i cant find this anywhere in the globals file...

it really sounds appealing to reduce the amount of reinforcements but i cant find it anywhere.

what program do you use for this?

the actual reduction is in the gameplay setting. re-enforcements can be off, normal, or high. its only if u want to customise it that u need to edit the globals file (to change "off" so that its actually "really, really low" like i did).

but you cant find this in the globals file?
with wordpad do Edit > Find then paste <!-- recruitment levels --> into the box and click "Find Next". you cant fail.

or you cant find the globals file?
Drive may vary but mine is at D:\Program Files\Longbow Digital Arts\Hegemony Gold\Resources\Data - or u can simply do a document search for globals.xnt

I really love the idea of assimilation in particular.

After having certain Illyrian cities for over a decade, I think it'd be only logical that the barbarians would come to love the prosperous rule and happy abandon the notion of returning to their former lives. After all, they're part of something BIG. Perhaps implement this as a loyalty factor which is lowered when the city is rebelling and gained when the city has sufficient (50%+?) food.

Alternatively, migrants. I don't see a huge use for them after you've set up the cities you know you want your couple of faithful homeland bands to restock from whilst abroad, so using them to convert a province formerly belonging to X to full blooded Macedonian city?

Um this wasn't always the case in fact a lot of the time when you attempted to assimilate people it would make them hate you more.

The assimilation thing is a pretty cool idea. Gets me thinking, how historically accurate would it be to completely overhaul a city's populations by eliminating the local people? (Kinda Tyrannical if you ask me)

Perhaps assimilation would get them furious, but what was the life expectancy back then? If you had a city-state under Macedonian control with a reasonable Macedonian citizenry levels, after 50 years, it'd have an entirely new populace. Everyone who was raised into the old ways would be dead, or be ready to fall off any time soon. Nobody would be around to say 'I remember when such and such happened every year. IT WAS FANTASTIC. Lets rebel and go back to that!'

You would have to bring in macedonian people and force local people of other factions to marry and mingle togeher and become familiar together and force a sharing on cultural habits and way of life
and fusing mentality

Perhaps assimilation would get them furious, but what was the life expectancy back then? If you had a city-state under Macedonian control with a reasonable Macedonian citizenry levels, after 50 years, it'd have an entirely new populace. Everyone who was raised into the old ways would be dead, or be ready to fall off any time soon. Nobody would be around to say 'I remember when such and such happened every year. IT WAS FANTASTIC. Lets rebel and go back to that!'

50 years is 50 hours of Gameplay. Thats a hella long time to wait. Also it takes longer than that in many cases. I will regale my children of the good old days back before we were conquered and so on. It takes a few generations.

I mean, they kept the jews down for thousands of years and they still ended up with their own free state in the end. Sometimes you can't control a population that is insular enough.

Don't forget that we're talking about the same culture and religion ect. I can agree that assimilation should be much slower when a western force takes eastern land, or visa vera - but within the same region, I believe rebellion risk should drop over time. So perhaps assimilation isn't the right term, but rather placation. I'm sadly not very knowledgeable on the details of history in this time period, but were there many/large rebellions in Greece when Alexander marched east? If you can unify, enrich, and motivate 'subjugated' as the Macedonians did with the Greek states, rebellion risk should go down.

The only way I see to model this in a way that doesn't add a large new mechanic is to simply have it degrade over time as a function of faction hostility, your strength, culture differences, and possibility of reunification with their kin (ie is their native faction around or have you completely annihilated them?).

Perhaps assimilation would get them furious, but what was the life expectancy back then? If you had a city-state under Macedonian control with a reasonable Macedonian citizenry levels, after 50 years, it'd have an entirely new populace. Everyone who was raised into the old ways would be dead, or be ready to fall off any time soon. Nobody would be around to say 'I remember when such and such happened every year. IT WAS FANTASTIC. Lets rebel and go back to that!'


From what I recall this is EXACTLY what the Athenians did time and again, during Phillips reign, Alexander's, Antipater's and even under the Antigonid dynasty, and the Romans.

Maybe what's needed is a bunch of selectable rules - the only reasonable way to keep a lot if not all of the people happy some if not a lot of the time!

Theoretically this would also allow the building of new forts, watchtowers, farms, even new cities, anywhere the player wants to place them. Something that would be great for sandbox mode -- the more the player can 'shape' the world the better (as long as it's balanced, of course).



I'm for the new watchtowers and forts part, I rarely use forts at all since most of the ones I find are positioned in strategicaly useless areas. Building a wall of forts against a particly raid-happy faction would be a great gameplay addition, although each fort could not be positioned any closer then X to another fort, city, farm, e.t.c. and would require a long time to build(perhaps around the same time needed to build walls around a very large city).
However, I dont think new farms and cities would be a good idea. This would remove serveral key game mechanics, such as the food aspect. It would no longer be a challenge to invade and hold an area with an easily visable lack of food supply, as you could simply construct as many new farms as you want. Also, cities are an equally bad idea, as one could simply spam new cities to recruit as many units as they want without needing to wait for recruits to respawn, thus making battles very unimportant, as troops can easily be replaced now.
As I said, I'm all for being able to build forts and watchtowers, but thats about all I'd want to see. Anything else would really take away the historical accuracy of the game, as well as much of the strategy needed.

Perhaps a new kind of structure, a "military settlement"... something you build wherever you want, has a couple nodes and ballistas and a food storage (pretty much like any fort) but is dismantled after your last military unit leaves its "food range" (eventually leaving a pile of food if there was any remaining inside).

Military settlements were quite common in that age IIRC.

I'm for the new watchtowers and forts part, I rarely use forts at all since most of the ones I find are positioned in strategicaly useless areas. Building a wall of forts against a particly raid-happy faction would be a great gameplay addition, although each fort could not be positioned any closer then X to another fort, city, farm, e.t.c. and would require a long time to build(perhaps around the same time needed to build walls around a very large city).
However, I dont think new farms and cities would be a good idea. This would remove serveral key game mechanics, such as the food aspect. It would no longer be a challenge to invade and hold an area with an easily visable lack of food supply, as you could simply construct as many new farms as you want. Also, cities are an equally bad idea, as one could simply spam new cities to recruit as many units as they want without needing to wait for recruits to respawn, thus making battles very unimportant, as troops can easily be replaced now.
As I said, I'm all for being able to build forts and watchtowers, but thats about all I'd want to see. Anything else would really take away the historical accuracy of the game, as well as much of the strategy needed.


i will like that that to but with farms. The problem of having unlimited of them can be solved of making fertile and unfertile land. the same i will like with mines but then with good mining ground

I still believe that the forts can remain where they are - no need to add a building function - I trust the devs to have enough strategic sense to place them properly. However, for the forts in the interior of your lands I still hold there should be the option to convert them to a commercial center / military supply node or what ever you want to call it. This should add some supply lines and possibly generate some small income, particularly if 'staffed' with slaves. The conversion between the two types should take a while, during which time the structure would serve no purpose, making the decision a heavy one.