Anyone playing Carthage with 0-or 1-turn h/vh ?

[Hampsicora]

Hi,
just wondering, i played vanilla RTW with patch 1.3 and then 1.5, adding Roma serrectum 1.5 - no BI installed.

First i played with 1-turn at h/vh, and huge unit numbers. Man this was hard, i never had enough money, and went out of the game just before my empire was crushed - without the help of the Romans (!) lol.

Now i play the same but with 0-turn, and it so easy to win - money beyond imagination, able to build up all cities AND produce armies like crazy. This way i instantly took over Sicily, and almost all of Africa, and Iberia/Spain.
Certainly it is fun to build up a perfect empire so fast, but i think the 1-turn configuration was much harder.

Anyone also think 0-turn is a bit too easy ?

Greetings,
Hampsicora

[Martin N]

Because it makes the armies more dispensible i think, What i mean is like on 1 turn, you always look after your troops, retrain etc because they take longer to build AND they cost more to upkeep, but with 0 turn you can bang together a quick army take over your targets then disband in the same turn, so you dont have the upkeep to worry about or the amount of men you have.

But the fun factor is better in 0 turn, because if your computer can handle it, easily 2-3 stacks of armies each basicaly all the time in end game, particularly in gaul or egypt.

[El Crumb]

Hey Hampsicora,

Zero turn recruitment is the most popular way to play here, although of course there are arguments for playing one turn; such as a slower rate of progress and expansion, thus giving the A.I. factions more chance to build up a good playing platform, making your game more difficult and hopefully more enjoyable in the long run.

Fast and early conquest such as you describe experiencing so far are described as "blitzing" tactics. These are to be avoided really, as it diminishes your overall gameplay.

Carthage can have things its own way relatively easy in the game the way you are playing. You will earn more money then Syracuse and the Iberians, meaning you can support more armies and merceneries as well as having more settlements to draw troops from. Not so much of a challenge then is it?

A slower campaign, where you can gradually developyour settlements, armies and navies, whilst building up trade networks and establishing diplomatic relations with other nations before unleashing your well prepared armed forces at your enemies is so much more satisfying.

[apple]

If you want a more arkad smelling game pick zero turn recruitment,
if you instead want a few crucial battles where the outcome could determine
an entire country's survival, then select one turn recruitment.

[Brusilov]

I did read elsewhere in this forum that a game with 0 turn recruitment will result in a lot more income - there must be some interesting bits in the 'important stuff' files.

[GreatOne]

I did read elsewhere in this forum that a game with 0 turn recruitment will result in a lot more income - there must be some interesting bits in the 'important stuff' files.

Yeah, I thought it made no sense.But I didn't search......

[Brusilov]

Yeah, I thought it made no sense.But I didn't search......

I did a quick look and the topic wasn't that far away; http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...27#post3228127

However, it really needs a dev/mod to confirm that this is the case with 0 turn recruitment.

No two campaigns are the same! I am sure that in some bad harvests etc have an effect on income.

[GreatOne]

Yes, that can be the case

[Hampsicora]

Hello,
i experiended a completely other behaviour:

Playing 1-turn with vh/vh settings, the game was unbelievably hard - no money, not even enough to repair buildings, cities rioting and i was losing Spain and Sicily within 20 turns - no possibility to build up friendly negotiations, because no money for diplomats ... invest the first 20.000 in upgrading and you will never have money left for things like spies, diplomats, let alone armies or building and improve anything - oh, and millions of free people's armies who go at you right from the beginning.
Tried that two times, so harvest outcome may have influence, but the general behaviour is hard to say at least. Anyway Maxim Victor told me it should be played at h/vh, so ...

Playing 0-turn at h/vh i have an income of 40.000, and an upkeep of 20.000, so 20.000 free for building or armies, or whatever every turn. As well several armies are built with one turn (which is certainly the intention of the 0-turn mod), but you somply have too much money to make it interesting. This way you build up your empire without problems.
Never played 0-turn with vh/vh settings though.

Playing 1-turn at h/vh is what i currently do, and while i am sometimes struggling i can build up my empire fairly well without major problems.
Hmm, maybe i will give the vh/vh seting with 1-turn a chance again - i like the challenge

B.t.w. why should the h/vh setting be the best for playing ?

Thanks and greetings,
Hampsicora

[Brusilov]

Hello,
B.t.w. why should the h/vh setting be the best for playing ?

Thanks and greetings,
Hampsicora

Increased levels of difficulty mean than the AI gets a bonus. I think at 'H' the AI may get around 10K per turn 'bonus'. There is a bug in RTW where the AI faction receives no such bonus on 'VH'. It may be that VH campaign difficulty is the same as 'M'......

So the hardest difficulty setting is H/VH.

[apple]

Actually is vh/vh easier than h/vh as you get some bonus, dont know why but
thats how RTW is build.

[Jingles]

CONSPIRACY! I still play on h/vh most of the time, but does anyone actually have any PROOF that such a bug exists. Its just confusing, as on other mod forums, the devs deny that there is such a bug...

[Brusilov]

CONSPIRACY! I still play on h/vh most of the time, but does anyone actually have any PROOF that such a bug exists. Its just confusing, as on other mod forums, the devs deny that there is such a bug...

This is also general knowledge over at the RTR forum. It's a bug within RTW and cannot be rectified by a mod.

Unless, it's an Urban Myth.......

[Jingles]

Weird. At IBFD they're convinced there's no such thing. And is this present in every .exe?

[Brusilov]

Weird. At IBFD they're convinced there's no such thing. And is this present in every .exe?

Well, if it's a 'hard-coded' thing then yes it is.

[GreatOne]

Maybe we should contact CA......

[Confederate Jeb]

I play 0 turn H/H at the moment. I have an AAR about what I've done so far.

[Squid]

Simple way to prove it, run a few campaigns in H/?, and let a few turns tick by, do the same thing in VH/?. You will have more money in VH than in H, that is the bug, hence VH is actually easier because you have more resources.

[beatoangelico]

Simple way to prove it, run a few campaigns in H/?, and let a few turns tick by, do the same thing in VH/?. You will have more money in VH than in H, that is the bug, hence VH is actually easier because you have more resources.

I followed your advice using the mods I've currently installed, and at turn 6 here are the results...

. FATW: H = -18252; VH = - 19216
. IBFD: H = -277; VH = -793
. EB: H = -15919; VH = -16156

I suppose this "hardcoded bug" affects only RS.

[Brusilov]

Simple way to prove it, run a few campaigns in H/?, and let a few turns tick by, do the same thing in VH/?. You will have more money in VH than in H, that is the bug, hence VH is actually easier because you have more resources.

You need to look at the money that the AI has to see if they are getting the bonus or not. However, we have no control over what the AI does.