Alexander - two questions

[parcelt]

So, I understand that TW Eras is out. I was looking forward to this as I think it will be the only way for me to play Alexander: I do not have any internet access at home. Despite the fact that I already bought ALL TW games + expansions, I would be willing to pay extra just to get my hands on a cd version of Alexander. Two questions I hope somebody could help me out with before I go and spend an exorbitant amount for a small expansion:

1. Am I correct in assuming that TW Eras contains a version of Alexander than can be played without internet access? I'm referring to the online verification stuff I read somewhere was required everytime one plays Alexander (the downloaded version). If the cd also requires online verification its obviously no use to me.

2. The main reason I want Alexander is because of the Gamespot review and how it emphasized that every battle really counts (given limited resources and time). This reminds me of the early battles in Shogun and Medieval (in RTW one can lose many battles without endangering the outcome of the campaign). If this is true, it would be reason enough for me to buy the entire Eras package just for Alexander.

If anybody could confirm these two points I'd be much obliged.

And to CA: I love your games, but please, please, please sell them on stand-alone CD always!!

[Roy1991]

1- The download version only requires verification the first time after you install it, so I suppose the version that comes with TW Eras doesn't need any verification.

2- The Macedonian economy really sucks, so you usually can't afford more than 2 full stacks.
If you lose a lot of good troops in a battle, then those are very difficult to replace (because the barracks in the captured Persian cities usually are low-level baracks, and you don't have the finances/time to upgrade them).
But losing a big battle is nearly impossible anyway, because the Persians' and Daheans' morale is so bad, they often start to rout before they've even lost a single man.

[orangat]

Interesting. What are the stas on Persian infantry? Morale must be terribly low.

[econ21]

Morale must be terribly low.

To be honest, this problem is very apparent in the vanilla game, even fighting Romans. I've been playing a Carthaginian late game in vanilla after a lot of RTR and EB, and the insta-rout problem just screams out at me (as does the ludicrously fast pace of battle - I literally don't have time to take good screenshots before it is all over).

Just checking the EDU, I think most low grade infantry is morale 4; phalanx and hypaspists are 8; Companions, Immortals etc are 10. You could probably add 10 to all those numbers and make it much more fun.

I would not recommend buying Eras just for Alexander. I found it quickly became wearisome and moved on to other things. I think it could make an excellent mod, if given an RTR-style makeover - like the WRE in BI, the strategic set-up for the Macedonians is admirably tight. But even that lost it's shine when I found I could hire two Companion units as mercs in Asia Minor (it would take forever to tech up to build your own & you start with only two, plus Alexanders' regenerating large escort). I've also managed to solve my shortage of Macedonian missiles rather quickly with mercs. Retraining your depleted phalanxes in foreign lands also destroys a lot of the effect. And I don't like exterminating my way through Asia. It gives you the cash you need and avoids the loyalty problems, but just feels wrong. It feels more like Timurlane than Alexander.

I guess I should try it with a lot of houserules and some modded stats of my own, but right now it is hard to find the enthusiasm. WRE is fun even in the vanilla game because the AI throws things at you and it can be like a rollercoaster ride. With Alexander, you have to throw things at the AI so to speak and that takes more willpower, to crank through battle after battle, city after city.

[orangat]

I seem to prefer morale as it is in the vanilla game.
Bumping them much higher would turn it into an straightforward battle of attrition, in my style of play.

[econ21]

I seem to prefer morale as it is in the vanilla game.
Bumping them much higher would turn it into an straightforward battle of attrition, in my style of play.

I don't know what it is, but in ATW - and my Carthage vanilla campaign - the enemy literally routs within seconds of hitting my line. That could happen exceptionally in STW and MTW, but usually there would be a decent scrap first. As it is, it's most unsatisfying.

With higher morale, there will be attrition on the battlefield if you just have heavy infantry going head to head with other heavy infantry. But (a) that may be realistic; (b) it provides the opening for tactics (use of missiles, flanking, cavalry, exhaustion, terrain, etc to give you an edge) - to break the deadlock. Strategically attrition is a good thing, constraining the player more, especially if coupled with a "no retraining" houserule. After three battles, your full stack may start to be vulnerable.