Romani Overpowered

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

OK, I'll try not to turn this into a mere "Romaioi barbaroi" ramble () and the likes, but I think the Romani were still overpowered in 1.2. I await at least a comprehensive explanation as to why - But let's glance at the probably well known sidelines:

HUGE Income - From the early game there's hardly any debt or the like. Later game means no less than 30k income if you only control Italia (which means just sitting on your arse for a lot of the game).

Overpowered Armies - Especially Polybian troops are extremely overpowered and under priced - I mean, Polybian Principes have 24 defense and cost only about 1100 mnai, even Polybian Hastati have the equivalent strength of high quality heavy infantry but cost less - Cohortes Reformata gets an extra number of men and is incredibly tough and affordable heavy infantry. And so on - Not counting the AI penchant for spamming Triarii and Extraordinarii, yet another relatively affordable group of elites. Now compare this to Makedonia: Argyraspidai have 1000 mnai just for upkeep! That is about the upkeep two Extraordinarii.

The prices should be increased, radically. My suggestions.

Romani (or the barbaroi) deserves to be a more challenging faction, at least for the player. Right now you have the situation where house rules are the only rule, given you can spam the map and overwhelm every enemy of yours with inexpensive and almost elite heavy infantry. Bar that, you'll have so much money you can hire every mercenary on the pool and still have gold for bribes.

[Watchman]

Camillian and Polybian Roman infantry got like 20% price discount. Which would, I guess, be what you're referring to.

Though arguably it *does* do a fine job representing their ability to keep churning out armies after armies when required...

[Tellos Athenaios]

The problem is that RTW doesn't allow recruitment pools. The mechanism of recruitment pools really fits the historical levy mechanism of factions like the SPQR which rely on loyal colonies of settlers to raise armies; it will be part of the "empire building" effort that is simply not there in EB 1 since you are quite right that the SPQR faction is almost "given" an empire at turn 0 (at least as far as the military/order infrastructure goes).

On the other hand far as I know the engine is heavily (if not overly so) biased towards sea trade; which means that without substantial re-mapping of Italy (less regions = less ports = less income) the SPQR simply starts out with an unrealistic strategic advantage over factions like the Arche Seleukeia which arguably had a more potent economy at turn 0. (Unfortunately the trade with India and Arabia doesn't yield its fair share of lucrative income in EB 1; nor do the Silk Road and similar trade routes.) So even in EB 2 I expect that the SPQR will be among the easier-to-manage factions.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

On the other hand far as I know the engine is simply heavily biased towards sea trade;

Indeed, a similar thing happens with Casse - Once the Aedui take Bellovacea Belgica and combined with the trade from Cenabum, they can quickly pile up an obscene amount of gold just from trade. Doesn't take out the more challenging aspects of their game, though, and which are non existant with the Romans.

My suggestion, at least for EB I, since the M2TW engine works differently in this aspect, is to slightly or radically increase the costs of Romani units and tweak down their economy and infrastructure a bit. It would make earlier blitzing harder, but in the end the SPQR would still be able to toss troops at a gigantic rate so it keeps in line with historical accuracy... Meh, they would still be highly powerful. I guess it's an "inevitable" thing.

Furthermore I will be interested in seeing what kind of revamp will be given to land routes. Everything you said about the Silk Road applies to the Amber Route, and sadly it is not much of a difference in trade given it goes through poor and landlocked settlements. It would be highly interesting if a massive bonus or the like could be applied to give these routes their due justice.

[Immortales]

Unfortunately the trade with India and Arabia doesn't yield its fair share of lucrative income in EB 1; nor do the Silk Road and similar trade routes.

Excuse me, I don`t see the problem in raising the income. Why isn't that effectively possible?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Excuse me, I don`t see the problem in raising the income. Why isn't that effectively possible?

Raising income works up to a certain point. The problem is that port income adds much more to the balance than land trade (further complicated by the fact that the SPQR has plenty of AI neighbours to trade with as opposed to only Eleutheroi who will trade with nobody but other Eleutheroi) Furthermore a good deal of trade-to-India would occur outside of our map. And for a revelation, count the number of possible ports. In Italy alone you can have up to 10 ports I think? By comparsion all sea-trade between Memphis and Charax must make do with some 19 ports?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Is there a way to change the trade income from roads and the general land trade multipliers? This might partially fix it.

[Watchman]

Note that anything done with roads will also at least partially feed into the port trade output too...

Personally I've been toying with the idea of modding my copy of the EDB to give rather higher bonus trade goods from river ports, the caravan buildings line and trade-route uniques like the Amber and Silk Roads. Also would it be possible to put in a small fixed cash bonus to them to help balance them against the engine-skewed sea trade ?

BTW, random note: didn't the Amber Route also run over the Alps from Noricum to the end of the Adriatic ? That's what I've read in several sources anyway...

[antisocialmunky]

Can we have a predictable trade system in EBII? AS it is, I have no idea how much more $$$ I generate from building stuff or trade income.

[Alsatia]

Problem is, we cannot. All we can hope for is to build those roads, markets, mines and ports until we get a sizeable income.

[Tellos Athenaios]

BTW, random note: didn't the Amber Route also run over the Alps from Noricum to the end of the Adriatic ? That's what I've read in several sources anyway...

Later development AFAIK. Basically an adaptation reflecting the new economic realities after the SPQR became more than just some far-far-away state.

[seienchin]

There is no point in arguing about money and the economy system in EB.
Its completly nonsense and is as far from reality as it goes, but thats because of the rome engine.
So the team wants the romans to have the ability to spam stack after stack just like they did in the punic wars and so the only way is to make their units cheap and their lands rich.
But I would wish for Multiplayer to have the romans cost more than they do now.

[Alsatia]

There is no point in arguing about money and the economy system in EB.
Its completly nonsense and is as far from reality as it goes, but thats because of the rome engine.
So the team wants the romans to have the ability to spam stack after stack just like they did in the punic wars and so the only way is to make their units cheap and their lands rich.
But I would wish for Multiplayer to have the romans cost more than they do now.

Erm... This is for M2TW:K........ Just had to say that

[Space_Ed]

I think it will be much more challenging playing as Romani due to the enhanced AI in M2TW:K. As the Carthaginians, Epirotes etc are liable to land large armies on Italy's coasts via sea I think this will make playing as Romani much more of a challenge and so I think it won't be as much of a walk over playing against these factions.

[antisocialmunky]

There is no point in arguing about money and the economy system in EB.
Its completly nonsense and is as far from reality as it goes, but thats because of the rome engine.
So the team wants the romans to have the ability to spam stack after stack just like they did in the punic wars and so the only way is to make their units cheap and their lands rich.
But I would wish for Multiplayer to have the romans cost more than they do now.

You can probably minimize MIITW's system and jsut make buildings give you concrete values.

[Chris1959]

Would a way round the increase in trade goods from caravans (ie silk road etc) be to treat them like mines giving a fixed income per turn when built. Far from perfect but a way to simulate the potential of a trade route.

[Phalanx300]

The problem is that RTW doesn't allow recruitment pools. The mechanism of recruitment pools really fits the historical levy mechanism of factions like the SPQR which rely on loyal colonies of settlers to raise armies; it will be part of the "empire building" effort that is simply not there in EB 1 since you are quite right that the SPQR faction is almost "given" an empire at turn 0 (at least as far as the military/order infrastructure goes).

On the other hand far as I know the engine is heavily (if not overly so) biased towards sea trade; which means that without substantial re-mapping of Italy (less regions = less ports = less income) the SPQR simply starts out with an unrealistic strategic advantage over factions like the Arche Seleukeia which arguably had a more potent economy at turn 0. (Unfortunately the trade with India and Arabia doesn't yield its fair share of lucrative income in EB 1; nor do the Silk Road and similar trade routes.) So even in EB 2 I expect that the SPQR will be among the easier-to-manage factions.

I gues Medieval2 unit recruitment system will mean more historical accurate armies for factions? (Meaning no more levy spams and such)

[satalexton]

Oh the joy of slaughtering stack after stack of lugoae and vigiles......no, It's absolutely annoying to do that every turn. The Romaioi are known throwing men like rabbits breed, but certainly not vigiles!

[athanaric]

Oh the joy of slaughtering stack after stack of lugoae and vigiles......no, It's absolutely annoying to do that every turn. The Romaioi are known throwing men like rabbits breed, but certainly not vigiles!

Yeah... In my current campaign, it goes like this: before I pillaged their cities, the Romaioi swarmed me with Extraordinarii and Triarii. Now that most (but not all) of their factional barracks are destroyed, they send huge numbers of Lugoae and Akontistai. I don't even know how they get them that fast, given they only own a few Gallic and Hellenic settlements . The good side of this is that my pikemen get experience really fast, with up to 660 kills/battle...


Regarding the main topic: I think that the fact that the AI gets scripted replacements for each recruited unit (AFAIK +220 men to a town's populace for 200 recruited soldiers) is part of the problem. I don't know how this will be in EB II but perhaps this number could be reduced a little bit.
Other than that, the naval invasions in M2TW will certainly make a Romani campaign tougher. Right now the relative security of their homeland from AI enemy incursions is a major factor in the low difficulty of a Romani campaign.

Personally I've been toying with the idea of modding my copy of the EDB to give rather higher bonus trade goods from river ports, the caravan buildings line and trade-route uniques like the Amber and Silk Roads. Also would it be possible to put in a small fixed cash bonus to them to help balance them against the engine-skewed sea trade ?

That would be great. In my experience, these "buildings" give only a very small trade bonus in EB I.