Sugestion for Julianus for next beta or final release

[Edzamon]

Perhaps you could or: lower the level of population in each of Romes settlements OR put in infrastructure accordingly......
Because wee have now unrealistic situation with big cities having no simple infrastructure... like sewers for example its crazy.

Now... I know why you did it, to make a campaign more challenging for play (because you don't have other way, you are limited with RTW engine and hard coded stuff)
But please, its wery unrealistic... the result is, like I said to you, endlesly exterminating your own population.....
Besides that anoying thing... this is excelent mod. I love it.

[charles the hammer]

Ive never had a problem with the infrastructure. ive only had to exterimante 3 cities once and had a total of four rebellions in my campaign.

[Edzamon]

Ive never had a problem with the infrastructure. ive only had to exterimante 3 cities once and had a total of four rebellions in my campaign.

What???? Thats not possible I had to reconquer ALL Spain, pieces of middle east, bigger part of north africa and some provinces in Gaul... around ONE THIRD of my empire!!!

[charles the hammer]

i lost half of spain 1 province in gaul and i also destroyed the villa rustica i think its called it gave link a -10 law which really helped

[julianus heraclius]

i lost half of spain 1 province in gaul and i also destroyed the villa rustica i think its called it gave link a -10 law which really helped

What???? Thats not possible I had to reconquer ALL Spain, pieces of middle east, bigger part of north africa and some provinces in Gaul... around ONE THIRD of my empire!!!

No doubt, playing as Julianus in the 355AD or 361AD campaign is tough, with rebellious cities. It does depend on what level you are playing as well. The harder the level the more unrest will occur. But again unrest is driven a many factors including:

Faction leader's religion
Governor's religion
Distance from capital
Religious tensions within the city
Squalor within the city
Foreign cultures within the city
Lack of any Garrison in the city

So, it can be very difficult to control all of these things. You can of course attempt to ease the above possible tensions by:

Constructing buildings that increase happiness
Dismantle buildings that are causing unrest (religious buildings for example)
Move your Governor out if his religion conflicts with the population (though if you are wanting to convert the masses, having significant figures of a different religion is important)
Increase the garrison of the city.
etc, etc

Even so, some cities will revolt. Capturing them and exterminating them will usually ease the tensions quite a bit. It is difficult in the early phases of the campaign as you will be quickly starved of cash, but you can also use it to your advantage by regaining these cities and getting some much need cash.

As the campaign progresses and you retake these cities things start to settle down, though there will always be those hotbeds of discontent in any empire I say.

As they say, life wasn't meant to be easy, especially for a Roman Emperor!

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

That's why I love this mod!

[Dionisy]

First thank for great mod, new units are perfect!
Question - in next version can we play for Slavs?

[julianus heraclius]

First thank for great mod, new units are perfect!
Question - in next version can we play for Slavs?

For this time period there is no Slavic faction.

[Julianus Flavius]

I don't think the slavs had emerged at this point.

[Edzamon]

Then how 'bout some improved infrastructure in MOST OF the roman settlments?
I am sure Rome was not like India.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Agreed. There is a real sense of having to balance conquest with careful management here and development - just as the Late Romans had to.

[Julianus Flavius]

And failed epically to do!

[pere_ubu]

Well, I believe it's quite realistic not to be able to improve very much on the infrastructure (they didn't do a lot of building during civil wars), at least not until you are able to stabilize the situation. About the revolts: one other thing you can do is to move the capital somewhere closer to the actual center of your empire, it will have a major impact on the little red faces in Spain and Africa.

In my opinion, one thing I'd like to see in the new release is having many more historical characters. Julian's age is one of the best documented periods in roman history and we could have a lot of historical generals, diplomats and even spies and assasins. I think having a lot of (disloyal) governors and generals would also increase the risk of major rebelions - not only city revolts, but also armies.

[julianus heraclius]

Well, I believe it's quite realistic not to be able to improve very much on the infrastructure (they didn't do a lot of building during civil wars), at least not until you are able to stabilize the situation. About the revolts: one other thing you can do is to move the capital somewhere closer to the actual center of your empire, it will have a major impact on the little red faces in Spain and Africa.

In my opinion, one thing I'd like to see in the new release is having many more historical characters. Julian's age is one of the best documented periods in roman history and we could have a lot of historical generals, diplomats and even spies and assasins. I think having a lot of (disloyal) governors and generals would also increase the risk of major rebelions - not only city revolts, but also armies.

, I thought I had already included historical figures to the best on my knowledge, but always happy to include more.

[pere_ubu]

Sorry for being too critical, there are a lot of historical figures, but there could be a lot more (in fact, I believe every general, spy, assasin or diplomat for the roman factions could be historical). If I'm not too presumptious, I could try helping with suggestions aboout their names, characteristics and places where they should be found (I have some knowledge of late Roman history and some spare time to check Ammianus, Julian and other sources for this era). Once again, sorry if I was too critical; this is one of the best mods I ever did see and I only want to try making it perfect...

[pere_ubu]

I'll be glad to help. In my opinion, the best will be to open up a new topic dedicated only to suggestions for historical characters for the final beta release where people can put up/brainstorm their ideas on this particular matter.

[julianus heraclius]

I was thinking of including cash payments for when major cities are taken. For example when an imperial city ala Constantinople, Rome, or Augusta Trevorum were taken then the faction would recieve a cash bonus of say 100,000 denarii in the case of Constantinople. This would be to replicate the Treasury being plundered.

What are peoples thoughts on this??

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

I was thinking of including cash payments for when major cities are taken. For example when an imperial city ala Constantinople, Rome, or Augusta Trevorum were taken then the faction would recieve a cash bonus of say 100,000 denarii in the case of Constantinople. This would be to replicate the Treasury being plundered.

What are peoples thoughts on this??

do it!

that would be a great help, and powerful incentive, for weak factions to fight (e.g berbers)

EDIT: say, can you script money to head to the lakhmids from persia? IIRC, being vassals of the shah, they were paid a substantial sum to maintain tribal order, and occasionally help fight the romans.

[Julianus Flavius]

The Lakmids should also start off as a vassal of persia (Protectorate). In my games they always go to war and then my victorius legions destroy both of them!

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

The Lakmids should also start off as a vassal of persia (Protectorate). In my games they always go to war and then my victorius legions destroy both of them!

to do so is to oversimplify the relationship between the lakhmids and Persia. the persians IIRC did not make the lakhmids pay tribute, but in fact paid them handsomely, so as to maintain an army, some infrastructure, and to keep the malik's loyalty. there is no evidence tribute was actually extracted from the lakhmids in monetary form (instead, they were made to guard the frontier against the nomads)

the relationiship of the two in other words was a giant version of Arab tribal organization IMHO; the shaikh (in this case the Shah) gains power through good council and money (and being generous with money), and the Arabs willingly go along.

so in other words: a more accurate way of starting the game is with the lakhmids as allies to the sassanids, and the sassanids being scripted to dole out some money to the lakhmid king, with severe penalties if the persians attack the lakhmids (not vice versa, since losing the payment is already a crippling penalty anyhow.).