I’m not sure how that would work out. I think that your status age would become a serious problem. But I have not tried it, so I’m not sure how it would play out.
I think I’m finding out pretty soon. In my Athens campaign I’ve been a Glorious Lev II City-State with 5 tokens for a while, but only 4 regions to my name. That’s because all of my objectives are currently part of Macedonia.(That’s me where the cursor is)
Goes without saying I’m not anxious to pick a fight. :)
So while I’m consistently first or second on the CDR table, and 3rd or 4th when it comes to Legacy, I fear age will catch up to me and I’ll start generating Decadence faster than I can keep up with it before Macedonia implodes (if it does) and I can pick up the scraps.
Similarly, this last hour I was sitting with 5 progress tokens as a glorious republic, but unable to progress to level 3/empire because I had only 9 regions. Just now, I added two, and I see that the button to become an empire has a tooltip saying that until I do so, I face an increased penalty from decadence. But I do not think that this kicked in until I had the 10+ regions.
These decisions will have to wait til tomorrow. :)
Started up a new game with the v1.0.2 patch. Think the aggressiveness nerf may have gone too much in the other direction. I haven’t experienced the massive gang ups that I saw in my first game, but on the other hand the AI now almost doesn’t seem to attempt anything against the independent tribes, which makes them a lot less threatening (and makes human expansion much easier).
I’m not planning to play this anytime soon, but this thread looks good and I want AGEOD to succeed. So get your sale number increment!
Odd. I was just a few turns into the new game when I updated the game, and everyone attacked me. Maybe that aspect of the update does not affect games already in progress? Or maybe you just had some strange dice rolls? It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
I think the game would benefit from being able to fight in an area and not occupy it.
So launch an army expedition into an area to basically cull an enemy, then retreat, aka a raid.
Occupy sector ought to be a separate action, costing money, food, manpower etc.
Barbarians can raid, can’t they?
I guess if they implement something similar for civilized states it should come with a penalty. E.g. you get some decadence or something for telling your soldiers and people they can’t get this new land and riches just because you care about stability.
I think the barbarian thing is an action not involving actual armies (that you move around the map.)
I am good with a wide range of aggressiveness, mostly. I would rather have a bit too much chaos than too much predictability. I’ve been pleasantly flummoxed by independent rebels and reappearing minor civs, and wouldn’t want that to go away. And some of the odd seeming behavior seems not so odd if you consider what a desperate community/nation might do if facing overwhelming force. The game might benefit from an “abject surrender, please don’t hurt me” option for the little guys, though.
I have to say, it’s hard to manage expansion.
is the idea that you capture one or 2 regions only, then massively build up your culture, and continue that way?
I am the largest empire but constantly having to worry about revolts, and my army costs are huge, although I have by far the largest and best equipped and experienced armies.
They can’t be everywhere though.
Makes me think of Barbarian Invasion a bit, that was fun!
I think that that is the thing right there. “Larger” brings some advantages, but it also brings a lot of problems. Especially when you run out of regions of your own ethnicity to conquer.
But year, I am seeing exactly the same thing. Raids and wars from the hinterlands, but when I smack them, then I get larger,and incorporate regions that add little but trouble. And my gains are offset by the greater perimeter to patrol.
But I think that that is what the devs intended the game to be about. Gotta build and expand to be halfway secure, but then gotta deal with the problems of expansion.
Indeed, and I like it.
I do wish there was a way to give territory away,m or trade it, e.g. let a defeated faction form again but as a vassal.
It’s not that hard to expand when you get a good cultural setup, but you have to do that part first. The problem eventually tends to be government age rather than territory.
Kind of makes sense for that not to be an option though, can’t think of any cases in history where that happened.
Definitely would be nice with a little more depth in the war/peace system allowing, for instance, for a client-state outcome from wars. It was, in actuality, a very common way of dealing with over-extension and politically/economically inconvenient conquests and a big part of Rome’s success was their extensive use of the patron-client on an international scale. Illyria, Carthage, Macedonia, the Greek city states, the Asian Kingdoms, etc., were all made client states first, before they were finally assimilated.
Pillage and plunder was commonly used along barbarian borders - the Roman response to raids in both Spain, Germany and Britain was usually retaliation with a carrot and stick approach; friendly tribal rulers were rewarded and recognized; unfriendly tribes were targeted by punitive raids and either driven off or made friendly by replacing its rulers. For this to work, the game really would need to be able to distinguish between conquest and other military operations, though. Too much to ask of this game, probably - would love to see a game really deal with this some day, though.
I guess that in the absence of a better representation, being able to split out client-states from recently conquered territory might be a reasonable alternative.
Perfect idea
Finally played this for a little while.
I’m surprised how well this game portrays Sparta, a secondary minor faction. You have the usual Agoge worship and Spartan Phalanx is great… But it’s extremely limited. And Spartan economy just doesn’t work. Also for some reason my kings died like flies.
My first game had a stretch where it seems like my rulers couldn’t last more than a few turns. That’s not how it normally goes there. You certainly can have a couple go in quick succession but some rulers will also stick around for a long time.
I had a game as the Belgae where my terrible starting leader held on until he was like 80, which is very old in this game. I kept wanting him to croak.
After a few quick flameouts I made it to turn on hundred with Dacia. I’m in third place in Legacy but the Factions ahead of me have roughly twice my school and are pulling away. I guess I could build up an army attack one of them but I worry that my decadence with Spike, as this game I have yet to make it even to Gloriousstage two, And I think it is due to the fact that I’ve expanded a lot and have the most regions, As well as the highest land force score. It took quite a while to play 100 turns but a game is 500 and I don’t really want to continue unless there’s some chance of eventually winning.
Has anyone played enough to have a sense of what the rhythm of a typical game with a minor power is like?