Tweaking rs2

[seleucid empire]

I have tried rsII many times and I have always gone back to EB

The main reasons for this is

1. RsII battles feel too much like vanilla ones for me. Units seem to die quick, and some units don't feel as balanced

2. The economy seems too strong. I recall starting a game as Sparta and after one turn of playing I realised I had started with close to 2 stacks and I was still making heaps of money despite owning only one city. So i realised it was gonna be a massive orgy of battles every turn.

For these two reasons I decided to continue playing eb since their battles feel more realistic and their economy is a lot more difficult to manage.

However this is a shame since most of the Rs2 units look a lot prettier.

So I was just wondering if It was possible to either import certain rs2 units into eb or tweak rs2 so the economy and battles feel more like eb

Btw I know nothing about modding

[Grimbold]

I'd call myself a veteran Sparta 1 turn player.

That said, if you're playing Sparta 1 turn, and you haven't disbanded any of the starting units, and you literally mean that after the first turn you're making loads of money, then i'll risk my neck and say that's impossible.

[dvk901]

Although the balance in 2.5 is a bit 'off', we admit (and will be much better in 2.6), one of the characteristics of RS2 in general is that you start off fairly well.....not in all cases, but better than in a lot of mods. The campaign is designed, however, to become more difficult as you go deeper into it. Expanding will result in less money (or should), and defending what you have can become more difficult.

Some of this depends on how people play, and on what settings you play (medium as opposed to Hard). Very Hard is bugged and shouldn't be played as it will typically result in a grossly skewed game (in favor of the player).

As far as battles go, I have rarely heard people say that RS2 batt;es are too easy.

[Sertorio]

I have tried rsII many times and I have always gone back to EB

The main reasons for this is

1. RsII battles feel too much like vanilla ones for me. Units seem to die quick, and some units don't feel as balanced

2. The economy seems too strong. I recall starting a game as Sparta and after one turn of playing I realised I had started with close to 2 stacks and I was still making heaps of money despite owning only one city. So i realised it was gonna be a massive orgy of battles every turn.

For these two reasons I decided to continue playing eb since their battles feel more realistic and their economy is a lot more difficult to manage.

However this is a shame since most of the Rs2 units look a lot prettier.

So I was just wondering if It was possible to either import certain rs2 units into eb or tweak rs2 so the economy and battles feel more like eb

Btw I know nothing about modding

1. Impossible, and i also play EB.

2.As i had the opportunity to post in another thread, most people playing miss what i believe is a very important point. One stack in EB equals one army. For Rome for example one stack will be equivalent to two legions plus Allied Cohorts/Alae which is roughly the same infantry numbers.

RS2 is geared to the numbered Legions, each represented by a single stack and in the medium/late game any player (except Grimbold, he hates Romans), will want the 28 Legions in the Campaign Map. So i believe that a strong economy his needed.

As to reality Polybius writes that in the years after Cannae the Romans had about 16 Legions in Italy, just for Hannibal. In RS2 it would mean 16 stacks.

[_Tartaros_]

i really like the economic and cashflow in RSII. it´s the first time (besides RTR7) that you actually manage a kingdom or an empire in greater dynamics. EB is always very hard at the start, you have to conquer or stay in dept forever... as dvk901 said, it becomes very hard if you make progress in gameplay.

[Glycerius]

I just hope the garrison script goes. It makes winning battles pointless, as a city magically has full stack of medium grade units, not basic militia, which would be okay. Bringing artillery to where a city is to be attacked, mostly avoids the garrison script annoyance. There are still too many crashes after battles.

[Grimbold]

The campaign is designed, however, to become more difficult as you go deeper into it. Expanding will result in less money (or should), and defending what you have can become more difficult.

Erm are you sure about that? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Expansion > more lands > more money

[dvk901]

No, that is not the point of RS2, and if that is the case, then we have failed our goals. The fact of the matter is that in this era, maintaining a growing and large empire costs a LOT of money. Vanilla, and some mods, don't really do anything to counter the tendency you are talking about....conquer and swim in cash. The reason this happens is because you inherit the buildings in settlements you conquer, and paid nothing to build them. So trade increases, as well as taxation, and there is nothing to stop this from growing exponentially until you can virtually 'buy' the campaign. Not a lot of fun.

The idea or concept behind RS2's economics is that 'own' a base area of territory that you built and improved. It provides you with the bulk of your income. Everything else is based on taxation in territories you conquer...because in fact it was. RS2 also introduces a 'infrastructure' tax that penalizes you economically in order to maintain roads, aqueducts, temples, etc....which in turn lowers income.
What we aimed for, and is going to be better in 2.6, is a situation where you do well in your own areas of control, but as you build and expand your empire it becomes increasingly costly (harder) to support the effort....rather than easier. The example of the Roman Empire is a good one in itself. The Empire expanded to a point where it was too costly to expand further, and there was nothing to be gained in expanding any further anyway. Thus, the entrenchment in the form of walls, forts, cheaper local troops, and a limited number of expensive Legions to control a massive area of territory.

[seleucid empire]

I'd call myself a veteran Sparta 1 turn player.

That said, if you're playing Sparta 1 turn, and you haven't disbanded any of the starting units, and you literally mean that after the first turn you're making loads of money, then i'll risk my neck and say that's impossible.

Well I forget all the details. This was like rs 2.0 since I never dled the patches.

I might have taken Argos and lost some troops but I definitely still had quite a large army and I was making money

Hmmm are you sure that is impossible. Btw I'm saying I was making a 'lot' because compared with eb, if I had started with 2 stack and one city, I would bein the red for the next 5 years of the game.

The point is, the starting economy is very very strong in rs2 compared to eb

1. Impossible, and i also play EB.

2.As i had the opportunity to post in another thread, most people playing miss what i believe is a very important point. One stack in EB equals one army. For Rome for example one stack will be equivalent to two legions plus Allied Cohorts/Alae which is roughly the same infantry numbers.

RS2 is geared to the numbered Legions, each represented by a single stack and in the medium/late game any player (except Grimbold, he hates Romans), will want the 28 Legions in the Campaign Map. So i believe that a strong economy his needed.

As to reality Polybius writes that in the years after Cannae the Romans had about 16 Legions in Italy, just for Hannibal. In RS2 it would mean 16 stacks.

Doesn't that kinda guarantee an exhausting number of battles? That's what I meant when I said the economy was too strong. It reminded me of mid or late game vanilla

Although the balance in 2.5 is a bit 'off', we admit (and will be much better in 2.6), one of the characteristics of RS2 in general is that you start off fairly well.....not in all cases, but better than in a lot of mods. The campaign is designed, however, to become more difficult as you go deeper into it. Expanding will result in less money (or should), and defending what you have can become more difficult.

Some of this depends on how people play, and on what settings you play (medium as opposed to Hard). Very Hard is bugged and shouldn't be played as it will typically result in a grossly skewed game (in favor of the player).

As far as battles go, I have rarely heard people say that RS2 battles are too easy.

Ahh well Ill look forward to 2.6 then. Will you be changing the lethality?

If im wrong, correct me but I think the difference between EB and RS 2 is instead of changing the lethality for balance, RS changed the stats?

Yeh I think I have a problem with an economy that allows you to fight a lot of battles from turn 1. Thats just me. Basically, I once started a Seleukid campaign and I won the battle of Raphia but took higher casualties than I would fighting an EB battle because the pace was so different. So I went onto besiege the actual town of Raphia and another huge stack attacked me. I barely won that battle and then I quit lol...

oh and I never claimed RS2 battles were very easy, I just said units seem to die a lot faster than in EB so it reminded me a bit of vanilla.

Im no stranger to intense micro managing in battle (Ive played the EB saba campaign many times) but I just got upset when some of my troops in RS2 died a lot quicker than I thought they would (referring to raphia)

[seleucid empire]

Nice triple post.

yeh I forgot how to multi-quote sorry

What's the big deal with double-triple posting anyway?

And no one here has answered my question yet. Im not trying to compare EB and RSII cause I know what kind of arguments that will lead to

all I want to know is if its possible to import some things from one game to another

[LoGaL]

Bud , i alwais felt battles in rs2 where much longer than in eb, and unit lasted much more.. And the battle of raphia is supposed to be hard, because, if i recall well the ptolemaic army, apart for some elite units , is overall better than yours.... And after that you decided to attack an other city and you got attacked by an other big stack... As a eb player you should understand that seleucid empire steamrolling ptolemies and winning battle of raphia easily is no-fun and also no-historical
About the economy, that's true, in 2.0 you could swim in cash, but i fell that with the 2.5 and the coming 2.6 we are going in the right direction
And also, you should compare the increase in income with the overall increase in buildings and units costs(basic wells 5k gold), there are even some traits now that make the buildings cost even more wether a certain amount of money is reached in the treasury, so no it' not that you "swim" in cash, you start with your own core cities which can support 1-2 armies but while expanding around, your income won't raise above that for a long time, until you start developing well those cities you conquered
About porting some rs units to eb if i recall well the alexander eb uses some of them
To me before stating "i don't like rs" you should play an entire 2.5( not roman as it is bugged in the late game) campaign and get the feeling
The only problem i recognize is the mass battles in the late late game if a super power is formed or not ( Again with the latest patches i've seen less tricolored maps and more diversity)
The most ejoyable campaign to me is the greek cities one, you may want to try it You swim in cash, you can support many armies but many foes will be attacking you and you will play with different types of armies
I also didn't like EB because i quitted the campaign after a couple of turns, ( oh this sucks low income blablabla) bu i changed my mind after playing a long campaign with the macedons

[Grimbold]

No, that is not the point of RS2, and if that is the case, then we have failed our goals. The fact of the matter is that in this era, maintaining a growing and large empire costs a LOT of money. Vanilla, and some mods, don't really do anything to counter the tendency you are talking about....conquer and swim in cash. The reason this happens is because you inherit the buildings in settlements you conquer, and paid nothing to build them. So trade increases, as well as taxation, and there is nothing to stop this from growing exponentially until you can virtually 'buy' the campaign. Not a lot of fun.

The idea or concept behind RS2's economics is that 'own' a base area of territory that you built and improved. It provides you with the bulk of your income. Everything else is based on taxation in territories you conquer...because in fact it was. RS2 also introduces a 'infrastructure' tax that penalizes you economically in order to maintain roads, aqueducts, temples, etc....which in turn lowers income.
What we aimed for, and is going to be better in 2.6, is a situation where you do well in your own areas of control, but as you build and expand your empire it becomes increasingly costly (harder) to support the effort....rather than easier. The example of the Roman Empire is a good one in itself. The Empire expanded to a point where it was too costly to expand further, and there was nothing to be gained in expanding any further anyway. Thus, the entrenchment in the form of walls, forts, cheaper local troops, and a limited number of expensive Legions to control a massive area of territory.

Well i can only speak for myself, since different players have different play styles and goals in a campaign.

But, in my case, it is pretty much inevitable that, as i expand, i start to swim in cash. Take for example my most recent Spartan campaign. I decided to try something different by leaving Macedon alive and going for a maritime empire.
With the Peleponnese alone i was making loads of money. The only thing that can halt your growing income is if your start recruiting more and more armies while you're still building your cities up.

[Sertorio]

yeh I forgot how to multi-quote sorry

What's the big deal with double-triple posting anyway?

And no one here has answered my question yet. Im not trying to compare EB and RSII cause I know what kind of arguments that will lead to

all I want to know is if its possible to import some things from one game to another

Well i tried to explain why i believe that an EB player will feel an immediate diference in RS2. There is more cash and the scale is diferent. I havent played a late EB game so i have no idea how many stacks there are around.
In RS2 i believe that a late game Roman player will want to own the numbered Legions and those will represent round 30 stacks, plus some garrisons etc, etc. I haven't done the math on that.

Regarding your questions on modding, yes its totally possible to do a private mod with any units you want, you just can't release it to public without approval of the teams.

Among the folders of RS2 you will find a folder named "important stuff", with alternative EDU filles, and i think that one or two of them address your stack issue. However i have no idea of what exactly changed.
Hope i have answered your questions.

Doesn't that kinda guarantee an exhausting number of battles? That's what I meant when I said the economy was too strong. It reminded me of mid or late game vanilla

Well, i try not to fight in too many fronts, not because i believe i cant win but because i want 1,2 battles turn. I have to live with it.

[LoGaL]

Well i can only speak for myself, since different players have different play styles and goals in a campaign.

But, in my case, it is pretty much inevitable that, as i expand, i start to swim in cash. Take for example my most recent Spartan campaign. I decided to try something different by leaving Macedon alive and going for a maritime empire.
With the Peleponnese alone i was making loads of money. The only thing that can halt your growing income is if your start recruiting more and more armies while you're still building your cities up.

The peloponnese is just like THE economy powerhouse

[Grimbold]

The peloponnese is just like THE economy powerhouse

It is, and now imagine the powerhouse that is all of Greece.

-- double post merged (Brusilov) - please use the EDIT button in the 'go advanced' view.....

Incoming double post!

Speaking of difficulty and expansion rate, is there any way to apply the building/unit costs from the Swap factions campaigns to the normal 1 turn ones?

[dvk901]

Well, we all need to understand that RS2 is the brain-child of ITS creators, just as EB is of its own. We had some different opinions, likes, dislikes and goals, and did some things differently. That in itself is the beauty of having a lot of different mods to choose from, because each one offers a glimpse into the minds of the people who created it, and portrays the time period in a way that they wished to do so. I've always thought that Lusted's TE was one of the most beautifully done 'pure' mods of RTW because he accomplished through his art a nice example of what RTW should've been 'out of the box'. And for the Roman player, SPQR is a 'one-man' mod that is very slick, very fun to play, and very hard. Had some of my most nail-biting battles and moments in that mod.

Now, that said, the creators of RS2 differed from those of EB in the sense that the struggle for cash was, in our opinion, just too oppressive. I've played a number of mods that are like this, and I just don't particularly like them, because I want to manage my empire, fight battles, face stiff opposition and have fun with it...maybe even lose. But I don't want ot have to struggle to buy a unit of levy crap soldiers, or sell off my children to afford an army. No money just equals no fun AFAIK. So RS2 offers the player a good start...yes, sometimes a bit 'too good' (but hopefully that will be fixed)....and attempts to make the later campaign more difficult by 'drying up' the sources of income as you expand.

Still, rich and prosperous areas of the world in this era are portrayed as they were....trade and income in Greece is great, resources in Spain in gold and silver are as they were (that's why they were fought over), and of course, trade in the east, grain in Egypt, etc. So you are going to have money, and there are a good many ways to spend it. I'm not all that ashamed of that, because it reflects most the team's view of playing the game.

As far as unit stats and units dying....I couldn't say how many times I have heard people complain that when they fought a battle they lost a bunch of men.....more than they thought they should in 'their' opinion. But you have to understand that this is a balancing issue. If you square off....one full stack to one full stack with an opponent, and an equally capable mix of units (the enemy may even have better ones), and you subsequently win the battle...what makes anyone think that they shouldn't lose a LOT of men in the process. Is this complaint based on just irritation because units have to be replaced or retrained, especially units with chevrons and goodie upgrades? It just makes no sense, because in reality armies are going to lose men. It just happens. The idea of what is too many or too few is up for grabs, I guess, but I think RS2 gets it pretty good. And, if you consider that the economy IS better in RS2, then you have decent cash to replace loses anyway.

[seleucid empire]

Now, that said, the creators of RS2 differed from those of EB in the sense that the struggle for cash was, in our opinion, just too oppressive. I've played a number of mods that are like this, and I just don't particularly like them, because I want to manage my empire, fight battles, face stiff opposition and have fun with it...maybe even lose. But I don't want to have to struggle to buy a unit of levy crap soldiers, or sell off my children to afford an army. No money just equals no fun AFAIK.

I think its a bit more historically accurate for a kingdom to have trouble raising even a single unit of troops. The thing I like about EB is how realistic everything is. In any campaign I can usually only afford one stack until I conquer enough land to be considered an "empire". For example, I don't think Macedonia could have ever raised more than one army at a time unless it reconquered all of Alexander's empire.

I see where your coming from. When I first played EB, I also hated not being able to afford a decent army. But then, If you think about it, it would be accurate for most countries to be in debt during war (Alexandros bankrupted Macedonia just to raise a single army) So I find It refreshing when I gather 4 stacks for a blitz campaign and try to finish the campaign before my empire's economy goes too far into the red

I understand you were one of the modders? Did you decide to go for more historical accuracy and realism or better gameplay?

As far as unit stats and units dying....I couldn't say how many times I have heard people complain that when they fought a battle they lost a bunch of men.....more than they thought they should in 'their' opinion. But you have to understand that this is a balancing issue. If you square off....one full stack to one full stack with an opponent, and an equally capable mix of units (the enemy may even have better ones), and you subsequently win the battle...what makes anyone think that they shouldn't lose a LOT of men in the process. Is this complaint based on just irritation because units have to be replaced or retrained, especially units with chevrons and goodie upgrades? It just makes no sense, because in reality armies are going to lose men. It just happens. The idea of what is too many or too few is up for grabs, I guess, but I think RS2 gets it pretty good. And, if you consider that the economy IS better in RS2, then you have decent cash to replace loses anyway.

yeh I think because the battles are so different in the two games, people complain

For example, EB is the sort of game where you could copy alexander the great and conquer and empire with a SINGLE army since the battles are much slower and are dependant on timing rather than actual attrition and fighting (after all, most casualties in ancient battles were incurred during the rout or so ive heard)

To me personally, RS felt like one of those games where you had to fight through a lot of stacks using a lot of your own stacks and then replenish them quicker than the enemy. (this was exactly why it felt like vanilla to me)


One more question. Since I've never played a late game RS2 campaign. Im asking, Do you find all of your late game armies consist of only professional/elite troops? Lets ignore Rome as a faction for the moment. Consider Seleucids, Ptolemies, Macedonia. Would your late game armies consist of only the best or second best phalanxes for line troops? Only your best or second best heavy infantry as flank guards?

Answering this question will tell me a lot about the game.

[dvk901]

I think its a bit more historically accurate for a kingdom to have trouble raising even a single unit of troops. The thing I like about EB is how realistic everything is. In any campaign I can usually only afford one stack until I conquer enough land to be considered an "empire". For example, I don't think Macedonia could have ever raised more than one army at a time unless it reconquered all of Alexander's empire.

First of all, there is the difference to consider between 1-turn and 0-turn mods. Most (that I know of, anyway) are one or the other. We have 'tried' to address both styles, and I think the next Patch will reflect some better balancing for both. The difficulty we had with this, or I should say, I had, since I was doing it for the most part for a long time...was a lack of familiarity or 'feel' for 1-turn configurations since I never liked them much. This is important because the two styles are really very different, even if they end up achieving the same goals. 1-turn mods are slower paced, involve less money because they allow fewer armies....taxes, the economy, unit stats...almost everything has to be tailored or doctored to favor a very different type of campaign. I will admit that this does tend to favor the smaller factions because they will have difficulty raising multiple stacks, but in 1-turn fewer armies are necessary or even desirable, so the playing frild is sorta leveled a bit between larger and smaller factions.

Still, the ability to raise armies was very different for various cultures and nations. During the era of RS2, it was difficult for Greek nations to raise soldiers because of population decline and overall decay. The Greeks had literally 'fought themselves to death'. Indeed, the only 'rising' Greek state during the time of RS2 was Pergamon....all the others were in decline, or holding on by their finger nails.
The Romans, Parthians, Nomads and Celts, however, had no problem raising huge armies very quickly. They had the population and either the resources or the natural advantages of their cultures at work for them. The Romans had great wealth and vision. The Celts had numbers and the cultural definition of warrior honor and living off the land. They could just drop their tools and pick up swords at the drop of a hat, and were happy to do it. The Nomadic cultures virtually lived for battle...looting, pillaging, and ransacking to gain their wealth. It was a way of life for them.

So, there are all these historical realities that one must then somehow try to adapt to a game that only gives you so many tools and settings to work with.

I see where your coming from. When I first played EB, I also hated not being able to afford a decent army. But then, If you think about it, it would be accurate for most countries to be in debt during war (Alexandros bankrupted Macedonia just to raise a single army) So I find It refreshing when I gather 4 stacks for a blitz campaign and try to finish the campaign before my empire's economy goes too far into the red

I understand you were one of the modders? Did you decide to go for more historical accuracy and realism or better gameplay?

Yes, I am the so-called 'team leader'. I get that honor so I can be to blame for anything that goes wrong. LOL. Just kidding.
But herein lies the problem for a lot of players.....they don't want RTW to just be about the battles. They like building their cities, making people happy, managing things, moving Governors around, making choices about economic development, etc. If you are playing a mod where every denari has to scraped up with great effort, and then used to buy a very badly needed unit for your army, it tends to slant everything towards the battle side of things. I played a mod briefly a while back (I won't say which one, because it was a well done mod in most respects), and I found it literally impossible to proceed very far. I was being attacked from three sides, had no money to build anything to GET more money, and needless to say, no money to by even the cheapest unit. So I would cheat a little...just to get an army or half of one.....and then fight battles that seemed to take forever before ANYONE would die! It seemed like all the units were invincible! I fought one battle with two units against three of the enemy's for an hour....and finally gave up. Neither one of us could win the battle! It just wasn't 'epic' enough for me, and seemed senseless to play 'street brawl' with a few guys and no results.

And to answer your question: Did (we) decide to go for more historical accuracy and realism or better gameplay?

Our goal was to try very hard to achieve both. At first, you might say a very historical 'SPQR'....a 0-turn free for all that was historical.
But as time has gone on, we've listened and learned and also made great effort to appeal to a larger number of players with 1-turn campaigns and a better balance all around.

yeh I think because the battles are so different in the two games, people complain

For example, EB is the sort of game where you could copy alexander the great and conquer and empire with a SINGLE army since the battles are much slower and are dependant on timing rather than actual attrition and fighting (after all, most casualties in ancient battles were incurred during the rout or so ive heard)

To me personally, RS felt like one of those games where you had to fight through a lot of stacks using a lot of your own stacks and then replenish them quicker than the enemy. (this was exactly why it felt like vanilla to me)

One more question. Since I've never played a late game RS2 campaign. Im asking, Do you find all of your late game armies consist of only professional/elite troops? Lets ignore Rome as a faction for the moment. Consider Seleucids, Ptolemies, Macedonia. Would your late game armies consist of only the best or second best phalanxes for line troops? Only your best or second best heavy infantry as flank guards?

Answering this question will tell me a lot about the game.

From what I have seen and heard, the late game balance of units shouldn't be 'all' that different from any other time in the campaign except at first, perhaps. Now, I say this based on our observations that army balance has been decent, and not composed of all elite units. Obviously, as barracks levels go up, the AI can get better units just like the player, but the AI has a built in tendency to recruit on an equal basis against what it perceives to be a threat. So if your armies are all elite units, the AI will do its best to match this (which it does based on unit stats). The Romans (as the AI) have no choice....their recruitment is scripted so that they recruit realistic Legions. But all other factions control their own unit balance. So from what I'm told, I would say that there is a good variety of cheaper and more expensive units all through the game.....it's something Tone has worked hard on for the next patch as well.

[seleucid empire]

ok, you've convinced me to give it another go.

Although, technically when you said, " If you are playing a mod where every denari has to scraped up with great effort, and then used to buy a very badly needed unit for your army, it tends to slant everything towards the battle side of things."

thats not really true since if you have more expensive units, then economy becomes even more important. Say, you are playing RS2 and you haven't managed it well, you may still be able to have a few stacks. Whereas, in EB, a good and bad economy is the difference between having 1 stack, fighting a two front war (defeat) and 2 stacks fighting a 2 front war (victory). Also since you can afford more units in RS2 then you have more battles so the mod slants towards battles more???.....

Before I reinstall the mod,

1. how fast is the pace of expansion (for a player who likes to blitz)

2. is there any way to tone down the number of battles?

3. Changing movement speeds of ships, spies, diplomats and armies?

4. I never realised RS2 was a 0 turn mod. Is there a way to change it to one turn recruitment?

[Averroes19]

No, that is not the point of RS2, and if that is the case, then we have failed our goals. The fact of the matter is that in this era, maintaining a growing and large empire costs a LOT of money. Vanilla, and some mods, don't really do anything to counter the tendency you are talking about....conquer and swim in cash. The reason this happens is because you inherit the buildings in settlements you conquer, and paid nothing to build them. So trade increases, as well as taxation, and there is nothing to stop this from growing exponentially until you can virtually 'buy' the campaign. Not a lot of fun.

The idea or concept behind RS2's economics is that 'own' a base area of territory that you built and improved. It provides you with the bulk of your income. Everything else is based on taxation in territories you conquer...because in fact it was. RS2 also introduces a 'infrastructure' tax that penalizes you economically in order to maintain roads, aqueducts, temples, etc....which in turn lowers income.
What we aimed for, and is going to be better in 2.6, is a situation where you do well in your own areas of control, but as you build and expand your empire it becomes increasingly costly (harder) to support the effort....rather than easier. The example of the Roman Empire is a good one in itself. The Empire expanded to a point where it was too costly to expand further, and there was nothing to be gained in expanding any further anyway. Thus, the entrenchment in the form of walls, forts, cheaper local troops, and a limited number of expensive Legions to control a massive area of territory.

Thank you very much, this is precisely what I think history reflects. Vaster empires, more issues pertaining to wealth arise. +rep for this vision of an actual empire building. Not to say that money will not eventually flow from the increase, but it takes decades of suffering before recovery.