normal. It doesn't revert back every turn if I keep playing, just when I first start a session. Previously, I think it was Messana and Rhegion, but otherwise the same thing was happening. I've noticed this was only an issue some time after I had taken Syracuse. It's strange. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that Syracuse exports grain to those cities and thus alters the growth rate. What doesn't make sense is that this isn't happening with all of the cities importing Syracuse's or other cities' grain. Anyway, something contributing to growth somehow isn't being factored in until I fiddle with the tax rates.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

I started noticing a weird little bug I had with RS 2.1 as well, playing Rome 1-turn BI.exe.

When I first open a saved game, Crotona's growth rate is much lower than it ought to be, by a couple percentage points. Once I change the tax rate one way or another, suddenly the growth is back to normal. It doesn't revert back every turn if I keep playing, just when I first start a session. Previously, I think it was Messana and Rhegion, but otherwise the same thing was happening. I've noticed this was only an issue some time after I had taken Syracuse. It's strange. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that Syracuse exports grain to those cities and thus alters the growth rate. What doesn't make sense is that this isn't happening with all of the cities importing Syracuse's or other cities' grain. Anyway, something contributing to growth somehow isn't being factored in until I fiddle with the tax rates.

Have no fear, this is definitely a vanilla bug, I got very used to it. You are exactly right in identifying what it is, however.

For some reason, particularly with the settlements around Sardinia, Sicily, Carthage and the 'foot' of Italy you will often see a negative growth rate for them. I think I recall waiting and watching patiently to see trade ships arrive (presumerably with grain one time, at which point it corrected. Mostly I try and finish my session at the point of pressing 'end-turn'; thus when I restart and press, everything is immediately resolved. In the mean time, just raising/lowering the taxes and resetting them resolves it.

[Ovidius Empiricus]

Have no fear, this is definitely a vanilla bug, I got very used to it.

Thanks. It's not a big problem and easy to fix, like I said, but I figured I'd mention it anyway. It's been years since I played vanilla Rome or BI, but I don't remember it happening back then. Maybe I was too busy fighting endless nomadic hordes and trying to keep religion from tearing my empire apart, so I didn't notice.

By the way, RS needs hordes, because it would be ridiculous.

Mostly I try and finish my session at the point of pressing 'end-turn'; thus when I restart and press, everything is immediately resolved.

I've never tested it by hitting "end turn" without fixing the growth rate to see if the population goes up or down or if the correction only happens the following turn. I'll have to try that.

[kahnage]

Couple of points for those interested in the Roman Campaign (maybe others for the Fleet bit - I've been play-testing a Roma-1turn):

Fleet Management:

As part of the new traits system, Admiral's are now like General's - once created, they can't be 'deleted' (ie they won't give up their flagship). So, only create the fleets you want to have. You can still transfer ships between them, but not get rid of the fleet entirely. Just takes a little more management.

Election Messages:

Yes, these are a bit annoying, but remind you to get those characters back to a settlement regularly - otherwise 'bad' things might happen.

Senatorial elections occur every year and Censor ones every 18 months - so you'll get a turn occasionally without a message!

Only Senators can become Propraetors, so it is useful to get some of them elected.

Certainly, for me, I very rarely, if ever, auto-resolve. So I only see a message once every hour or so! You're missing half the game auto-resolving - where's the fun in that

because its boring and takes too long to fight small battles (which make up 60-80% of all battles)?
especially as low grade troops (Barbarian Warbands and 'raider' type troops especially) have morale comparable to that of the elite/highly trained troops (Legionaires, hoplites, phalangites, agyraspides etc). It should be that if their initial charge doenst have the desired effect, they get slaughtered in melee unless they are higher grades of troops.

the only battles worth fighting are ones that are:

1) Interesting
2) Challenging ( if the situation is not in your favour according to the computer etc)
3) Important strategically and needs a victory.

Unfortunatly, they are the minority.

[Ferdiad]

I like fighting on interesting places like next to a wonder or on a bridge.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

..... morale comparable to that of the elite/highly trained troops (Legionaires, hoplites, phalangites, agyraspides etc). It should be that if their initial charge doenst have the desired effect, they get slaughtered in melee unless they are higher grades of troops.......

I think you underestimate and mis-appreciate the importance of morale. More importantly, absolutely none of the 'Civilised' powers (those with regular armies of trained troops) caused the Romans (and really the Greeks and similar too) any hassle at all.

Only the Barbarians did!

Decisive battles, including the useful 'slaughtering' effect, only occur when the enemy breaks - but you have to get them to break first.

[dvk901]

I think it's hilarious that people would think that just because you're a 'clubman' or 'spear infantry' grunt that you should have crap for morale and run at the sight of the glinting armor of the enemy. Really? Are you serious? Those grunts and lower level units drove Rome to its knees in 390BC, slaughtered three Legions in Germanic lands, and I could go on and on. The elite units are and were a rarity in Barbarian cultures because only the very rich could afford the expensive armor and weapons.....so they have a lot of medium\lower level units. Should they just be a pushover, then? Run at the sight of your glorious Roman Legions?

Nah. The Romans won with their brains, not their 'morale advantage' over their enemies. People need to 'man up' and fight the real Barbarians, not the cupcakes in Vanilla.

[GRANTO]

I think it's hilarious that people would think that just because you're a 'clubman' or 'spear infantry' grunt that you should have crap for morale and run at the sight of the glinting armor of the enemy. Really? Are you serious? Those grunts and lower level units drove Rome to its knees in 390BC, slaughtered three Legions in Germanic lands, and I could go on and on. The elite units are and were a rarity in Barbarian cultures because only the very rich could afford the expensive armor and weapons.....so they have a lot of medium\lower level units. Should they just be a pushover, then? Run at the sight of your glorious Roman Legions?

Nah. The Romans won with their brains, not their 'morale advantage' over their enemies. People need to 'man up' and fight the real Barbarians, not the cupcakes in Vanilla.

totaly agree , well said

[TotalKnight2]

Hi DVK,

I have another issue I am noticing. Can only family members get the nice imperial governor traits? I cant seem to get any of my generals converted to governors to get them.

thanks!

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Hi DVK,

I have another issue I am noticing. Can only family members get the nice imperial governor traits? I cant seem to get any of my generals converted to governors to get them.

thanks!

I think I can help, as I asked dvk' the same thing early on in my testing. They need to be Senators before they can get the Ancillary.

[TotalKnight2]

I think I can help, as I asked dvk' the same thing early on in my testing. They need to be Senators before they can get the Ancillary.

ooooooooohh! I see, I will test this out! Thank you sir! Oh, another similar question. If i had a governor that had the trait but he became a rebel, do i have to wait until he dies before that trait is available again?

[ur-Lord Tedric]

ooooooooohh! I see, I will test this out! Thank you sir! Oh, another similar question. If i had a governor that had the trait but he became a rebel, do i have to wait until he dies before that trait is available again?

That is an interesting question. If he rebels, then I'm not sure, for I don't know whether the ancillary survives when he does (for he needs to die/the ancillary needs to cease to exist)?

It's because it's a 'Non-Transferable' trait (actually it is like all the others, but the effects are permanently given to the original holder and thus they are 'effectively' non-transferable. That's how I understand it, but only someone like dvk' himself can give the full detail). This is why, even when I put in a younger governor and transfer the other Retinue at 60yrs-old, I will often tend to leave the old guy in place, unless removing him has value. Then I just have to wait for him to die; which seems to happen any time from 60-80yrs-old.

I suspect that retiring at 60 may be somewhat early for some and it is a bit arbitrary, but keeping the Retinue is just too valuable and I don't want to lose them. This does mean, however, that I have a pool of experienced chaps to use in emergencies.

[oss1215]

hi , first of all great work with roma surectum cant stop playin it , but i have a ctd problem in my sparta campaign as soon as i press end turn button at year 549 auc so any thoughts ??

[ur-Lord Tedric]

.... i have a ctd problem in my sparta campaign as soon as i press end turn button at year 549 auc so any thoughts ??

Have you exhausted all of the suggestions to common problems in the Technical Area?

That particular one is commonly associated with: still having Autosave enabled; or not having run the script; for 2 early suggestions.....

[Nihahs]

I have read the unrest and the ungovernable cities are results of the revolts in those days. So, what is your favorite strategie for keep the cities yours? I try to build the Julius Maximus Temple as soon as possible, but i need the +40% Tax to keep my empire running.
Edit: How long will the cities be ungovernable?

[kahnage]

I think you underestimate and mis-appreciate the importance of morale. More importantly, absolutely none of the 'Civilised' powers (those with regular armies of trained troops) caused the Romans (and really the Greeks and similar too) any hassle at all.

Only the Barbarians did!

Decisive battles, including the useful 'slaughtering' effect, only occur when the enemy breaks - but you have to get them to break first.

but only through sheer numbers. and their tactic of 'if at first you dont succeed, retreat and try later'.

and are you forgetting the Parthians? the romans couldnt completely defeat them, at least on an open battlefield.

Yes there were victories on both sides but the romans had pretty much won any siege, whether attacking or defending at the Parthian foot troops were terrible (mostly pathetic levies), but vice versa the horsemen of Parthia devastated the roman legions out in the field due to firepower.

and parthia was rather civilised.

[kahnage]

I think it's hilarious that people would think that just because you're a 'clubman' or 'spear infantry' grunt that you should have crap for morale and run at the sight of the glinting armor of the enemy. Really? Are you serious? Those grunts and lower level units drove Rome to its knees in 390BC, slaughtered three Legions in Germanic lands, and I could go on and on. The elite units are and were a rarity in Barbarian cultures because only the very rich could afford the expensive armor and weapons.....so they have a lot of medium\lower level units. Should they just be a pushover, then? Run at the sight of your glorious Roman Legions?

Nah. The Romans won with their brains, not their 'morale advantage' over their enemies. People need to 'man up' and fight the real Barbarians, not the cupcakes in Vanilla.

nearly every time the barbarians won they either:

A) Had a civilised opponent at a disadvantage
-this could be either in an ambush
-unfavourable terrain for the civilised fighting style (romans were severely disadvantaged in forests, greek on rough terrain, parthians on hills etc)

B) Massively outnumbered them
-Examples would be the Britons fighting the romans (which the romans eventually won with 5000 legionaires against 200,000 barbarians (the romans slaughtered them due to lack of morale and the superior roman arms, armour and training)

I cant think of a single open battle where barbarians managed to beat a civilised opponent, and i'm not just talking about romans vs whoever, i'm talking about any civilised faction, ever.

and by them i mean the Hitties, Egypt, Parthia, Greece, Macedon, Persia, Assyria and much, much more.

" not their 'morale advantage' over their enemie" this is a very silly statement. The romans had two things going to them:

1) Extreme morale (great staying power/shock resistance)
2) Fantastic armour (high defense)

these two things lead to many roman victories alone, not taking into account good generals and tactics, however both could be applied to any civilised troop of decent quality.

which reminds me, but, as the Legionaires are heavy shock troops (in Wargaming rules they are classed as skilled sword/heavy shock troops), their charge bonus is quite low compared to non-shock troops, although that might be due to me being a wargamer and having a higher, unbalenced (game-wise) view of the charge bonus they should get.