Loyalty

[DimeBagHo]

I'm thinking about removing the loyalty mechanism entirely in version 5.8. The reasons in favour of completely removing loyalty are: (1) The mechanism is still bugged so at this point it is unlikely that it will be developed any further; (2) Having loyalty as an option adds to testing time and slows other development; (3) Having loyalty as an option adds to the complexity of the mod and increases the probability of bugs creeping in.

However, before I pull the switch on loyalty I'd like to get some idea of how many people use it, and like it the way it is.

[Agisilaos]

i play without loyalty. seems way better to me!

[CaesarVincens]

I haven't played with loyalty since before 5.5. I think it can be removed for simplicity's sake if nothing else.

[Balikedes]

I no longer play with loyalty, the bug bugged me too much...har har har.

[Lysander13]

I've recently reinstalled the latest version of the mod that introduced me to the modding community of RTW.....XGM. I have to say that I love the changes and additions to the mod from what I remember. I'd forgotten how enjoyable XGM is along with the streamlined play. As the proverbial lurker on the XGM forums, I voted in ditching loyalty or rather choose not to use it. I've never really been a fan of loyalty, not only because it's a bit buggy but also because I've never really liked the faction slots it requires to pull off...ie.. Greek Independents, Rome Independents, Gaul, etc..... I always preferred to have actual factions and perhaps limit the unplayable factions to just something like the Eastern Kingdoms and Slave Factions. Great idea BTW with the Eastern Kingdoms Faction. Sort of like having a really active Rebel Faction. Anyhow, love the changes and look forward to future XGM versions.

[Centurion44]

I don't play with loyalty anymore.

[Zarax]

As I was the one that proposed the loyalty option in the good old XGM4 I will be sad to see such option going away but at the same time I can understand the reasons behind ditching it.

That said, let the community decide.

[atraps]

No, I dont play with loyalty, so I dont mind if we remove it.

[CaesarVincens]

Loyalty is good for the Romans, and the Greeks to some degree. And the Seleucids would get some good millage out of it, but that's three factions, for a feature that is known to be buggy.

[Unknown Soldier]

The bug kinda killed it for me

[TM Is Back]

So i'm the only one(when i made this post) who still plays with Loyalty and wants it to stay?

How sad, it just give more depth to RTW, so why delete it?

[Hippias]

I too play with Loyalty on! I have never experinced the settlement bug, as I rarely if ever starve cities out, but appreciate that the bug has been a bugger for others.

Whilst looking forward to the roman civil war provincial campaigns I mourn that fact that you could rarely get a decent one going in the imperial campaign.

[LucretiusTC]

I think I have played most of my campaings with loyalty on, and like Hippias I haven´t suffered that bug. I use very rarely the starvation tactics against the begiesed city, because usually the endless needs of my building projects and regular army costs demand more urgent solutions. I also try to tempt the AI Faction to sally out from the city if they have some reinforments nearby.

Even without loyalty those Independent Greeks and Independent Gauls have important part for a gameplay, and they show well how widely those Greeks and Celts used to live in Europe and Mediterranean region. Besides those new provincial campaigns should satisfy the players needs instead of some new relatively small Faction.

If we gave up the loyalty, at least there are some new features that should make the game more challenging like those scripted garrisons. On the other hand when you can count on all your Generals, it should make easier to run the Empire.

Finally maybe those local Rebels could be developed somehow with new units like Garamantine Warriors in North Africa, Phrygian Axeman in Anatolia, and perhaps Mamartines in Sicily?

Luc.

[Dom9127]

I like loyalty as it adds more depth and challenge to the game, I also never experienced the bug and would prefer it if stays. I would only like it removed, if a new faction takes the place of the Roman rebels.

[Spartan198]

I never used it due to the bug warnings. But I'd personally like the subfactions axed in favor of more playable factions, so I say drop it.

[Publius Quirinus]

I never used it due to the bug warnings.

^ That.

Not sure if this is the place, but in most games the Indie Gauls and Roman Rebels get wiped out pretty soon (not having loyalty on means they won't be re-emergent, right?), sometimes by 270BC, which kinda makes them a little pointless IMO. The Indie Greeks and Eastern Kingdoms are excellent in their functions, though. Is there some way to make them re-emergent without having to use loyalty?

[DimeBagHo]

Quirinal: I don't think that re-emergence without loyalty can be done. There are a couple of other mechanisms for re-emergence, but they only work with hording or under very limited circumstances.

However, one thing that might be worth testing again is loyalty without re-emergence (which would work OK for the Greeks, though not the romans as currently set up). It might be that re-emergence is causing the problems rather than loyalty as such.

[Zarax]

It would be great to have more info on that, if all else fails we could use the roman rebel faction slot as wildcard for provincial campaigns and sub mods.

[Hippias]

A gleam of hope for Loyalty??

IF the bug can be pinned down to re-emergence and If, therefore, re-emergence could be disabled but loyalty left, then what about making Libya Deserta a Roman Rebel province?

It's uncapturable anyway, and I hope some clever way could be found to minimise any anachronisms on the strat map whilst always keeping roman rebels in the game.

[Publius Quirinus]

I recall someone saying that in one mod, a small island territory far to the north was created for a faction so that it wouldn't be wiped out... I don't know the details, but perhaps that could work?

Quirinal: I don't think that re-emergence without loyalty can be done. There are a couple of other mechanisms for re-emergence, but they only work with hording or under very limited circumstances.

However, one thing that might be worth testing again is loyalty without re-emergence (which would work OK for the Greeks, though not the romans as currently set up). It might be that re-emergence is causing the problems rather than loyalty as such.

But the basic problem is that the rebels die far too soon without being able to re-emerge-- what's the point of having loyalty for, say, the Romans, when the Roman Rebels die too soon to make a difference anyway? (Unless I've misunderstood how loyalty works.. ^^') Would it be possible to give the rebels (in particular the Indie Gauls) at least a limited monument so that they don't die so fast?