Danube, Rhine, Euphratus ...

[Nowake]

What is CA going to do about them? The romans controled them carefully, fleets were patroling each and every one, Danube was called the spine of Europe; also, troops were more easily transported than by land ... and more other things, we all know how important these rivers were as a defence line; we can't have a small stone bridge like in MTW over Danube; it's hilarious. Trajan build the bridge from Drobeta when he invaded Dacia for the second time, it was the longest in all the Empire

Untill then, only by ship you were able to pass, or in the winter when the river was frozen; which brings me to another question: will the rivers freeze over winter in RTW? because this would be quite a piece of art from CA, and almost a must be if we want to have some decent winter campaigns.

So how it this going to show up in RTW? Because it is much more necessary than decimation and all other crap http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[some_totalwar_dude]

Imagine an army crossing a frozen river and you having a few catapults waiting on the other side *sadistic smile* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Are barbarians good swimmers? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

I like your idee of rivers being imported means of transport and/or trade. And what about cities? Cities where often founded at a river or close by because of the potential to trade over it. And your right it will be stupid if there was only on smale bridge over the Danupe or Rhine. they must at least have several big ones.

CA is thinking about the advantages of mountain passes so maby also rivers, though they didnt spoke of this yet.

[RisingSun]

I wonder if you could light fires on the frozen river to melt the ice, forcing them to use the bridges? And did anybody really go onwinter campaigns in Gaul and Germania? It would seem stupid to try to do that, seeing as Romans only wore skirts. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[some_totalwar_dude]

Yeah yur right, campaining and battles was almost always in spring or summer. (at least not winter)
But it still would be fun to see an army drown in a river when you brake the ice under them.

[Belisarius]

Now I dont live by either the Danube, Elbe nor Euphrates..... but IIRC neither of these quite large rivers get frozen enough so that it is possible to walk over them with an entire army.

[RisingSun]

Belisarius is correct. Such a large river would never get frozen over totally. But there are still smaller rivers that would. But im positive the Euphrate never would, because its in friggin IRAQ But he was probably just referring tothe bridge-building aspect of it with the Euphrates. But wouldn the Euphrates and Danube get narrow enough in some places so that you could make a small bridge, and not a huge one?

[Nowake]

Only very close to their springs ... The Iron Gates are very close, still Trajan had to build the longest bridge in all the empire.



Well, I have to disagree with you about the winter campaigns. The dacians were famous for their raids in the winter, and the recordings always state that they were crossing the Danube on ICE ... It is a well-known fact. A dacian campaign over the Danube in the winter 101-102AD put the romans in a very dificult situation. Even the Column shows them crossing the Danube over ice. Also, in 85AD a dacian raid over the Danube using the same tactic destroyed the roman army from Moesia, beheaded the governor and forced Diocletian to come personally. These raids were often since before Burebista, they would get to Greece and back quite often.

[some_totalwar_dude]

mmm... maby there could be some moral penalty for some factions campaining in the winter. Like roman soldiers not being very pleased when they hear they'll go on campaing when it's freezing outside.

[Nowake]

I really don't think that they kept the "skirt" in the winter http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[some_totalwar_dude]

I dont think that 2. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But I'm shure they preferd summer over winter when it comes to fighting.

[Nowake]

Of course, but if someone comes to kill you in the winter, it would be ineffective to defend next summer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Obvious reasons http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[RisingSun]

But when you are the defender, you don't have the luxury of choosing the season, but when you attack, you do, and I'm sure they would prefer summer/spring to winter.

[Nowake]

some barbarians (and that includes germans and dacians for sure) prefered to attack in winter because the surprise element was almost certain. So what is your point?

[Herodotus]

This sort of strategising was in Shogun TW, if you designed your army correctly (not many archers as they are useless in the wet) you could specialise in winter attacks. Especially seeing as the other factions focused on summer for their campaigns.

As for the Romans and their skirts does anyone know why they wore them? It's actually a Greek and Roman thing where they believed that a man was supposed dress a bit cold (so that they would be more active) whereas women are supposed to dress warm (seeing as they are not as active).

[Longshanks]

By the way, the Romans didn't wear "skirts", they wore tunics. Tunics are basically like an oversized, baggy t-shirt tied off at the waist.

http://www.roman-empire.net/society/pics/peasant-01.jpg

The Army tunics were smaller to allow more freedom of movement. The Army also sometimes wore trousers beneath their tunics to help protect against the elements, like this auxilia.

http://www.ad500.org.uk/vicus/images/Peronis%20in%20new%20kit.jpg

[Hakonarson]

Many armies campaigned in winter in northern Europe because the frozen rivers made excellent roads - much better than they weer used to

However such campaigns tended to be raids for loot & perhaps to create general destruction ratehr than attempts at conquest - weakening an area so perhaps it might be moreeasily conquered later on perhaps.

[SgtAndrew]

Uh... we realize that the proper name is tunic... get a sense of humor.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ May 29 2003,20:50)]Many armies campaigned in winter in northern Europe because the frozen rivers made excellent roads - much better than they weer used to

However such campaigns tended to be raids for loot & perhaps to create general destruction ratehr than attempts at conquest - weakening an area so perhaps it might be moreeasily conquered later on perhaps.
So, Hakonarson, you agree that many barbarians campaigned in winter. Because some people here tend to don't believe, which would be wrong, as there is enough historical proof.



@Longshanks, as SgtAndrew said, we really know what a tunic is and we know that is the proper term; I wrote "skirts" and not plain skirts for exactly the purpose of not being corected. Seems that it didn't matter.

[Sir Robin]

Whether or not you will have the option of winter campaigns it is a very valid question regarding major rivers.

How will a map created by stiching together battle maps handle the major rivers?

If I recall CA is using a five to one scale for their battle maps. So each map, if nine by nine kilometers, represents a forty-five by forty-five kilometer area.

Using a five to one scale major rivers may appear sufficiently small enough to have bridges over. For historical reasons, gameplay balance, and realism this will probably not be allowed. Except as a possible "wonder" that takes some time to build.

Since the strategic map is a checkerboard of battlefields, some of those battlefields will have the Rhine or Danube going thru them.

How will the tactical engine handle a contact with armies on opposite sides of a major river? It would be very annoying to have a battle start where you could not even get to the enemy or are suddenly "teleported" to the other side of the river.

Also, since major rivers were natural borders and obstacles how will CA handle crossing them? Will you have engineering units that can construct a bridge? Will you have to build barges/ferries or bridging equipment in one of your cities? Or will CA just count it as using up the rest of that army's movement allowance for that turn?

Even the last option is a viable solution. Imagine trapping a roman legion with the Rhine at its back and them having to engage you because their stack's movement allowance has been used up.

[Nowake]

I agree with all your questions, Sir Robin, as you can see, I was the one that raised the problem in the first time.

But do you really think that CA is going to let us catch a legion with the bach at the river? Because in MTW you can only get them on the other side

Really, I hope we won't be dissapointed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Sir Robin]

It will be a difficult one to overcome without upsetting gameplay balance.

If CA can't find another way that is implementable they may go for the "crossing major river uses up movement allowance."

Still it would be nice to have something more historically accurate like ferrying troops or building a massive bridge.

[Nowake]

well, as I said, they were using pretty large fleets for both Danube and Rhine. These could prove usefull http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif