Decadence is ruining this game for me...

[Bombax]

I've played Dacia twice, currently still alive in my second play through but on the way out as Macedonia is on almost all my borders and is the leading dog in the game. It's turn 180 and has been quite a fun ride. I maxed out at two provinces once upon a time and was about to expand to the coast when the trouble started. I've risen and fallen, I've gained and lost aging tokens, earned progress tokens and sit at a glorious chiefdom, i think its called. On my first play through i just did too much to fast and my decadence got out of hand. i grabbed as many objectives as i could, quickly, and down i went. Long term planning and balance seem to be the order of the day. I currently sit at 15 on legacy and top tier in CDR, which i guess isn't to bad. More important is, it has been a fun ride. I look forward to the expansion of the diplomacy system and adding more uniqueness to the nations. The decadence and legacy system is a nice check/balance on the game.

I tried Dacia once more after reading people's comments, and did rather better this time. But then I too hit the little problem of Macedonia...

[budd]

I might do another run through as Dacia, I've got some ideas on what to try. Think my priority will be getting that first province, and getting the tribes off my borders, which will be easier said then done. I still like the idea of moving toward the coast and getting a harbor. Think after i get the first province up and running might work on getting peace with my neighbors and work on getting my money and legacy machine working. I'm going to suck up to Macedonia early, i pretty much ignored them until they were a problem, try to foster better relations. Dacia has no chance of ruling the world, but i have risen as high as 6 on the legacy ranking and maybe if i can get the legacy machine rolling i can stay near the top. one question i have is can Dacia ever change governments no matter what they accomplish? I don't think so, but would be a nice option if they rise far enough.

[eddieballgame]

I am thinking that many/a few are trying to play this game like the way they play so many others...successfully I will add.
The 'decadence system' as it exists is quite unique among pc strategy games.
I, for one, am really liking it, even though it doesn't like me.

[guanotwozero]

I really like the decadence system, but I agree it's quite a learning curve.

As others attest, I do OK if I don't expand too quickly, manage my slaves judiciously and build copious culture buildings. One of the early priorities is to build slave markets, especially in the capital, as that's important to manage morale. As those increase decadence, it's also important to counter them with decadence-lowering structures too. So it's another "realism" factor that needs to be managed, enhancing the challenge.

[MoLAoS]

I agree with you Bombax.

I'm sick of losing the Epirus short scenario in four or five turns and that's on Easy.

Easy or very east if there were such a thing should give you a draw even if you do nothing.

But the "Hard men" like to show how brilliant their minds are......

Thanks my friend, it's good to know someone else out there shares my pain

As for 'Hard Men' - yeah, gaming always seems to attract a certain number of people who need to prove how much smarter they are than everyone else

I mean some games are casual and some are serious. Doesn't mean different people are egotistical or anything. This game is probably a bit of a pain as your first grand strategy game. You might be better served by playing something like Europa Universalis where you can play a big nation without any negatives. In EU4 playing a big nation is generally much easier than a small one. The penalties come from fast conquest to some degree but not from size itself, whereas in FoGE size is not an unalloyed positive necessarily.

If you play FoGE like a map painter you are going to have a bad time. People who took the dev diaries about decadence seriously and did not try to pain the map have a much easier time on D1, otherwise known as Easy. This isn't about being superior or anything. If one person accepts the conditions of the game and one person fights them the fighter is going to have a vastly different experience.

[JWW]

I was going to make a post asking for a Decadence for Dummies (meaning me) tutorial, but I thought I would just tack the request on to this thread. I'm playing as Rome in about turn 290. I started out making lots of mistakes, nearly lost in the first five turns. Later I had a desperate war with Carthage in which I was out of money, out of manpower, and on the edge of losing, with Rome under siege on one turn, but my decision some time before to get the corvus for my warships turned things around. I defeated Carthage on the sea and was gradually able to win the land war, eventually taking all of Spain and Sicily before making peace. I've taken nearly all of Gaul/France and expanded northward some from Italy. I've decided not to take on a strong Macedonia to my east, and they don't seem eager to take me on. The Britons are my ally, and Dalmatia is a client state anchoring my eastern flank. I'm second in points, trailing Macadenia by just a thousand or so points. I figure I won't win this game unless maybe the collapse. But I've had a blast with it. What is wrecking me right now though is decadence. Increasing rapidly. I lead the known world in decadence. More and more rebellions happening. I understand some of the mistakes I made. Building too many decadence-producing buildings. Expanding too fast. I've read lots of things about decadence. Watched videos. Seen good advice in this thread. But I haven't seen a single Decadence for Dummies tutorial. Maybe I missed it, but it seems that would be a great topic since it is something new and every important. So that is my request. A single place to go for everything I want to know about decadence in simple form. And thanks for the game. I'm enjoying it greatly even though I can see that Rome is probably not going to win this particular game.

[loki100]

your wish may well be met ....

[Bombax]

your wish may well be met ....

Plus one - great idea.

And I just want to say thanks to everyone who has replied to my original grumpy post in a positive way, with (a) what the upside of the decadence mechanism is, and (b) how to deal with it. I can see that my initial response was just a tad one-sided

[Bombax]

I mean some games are casual and some are serious. Doesn't mean different people are egotistical or anything. This game is probably a bit of a pain as your first grand strategy game. You might be better served by playing something like Europa Universalis where you can play a big nation without any negatives. In EU4 playing a big nation is generally much easier than a small one. The penalties come from fast conquest to some degree but not from size itself, whereas in FoGE size is not an unalloyed positive necessarily.

If you play FoGE like a map painter you are going to have a bad time. People who took the dev diaries about decadence seriously and did not try to pain the map have a much easier time on D1, otherwise known as Easy. This isn't about being superior or anything. If one person accepts the conditions of the game and one person fights them the fighter is going to have a vastly different experience.

Your points are well made - and well taken. There was actually only one guy whose reply early on made my hackles rise, and (I think) Altipueri was similarly unimpressed...

Thanks for the heads-up for Europa Universalis. I may well check it out

I think you hit the nail on the head when you make the point that "some games are casual and some are serious". My favourite game used to be Civ4, and with this game I was hoping for something similarly simple that might act as a framework for my FoG II battles. So in retrospect I can accept that my expectations were partly to blame for my dissatisfaction with what is, in effect, a very different sort of game from what I'd hoped for.

Ironically, after b*tching about it, I dived back in yesterday and had some success with Aethiopia, focusing on slow development and starting to learn which buildings to put up in order to counteract decadence. Sadly, the Ptolemies eventually *noticed* me...

[Lukew]

Empires could and very often did become decadent and went into a decline. Fact of history. You can choose to manage your decadent and declining state or you can choose to change factions

[Pocus]

Probably it is very hard for many players to abandon the habit of rampant expansion. Although even Civilization has such mechanisms where each city is adding some unhappiness in an exponential manner.

But thanks for sticking with the game, Bombax and others!

[Bombax]

Probably it is very hard for many players to abandon the habit of rampant expansion. Although even Civilization has such mechanisms where each city is adding some unhappiness in an exponential manner.

But thanks for sticking with the game, Bombax and others!

It is a very attractive game - and I'm slowly getting the hang of it!

[WG]

as to the manual, its set up so you can read Ch3, 17 and maybe 18. That won't give you all the info you need but it will give you an idea what you should be looking out for. Ch 19 is also a good overview as to the major game mechanics.

My favorite quote from the manual on decadence, from section 17.1.1.: "Even the most powerful Empire is going to reach the stage where you appoint a horse to be a Senator."

[avgard]

I had a problem with decadence too. But, I discovered that I can dodge most of the problems and stay a stable republic (Rome & Carthage) by expanding slowly and conservatively. Forming provinces quickly. Improving culture as you go. If someone invades, kill them. Keep your provinces intact. Have armies available on the frontier and in the interior to take care of invaders. Build up your regions. Do it all at a reasonable pace. You can keep decadence at bay. Anyway, it has worked for me with the Romans and Carthage.