Rome II

[mikeck]

I didnt get a patch. Are you sure you aren't in beta?

Anyway, is there no way to loot a city without owning it afterwards. I was on a punitive mission to teach some dirty barbarians a lesson... Looted the city but now I own a looted crap hole: like Detroit.
It's killing my economy...like Detroit

[Gusington]

I didn't sign up for any beta...?

Looks like every option for cities requires razing them or owning them.

[Bison]

Yeah I don't think there is a way not to take possession of a city once your armies have conquered it. 

Honestly I've not had an issue turning an Ancient Detroit around is relatively short order.  I've found that if I first repair the town and the temple; those actions along with an occupying army will turn it's disorder positive direction in a few turns.  By that point you can safely move your army and build/repair the other building spots if you didn't do it previously.

[mikeck]

No your right, I did get a patch. Haven't noticed a difference...although my campaign speed was fine.
Anyhow, check out this mod:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?619365-Special-Abilities-Be-Gone!/page3

Gets rid of all the flaming javelins and horse archers. Also gives offensive and defensive testudo to every roman legion. Also gives shield wall to every legion unit which should help with formation when on defense!

[mikeck]

Yeah I don't think there is a way not to take possession of a city once your armies have conquered it. 

Honestly I've not had an issue turning an Ancient Detroit around is relatively short order.  I've found that if I first repair the town and the temple; those actions along with an occupying army will turn it's disorder positive direction in a few turns.  By that point you can safely move your army and build/repair the other building spots if you didn't do it previously.

Yeah, but I don't want ancient Detroit...it's up in the middle of nowhere...like Detroit

[Bison]

Yeah I don't think there is a way not to take possession of a city once your armies have conquered it. 

Honestly I've not had an issue turning an Ancient Detroit around is relatively short order.  I've found that if I first repair the town and the temple; those actions along with an occupying army will turn it's disorder positive direction in a few turns.  By that point you can safely move your army and build/repair the other building spots if you didn't do it previously.

Yeah, but I don't want ancient Detroit...it's up in the middle of nowhere...like Detroit

Can you gift it to a client state?

[Gusington]

What city is it?

Should I get the Radious Rome II overhaul? Is it quality?

[mikeck]

Dunno the name... Up in what is now Switzerland.

Has anyone paid attention to whether roam legionaries release pila or javelins? I haven't watched but I'm thinking I have not seen it

[Nefaro]

Dunno the name... Up in what is now Switzerland.

The tribe was the Helvetii. 

Was the town/region named something similar?

[mikeck]

Not sure. I will look when I fire it up tommorow. It's not that the town is bad, it's just that I looted it so the population is kind of pissed.

[Dolan50]

It's not that the town is bad, it's just that I looted it so the population is kind of pissed.

Like Detroit...

[MengJiao]

It's a bit illogical (ie they want to make the games different so tell them how to do that -- ie not reskinning, but making significant changes -- so there's kind of a excessive reliance on avoiding a hypothetical regime of reskinning), but not a total non sequitur, it seems to me.

   What is odd (and in fact a twisted temporal non sequitur if nothing else) is the imaginary reskinnings in an imaginary trap.  What's trap-like about it if they perhaps all-too-clearly see it right now?

   I think why it sounds (and is) so twisted is that it is a round-about way of saying that even if the game is problematic, at least it has a certain number of innovations and thus avoids the imaginary trap of imaginary future reskinnings.  And the implication is: so give the developers a break and just tell them some things you'd like to see.

It is a mostly good letter, but that one paragraph seems to have needed a bit more editing.   :)  Reading between the lines, it seems like they wanted to hold out the promise of eventually adjusting the gameplay to suit the players, without actually committing themselves to anything more than a conversation on it.  LOL!

  I think the conversation thing was a slip into business-speak and pretty absurd -- but revealing.

[MengJiao]

I didnt get a patch. Are you sure you aren't in beta?

Anyway, is there no way to loot a city without owning it afterwards. I was on a punitive mission to teach some dirty barbarians a lesson... Looted the city but now I own a looted crap hole: like Detroit.
It's killing my economy...like Detroit

   I tend to raze and leave so that rebels take the place and nobody important owns it.  This also has the advantage that rebels don't rebel against rebels so you don't get a brandname enemy re-emerging, but only generic rebels who actually make much more responsible neighbors than brand-name entities.  I had a policy for time of trying to build up remote areas so that there would be no rebels out there but this back fired and I got re-emerging enemies.  So razing is better for many reasons if you don't want to have to send an army into the area every few years, I think.

[Nefaro]

I've seen some rebel takeovers turn into brand new named factions.  I'm pretty sure that's what is supposed to happen when they take over a region, isn't it?

[Gusington]

I've seen rebels turn into legit factions too, just last night actually. I don't raze cities, I feel it's too brutal :)