HBernstein said:
It would have been nice if the manual or strategy guide had mentioned the downside of growing too quickly. I've gone from 4 provinces to 9 in the first 30 years, and I guess that's what is holding me back.
uh... it did. Jesus, no one bothers to check their facts sometimes. I'm not sure if it is an intended consequence, though I believe it is, admittedly the system does suffer, i myself changed the tech values appropriately (1.4-1.3 is prolly the best, i use 1.5, and my research is about 2 years ahead of every development (which means it adds up an extra 2 years in advance, kinda a problem means i'll develop fully about 3/4ths of the way through the game)
WHEN YOU COLONIZE a province this happens. Let me explain, using the strategy guide which, AFAIK, is available to all registered members of the game. You ain't registered? Tough luck.
Now here you go... taken from the strategy guide.
"The main reason colonization slows you down is that you are basically taking 10 population from an established province, where they are actively earning Tax Revenue and Research Points, and placing them into a province wher ethe civilization is 30 or 40 points lower, which handicaps their research capabilities at the same time as those Research costs have increased."
Think of it this way - you are moving able members of your society into an undeveloped land, and say "hey, go develop it" this means that you are simueltaneously taking away from your existing "researchers, innovators, and etc" and increasing the requirements of upgrading your society. Because please remember, in this game when you upgrade, everything happens instantly. Reflected real world? I think not, so consider the time you actually get your upgrades to be when you get EVERYTHING upgraded, not just 'invented'. So yes, smaller countries would have an advantage there. its something we've witnessed in real world examples.
China, Russia, even America. We have some of the most incredibly advanced technology in America. But at what cost? Social stability? I'd argue yes. We've witnessed issues upgrading for a lot of things, the main reason the larger countries have managed to gain a "COMPETITIVE" advantage is due to the resources required for MODERN DAY technology.
In the ancient world there was no such counter check to smaller societies who could devote more of their time to increases in all round wealthfare (IF they had the stability, and freedom to do so (I.e. no wars).)
Look at the smaller states around Rome, before they were gobbled up, Alexandria, Pergamun, and Syracuse were all much more advanced then Rome in terms of pure technological acheivement. Now, this doesn't always translate to military superiority, though syracuse did use new technologies of Archimedes to use imaginative levers, and series of pullies to flip over Roman galleys during the siege. There were many very interesting inventions too, of Hero of Alexandria. Pergamun became a main player after both the destruction of Alexandria (during Julius Caesars trip there) and Syracuse's destruction.
Rome was not advanced. Yep, you heard me. Its a well documented fact, if you consider TECHNOLOGICAL advancement, not military tactics. Rome had little use for a lot of greek theory which is today, a foundation for many sciences.
I think this system is well played out in Rome. Though some adjustments are needed, i think its mainly due to player incompetence that this issue arrives. It means you stretch too far, too fast. It means you aren't pushing up your civilization (there are specific ways to try and use your governors to increase your chances of civilizing events, and that they are naturally better - High Popularity/Finnese - then some other attributes affect it, i'd have to go through the events files to see what the triggers are.
Rome conquered primarily through satellite states, and independent undirected armies under consul control. Until the imperial era, it was fairly decentralized, with no overall 'direction'. It responded to military/economic concerns. Which you should too, as a player. When you spread out, some provinces are worth less than others, and then consider the benefit of colonizing it yourself, or letting a barbarian tribe do that, and then taking THEM over. (which is in reality, what Rome did - their colonies were limited in nature with generally small amounts of ROMAN citizens. The 'Roman imperial citizenship' came later.)
Those ROMAN citizens, increase your research eh? Surprise, so you want AS MANY as you can. Now when you take, .. say, 2, (out of 20) in Bononia, and place them in Paleo, or Galli you've got 2 citizens there. Ignoring the civilizing complication, and EVEN the increased cost of research, you are still left with LESS civilians increasing the population growth.
How? Simple. Math. 20 civies in Bon. with.. say, a population growth rate of 4% (Base + Vanilla Grain).
Every year that means you get .8 new citizens. Now, take that 2 away. It means you get .72 citizens every year.
With 2 new citizens in ... Galli. Now, w/o grain the growth is 1%.
That means with the .72 in Bon, you get .02 every year from those two cities. Now, with grain you get your .08, increasing your population to the required amount, yes?
But, how many times do you always coordinate Grain to your new provinces? I do it as often as I can, make sure you do too. All small factors affect it. So think w/o that grain, you get less of a population growth, then impacted by less effective research from that population (civilization), and that you need more research points per tech per province.
Then you are literally shooting yourself in the foot. Enjoy slow tech advancements!
