4 years per turn issue

[Darviathar]

I wish to start by saying that the work Marcus has done with his mod has added so much to my game. I love micro-managing my leaders almost as much as I enjoy folding up an enemy flank and watching all his units break.

The one problem I have with the 4 year per turn mod is it makes playing historically tough on me; I look at the date and see 240 BC and simply cannot bring myself to invade Gaul, or put Carthage away, knowing that to do so would be very ahistorical. I'd prefer that years pass faster, so that I would feel more freedom to "get on with my game". Also, I feel that more turns of winter campaigning might slow down expansion.

Is there a way to change how many years pass per turn? Or to disable the 4 seasons? I like the seasons just fine; I'd just prefer that the years advance more quickly, as in Medieval Total War 2.

[Marcus Camillus]

You will need to edit the files of the 4tpy mod to have only 2tpy instead of the current 4tpy. The triggering for activating the 4tpy script can be removed, and the triggering for the Winter Campaigning would need to be changed to account for only 2tpy.

[Darviathar]

Is this easily done? I'm not very adept with such things....

[Marcus Camillus]

It would take editting the the data text files, and knowing how they work. So, its easy if you know what you need to do. The only other thing needed is the time to do it.

[Darviathar]

I wouldn't know where to begin with editing anything but text files. Perhaps I should just accept the fact that time in RTR is never going to match up with history, and that its OK to subdue Carthage totally in the 220's.

[Marcus Camillus]

In the long term, the game tends to get more and more abstract as far as representing history is concerned. Plus, some people are even more aggressive in-game than the factions they play were in past history.

In my new 4tpy Mod v1.9.6 release, I have changed doubled the construction time and costs of all buildings, so things should slow down some due to this. My play tests went quite well and I like the new in-game pace of economic growth that was slower for me. Money was more scarce too and I needed to be more careful with my spending and deciding on when to get involved with new wars with other factions.

[Darviathar]

That sounds great. I strongly encourage you guys to consider changing the conditions for the Marian reforms while you are at it. I believe EB had some condition that is much harder to meet, and as a consequence triggered much later...Something like 6 latifundias must be constructed? As I said somewhere else, I've noticed that its far too easy to get Capua to 24,000 persons by enslaving the Sicilian cities as you conquer them in the 260's. I simply force myself to refrain from building the Imperial palace until after 220, a point in which I've typically conquered Greece and are ready to push into Asia Minor.

[Tiberius Nero]

Try not enslaving or exterminating at all (or do that at most for 1 per 10 settlements you capture) as a house rule, it slows down rate of expansion a bit. Yet again, the game is impossible to play historically, if you are going to wait for the 50s to attack Gaul you will most likely find Macedonians or Seleucids there, how historical is that?

[Darviathar]

Try not enslaving or exterminating at all (or do that at most for 1 per 10 settlements you capture) as a house rule, it slows down rate of expansion a bit. Yet again, the game is impossible to play historically, if you are going to wait for the 50s to attack Gaul you will most likely find Macedonians or Seleucids there, how historical is that?

I no longer enslave cities as of my current game. It is a far greater challenge to have to hold up advances to keep them in line than it is to deplete the population, through up the auxilla 2 building, drop off a battered hastati stack, and move on.

I play the ExRM as Rome on VH/VH and use a lot of house rules against myself. I siege cities and force myself to "wait it out". If a city has a port, I won't besiege it unless I can blockade the port as well, reasoning that it would be easy to supply a city by sea in such a case. I do not chase down and slaughter the computer's armies as he retreats; you know its going to happen, and its just too easy to do. I don't conquer Carthage until the 220's. If Numidia is still around, I will send my armies into Africa to literally conquer cities for them; taking the inland cities from Carthage and forcing them to rebel and default to Numidia. I don't build provincial barracks until the 240's, and I don't trigger the Marian reforms until I've conquered Greece and am ready to push on Asia Minor. I limit the # of legions I can field; one per 3 cities. I don't use anyone to govern a city that hasn't attained legate status.

In short, I am doing everything I can to give the computer every chance! And FYI, I'd love to see Macedon and the Seleucids really pushing into Europe. In my 3 most recent games, Macedon has gone out early, once to the Greeks and the last two times to Thrace. The Seleucids (and this is something I rant about in nearly every thread!) never do a thing in my games. They are always virtually out in the 260's. They come under attack from five other factions as soon as the game starts, and simply have no chance. The Ptolemaic Empire simply has no one else to fight, and can through all their might against the Seleucids. Combine that with Parthia and Bactria picking off the isolated eastern provinces, the Galatians attacking Seleucid holdings in western Asia Minor, the Pontics (who are always the eastern superpower in my long games) taking scraps in eastern Asia Minor, its no wonder the Seleucids die fast. (This may just be with in games using the ExRM mod; I haven't played RTRPE without it in a long time.)