I hate distance to capital

[Yojimbo]

Distance to capital is the most arbitrary annoying unrealistic pointless thing in RTW. I have half my empire in Egypt/Selucia with red faces with my capital in Greece, as I'm conquering Italy and Scythia even tho I've exterminated most of them and built everything i can. If i move it to turkey Greece gets rebellious. it makes the campaign unbelievably annoying i cant really expand at all now because my empire is constantly on the brink of mass rebellion. how is one even meant to be able to conquer the entire map without your settlements rebelling? garrison hardly matters and the penalty shouldn't even be there what city in real life is going to violently rebel just because its remote? Distance to capital ruins the RTW campaign and makes the later parts of it extremely annoying and artificially long and hard.

I have only finished one campaign tho I've played countless ones and that was with the julii and i had red/blue faces for alot of my empire when i just scraped to 50 settlements.

[htismaqe]

Well, conquering the map isn't entirely realistic either.

That being said, I like some of the ideas being built into XGM regarding ethnic traits and such. Happiness in remote areas should have alot more to do with the people that live that and how much they feel they have in common with you.

[Sextus Molestus]

It can get quite annoying, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it ruins the campaign...but I agree, it can get quite annoying indeed.

[Doctor]

Distance to the capital isn't half as bad as squalor is , impossible to curve it down after the dumb AI builds the best farms and sends the population growth spiraling out of control.

[Calamari]

Distance to the capital isn't half as bad as squalor is , impossible to curve it down after the dumb AI builds the best farms and sends the population growth spiraling out of control.

second

[Scutarii]

Distance to capital is CA's way of representing how a big empire can be harder to control... And does it quite well, actually, compared to some of their other ways to represent empire managing mechanics.

[Xavier Dragnesi]

It's annoying, but I suppose it is rather realistic. The further the place from the capital of the empire, usually the more different the culture and lifestyle, and also more unhappy about being under the rule of the empire.

[Elite Peasant]

It's not that stupid, really. As others have already said, it is CA's way of representing the problems big empires usually faced. Especially the centrifugal forces on the periphery of huge empires are represented quite well by this.
Example: Baktria and the Seleucid Empire. Baktria used to be a part of the latter but broke away and became an independent kingdom. Or Marcus Antonius in Egypt. Or the Armenian satrapy of the Seleucids becoming independent over the time. Etc. etc. Technically spoken, these were provinces that broke away from the controlling power mostly because of the tendencies towards independence they had and because the central power couldn't prevent them from breaking away because of the distances it would have had to cover.

[Yojimbo]

It's not that stupid, really. As others have already said, it is CA's way of representing the problems big empires usually faced. Especially the centrifugal forces on the periphery of huge empires are represented quite well by this.
Example: Baktria and the Seleucid Empire. Baktria used to be a part of the latter but broke away and became an independent kingdom. Or Marcus Antonius in Egypt. Or the Armenian satrapy of the Seleucids becoming independent over the time. Etc. etc. Technically spoken, these were provinces that broke away from the controlling power mostly because of the tendencies towards independence they had and because the central power couldn't prevent them from breaking away because of the distances it would have had to cover.

I see it does make sense when you put it that way. Thye shoudl ahev named it a bit better maybe.

to increase public order what you can do is build public health buildings such a sewers. yes i know its crazy to increase population growth on top of pop growth from farms but the public health helps the public order alot

distance to capitol is something you just have to deal with. you just have to build a bridge and get over it. as i said, try exterminating populations instead of enslaving them because enslaving only gets rid of 66% or so of the pop while extermination kills 75%.

Yes i build everything since sewers reduces squalor but when the pop keeps rising past 25,000 and you don't have another tier of buildings that's when squalor gets out of control and distance to capital starts gettign annoying. Of course that's when you exterminate the town. I always exterminate after rebellions anyways its just something i always do. If you rebel there will be no mercy.

[aznflea]

to increase public order what you can do is build public health buildings such a sewers. yes i know its crazy to increase population growth on top of pop growth from farms but the public health helps the public order alot

distance to capitol is something you just have to deal with. you just have to build a bridge and get over it. as i said, try exterminating populations instead of enslaving them because enslaving only gets rid of 66% or so of the pop while extermination kills 75%.

[aznflea]

doesnt public health increase public order by a huge amount? ive got rome which has a population of 37000 from full upgrades on farms/grain imports/publichealth etc and has a garrison of around 300 units. public order is at 110%, down from 210% when a 10 influence/management governor was presiding there.

[Selifator]

It might, but usually the effect on squalor is greater than the effect on public order. Especially in regions like the Nile delta because you will get a pop boom, so squalor will explode quickly.