No peasants, but how about colonists?

[hungry]

I read that some are using cheap javelin units as a substitute for colonists. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...71#post2616571 While that is the best that can be done, it shows that leaving out colonists is both unrealistic and not as fun.

How about improving RTR so that you're able to train colonists in only large cities and above? Like after you build the corresponding governor building. Ideally, you could train 1 colonists unit per turn in addition to training whatever other units you could train in a settlement and it would require a mimimum population limit (rather than just a governor building/city size mimimum). I don't know if making them 0 turns would accomplish the former and if that would cause the AI to spam them. If it would weaken the AIs too much, making colonists trainable in 1 turn and only in large cities and above would be okay.

Don't know if the mini-mod attached to the following older topic works with PE 9.0 and whether or not the AI spams peasants.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...57#post2445257

[Brusilov]

Why is having a cheap unit to act as a garrison any less realistic than colonists or peasants?

There is a very good chance that the AI would spam a very cheap unit.

The same reasons that the idea of peasants being rejected will be the reason colonists are rejected as well.

If you want them - mod them in yourself.....

[reclaimer]

I agree with Brusilov.

Nothing took away the fun than having to fight so many peasants spammed by the AI in Rome and vanilla Medieval II

[Quinn Inuit]

Welcome to the forum, Hungry!

I highly recommend against any sort of cheap unit. The AI loves, and I mean loves, spamming cheap units. We've been fighting against that in the ExRM constantly, and that's with no peasant unit.

Personally, I think colonists would make the game too easy, and it's not like the AI would be able to use the effectively anyway. (I don't think it can disband units.) Furthermore, once you fix the grain bug, you don't really need 'em.

[Clearchus of Sparta]

I think your simplest solution (not necessarily the best) would be to add an extra couple of buildings relating to colonies. One which reduces pop growth (to represent the exodus) and one to represent the influx with a pop growth bonus. This saves on recruitment/unit slots and you can make your settlements only able to build one or the other.

[hungry]

I think your simplest solution (not necessarily the best) would be to add an extra couple of buildings relating to colonies. One which reduces pop growth (to represent the exodus) and one to represent the influx with a pop growth bonus. This saves on recruitment/unit slots and you can make your settlements only able to build one or the other.

Right, that may not be the best as I don't think it'd substitute well for adding 120 colonists (large unit size) to a 480 population small town. The game engine seems hard coded towards relative population growth rather than absolute population growth.


^Quinn Inuit
Runaway population growth due to grain is manageable in PE. Public order doesn't seem to be as much of a nuisance in RTR vs. vanilla Rome. I've got extensive notes on public order collected from the analyses done at totalwar.org for vanilla Rome and RTR added multiple temples to that and also allows the creation of good governors with high taxes rather than very high taxes. I mainly want colonists to bump up small towns to large towns, especially in coastal settlements.

If you restricted training colonists to minor cities and above, I doubt spamming colonists would be a significant problem. Perhaps some are just letting the AIs get too big. If it would be really bad, restrict training colonists to large cities and above. Come on, spamming can't be so bad that you'd have to restrict training colonists to huge cites. I'm steam rolling as Carthage on VH/VH. The biggest problem with the AI is it chases cavalry with foot units. Playing Rome was more difficult on H/H because the Romans have expensive cavalry. Whether the AI trains a few expensive units or several cheap units, they'll die just as easily.

[Brusilov]

Playing Rome was more difficult on H/H because the Romans have expensive cavalry. Whether the AI trains a few expensive units or several cheap units, they'll die just as easily.

Playing VH(campaign) / VH(battle) is not the hardest difficulty setting. It's H/VH due to a problem of the AI not getting the additional bonus it should get on VH.

This is a generally known problem with RTW.

[Quinn Inuit]

You find it manageable? I found myself not wanting to capture cities in Sicily or the Black Sea coast because they would hit huge in a few dozen turns.

Maybe restricting it to huge cities would work, but I still don't really see the need. Decent population management gives you large cities pretty quickly, especially on 4tpy. Why give the human another advantage over the AI? You said yourself that you're steamrolling on VH/VH.

[hungry]

You find it manageable? I found myself not wanting to capture cities in Sicily or the Black Sea coast because they would hit huge in a few dozen turns.

I may have spoken too soon previously, yet my conclusion stands. Carthago is definitely easier to manage in RTRPE than it was in RTW. Public disorder due to squalor has already maxed out (at 100%) and yet I've been able to keep the settlement on high taxes even without a good governor. With a decent governor or when the remaining happiness/law buildings are completed, I'll be able to put Carthage back on very high taxes.

Agrigento (in Sicily) has been the biggest public disorder problem which was solved by shipping in my "conquering hero" faction leader (Hasdrubal). I'm debating whether to immediately ship in a suitable backup just in case Hasdrubal dies early once he reaches 60. I've never had a settlement rebel on me (I've only had a few one or two turn revolts) but I may risk it as I want to wait until one of my "famous victors" also becomes a conquering hero. Certainly it would have helped to been able to train peasants in Agrigento, but I don't know how realistic that would've been ...

Actually, the plague has been the biggest management concern. Utica got it, the first time one of my settlements has ever gotten the plague. Utica has been the only settlement to get it, however, so my finances are still heavily in the black. (If Agrigento gets the plague, that may actually lessen the risk of it rebelling because the huge population loss will greatly reduce the squalor.)

Overall, I believe that the Carthaginians are richer than they were in RTW. I've been able to hire many more mercenaries and once I take over the rich Greek/Macedonian settlements, I suspect that I'll have to start queuing buildings to spend the coin fast enough.

Maybe restricting it to huge cities would work, but I still don't really see the need. Decent population management gives you large cities pretty quickly, especially on 4tpy. Why give the human another advantage over the AI? You said yourself that you're steamrolling on VH/VH.

Well, the Carthaginians may be the easiest faction. Besides, using realistic colonists can be good management and it's always good to reward good management.

[Quinn Inuit]

It is? {Wayne} I was not aware of that. {/Wayne} Good to know, thanks.

[Fridericus Rex]

There is a way to get cheap troops for the garrisons - I changed the Velites for Rome:
Reduced stats to 1 (citizens level)
Increased build time
Increased initial cost
Reduced the upkeep to 10

Checked the tendency of the AI - AI build only 1 unit in the two stacks they made.

It may help the player saving some money in the "long run", but the AI will still place highly qualified troops as garrisons in their cities.
Changing this for all factions is a job I am not qualified to do, sorry!
I question whether it is worth it.

[brutaymagnus]

I miss those peasant units from the vanilla verision. Especially slaughtering them in the field whenever they revolt.