View Full Version : The biggest landmass conquered by 14 AD?
lionhard
06-24-2009, 07:50
Whats the record, i was gonna aim to conquer the whole map but im having trouble in my romani campaign, macedonia have spread to syria and wiped out koinon hellon, pontus and are chasing epirus north east past dacia. My lands in germany r hanging by a thread, the germans only have 4 settlements left but due to the fact i cant recruit barely any more men because of lack of public happiness due to war tax i am struggling against their remaining 3 full stacks of leet forces. Macedonia have took 2 settlements off me and segestia is my last fortified stronghold before they hit italy where i have no forces every city is garrisoned with 1 man so if they do reach ill be in trouble. Its an amasing campaign so far im on the edge of my seat and scared to press the end turn icon lol.
Anyways back to the main question Whats the record for the most conquered lands in 1 campaign?
oh and proof is obviously needed :P
Fluvius Camillus managed to conquer every territory (barring one that isn't meant to be taken) by 195 B.C. with the Romani and 190 B.C. with Epeiros.
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/KlearchostheGod.jpg?t=1233523508
Apázlinemjó
06-24-2009, 08:36
Fluvius Camillus managed to conquer every territory (barring two that aren't meant to be taken) by 195 B.C. with the Romani and 190 B.C. with Epeiros.
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/KlearchostheGod.jpg?t=1233523508
It's actually one territory.
WOW.
Erm, what are those grey shades at the bottom edge of the map.
Unexplored territory, I guess.
Atraphoenix
06-24-2009, 12:04
you can sponsor 10 times the current global crisis with that income :laugh4:
I can never have that income thanks to my gold-plated catas that cost me a real fortune :dizzy2:
Apázlinemjó
06-24-2009, 13:21
By the way, what makes Pella that good in economy?
Mikhail Mengsk
06-24-2009, 14:46
Fully developed mine complex?
Ghaust the Moor
06-24-2009, 15:46
wow...scary... :sweat:
Fully developed mine complex?
Yeah Pella can generate some serious cash. It's not unusual to get over 10,000 a turn.
Cute Wolf
06-24-2009, 16:22
Yay... over 10000 in a turn... How did u manage to wrest those boringness of a really ridiculously large empire?
It's actually one territory.
Yeah, you're right. I was thinking of pre-1.0 EB, when there was still Dumatha in central Arabia.
lionhard
06-24-2009, 18:30
Sorry but i dont understand how you can conquer the whole map in that time 190 bc? wtf thats a joke it must have been modded for an easy time, its just not enough time, even to build up all the settlements it would take more time than that
Mediolanicus
06-24-2009, 18:50
Sorry but i dont understand how you can conquer the whole map in that time 190 bc? wtf thats a joke it must have been modded for an easy time, its just not enough time, even to build up all the settlements it would take more time than that
You just blitz... No need to build up cities.
Sorry but i dont understand how you can conquer the whole map in that time 190 bc? wtf thats a joke it must have been modded for an easy time, its just not enough time, even to build up all the settlements it would take more time than that
I hope you activated your EB script. Four turns per year and not the usual two. Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.
lionhard
06-24-2009, 23:06
If that was aimed at me, then ofcourse its always activated, but still in that time period, ud have to blitz everything thats just no fun, its a hell of an achievement though
Pella generates that much money because it is the center of the world, superceeding Epidamnos.
If that was aimed at me, then ofcourse its always activated, but still in that time period, ud have to blitz everything thats just no fun, its a hell of an achievement though
Everyone has different tastes and playing styles.
I find it no fun to sit around on my butt waiting to be attacked or letting myself be attacked while I could be expanding. I also don't have the patience to "roleplay." I play to win.
It seems very possible to achieve a whole map conquered in that timeframe.
The same guy is also working on a Pontus campaign blitz too. And maybe a parlava campaign but I'm not sure.
Its a great acheivement. Be a hell of a job to do it with every faction. Not sure if the Saba'yn for example are overly suited to blitzing.
Fluvius Camillus
06-25-2009, 17:15
Wow, I like praise!!! I almost seem famous:clown: Ok, prepare for my empires!!!:skull::skull::skull:
Epiros EB 1.0, completed
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/KlearchostheGod.jpg?t=1245946897
Romani EB 1.1, completed
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/PaxRomanum.jpg?t=1245946924
Arverni EB 1.2, paused, I may continue in the future
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/Celticum.jpg?t=1245946663
Pontos EB 1.2, in progress
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/PonticEmpire.jpg?t=1245946866
(Pontos in an earlier stage)
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/PonticKingdom.jpg?t=1245947053
These are the most recent pictures I have.
~Fluvius
(Disclaimer: I NEVER CHEAT, this is all done by the way I like playing EB. In my opinion there is still some storyline in it. My strategies are supreme and my planning is long-thougth of. Every step is taken with care, precision and determination. Recently I installed FD, however has not been used on any of the empire you see, only once in a later stage with Pontos. Keep in mind, I can blitz faster, but that would have to be with a strong faction and NO STORYLINE, which you may cannot imagine, but which I dislike).
- Epiros = EB 1.0 Difficulty = VH/M or VH/VH honestly don't remember.
- Romani = EB 1.1 + official fixes Difficulty = VH/M
- Arverni = EB 1.2 + official fixes Difficulty = VH/M
- Pontos = EB 1.2 + official fixes Diffculty = H/H (I have installed EB and RS textures now, still I only used FD yet, to roleplay AS as an protectorate (only Alexandreia Eshate left), who however are dead now.
Mikhail Mengsk
06-25-2009, 17:53
Congratulations, man!
Fluvius Camillus
06-25-2009, 18:24
I will answer this:
Unexplored territory, I guess.
:yes:
I tried to make it all visible but invisible barriers and the range of my spies stopped me from doing so.
By the way, what makes Pella that good in economy?
Fully developed mine complex?
Yep, plus an awesome governor, a large port, roads, best market etc....
Yeah, you're right. I was thinking of pre-1.0 EB, when there was still Dumatha in central Arabia.
Ah the old times... Dumatha had the desert "building", I also remember Cydamus (something like that), being a Carthaginian city south of Hadrumentum.
Sorry but i dont understand how you can conquer the whole map in that time 190 bc? wtf thats a joke it must have been modded for an easy time, its just not enough time, even to build up all the settlements it would take more time than that
No mods, I don't cheat.
If that was aimed at me, then ofcourse its always activated, but still in that time period, ud have to blitz everything thats just no fun, its a hell of an achievement though
The Bold part: disagreed, I like the grandeur of the royal armies and prestige of enourmous wealthy empires.
The Underlined part, thank you.
Everyone has different tastes and playing styles.
I find it no fun to sit around on my butt waiting to be attacked or letting myself be attacked while I could be expanding. I also don't have the patience to "roleplay." I play to win.
It seems very possible to achieve a whole map conquered in that timeframe.
Agreed with the most you say, definately the Bold part!
The same guy is also working on a Pontus campaign blitz too. And maybe a parlava campaign but I'm not sure.
Its a great acheivement. Be a hell of a job to do it with every faction. Not sure if the Saba'yn for example are overly suited to blitzing.
Pontos is correct, however I am deliberately slowing down after the picture posted.
Pahlava is incorrect however I did consider it, I am looking for one of these to decide what to play next: Getting the "feel" of eastern warfare and exploring faction cultures which I did not or rarely played as.
Congratulations, man!
Thank you very much.:beam:
~Fluvius
Aureolus
06-25-2009, 19:40
If you don't cheat why do you have imperial troops in 195bc?
No mods, I don't cheat.
Not to be a nit picker but you did something to enable the Imperial reforms in your Romani campaign. You must be at least at year 125 for it to happen.
lionhard
06-25-2009, 20:48
omg u nit picker lol :P
Pontos EB 1.2, in progress
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/PonticEmpire.jpg?t=1245946866
These are the most recent pictures I have.
Pontos is the new Arche lol.
mountaingoat
06-26-2009, 04:14
do u auto resolve alot of them when you blitz ?
has anyone blitzed the map without pikes or romans?
Aemilius Paulus
06-26-2009, 19:18
do u auto resolve alot of them when you blitz ?
I do believe I recollect him stating the converse.
has anyone blitzed the map without pikes or romans?
Yep. I think it was the Aedui, (with a small chance of it being an Arverni) world domination. Every other world domination posted on these forums was either forged by the sarissa or the gladius. Either do a forum search yourself, or wait for me to find it.
Aemilius Paulus
06-26-2009, 19:38
Found it! Here: https://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr357/Cullhwch/victory.jpg
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=108176
And yes, the bloke modded the EDU so that all infantry units have 200 men. Thus the game was unbalanced quite a bit by that, as you can imagine what Gaesatae would do if they had 200 men. While Pantadapoi would have only 200, as opposed to 240. Same with the phalangites.
But this does also mean that the enemy elites were more numerous and the cavalry had less of an effect. Which is historical, because having 50-men mounted units and 120/80/60 men infantry units is not. Not proportional. Most mods fix this, but EB does not. (Thankfully too, since fighting with 20/30 men cavalry is tough)
Tyrfingr
06-26-2009, 21:10
That's just bat sh1t crazy!
Fluvius Camillus
06-26-2009, 22:55
If you don't cheat why do you have imperial troops in 195bc?
Not to be a nit picker but you did something to enable the Imperial reforms in your Romani campaign. You must be at least at year 125 for it to happen.
You are completely right, and a bit wrong!:beam:
Yes I modded the thing to make imperials available earlier because if I were to conquer the world, I also wanted the WHOLE roman experience. I knew that with this pace, it would be useless to wait for imperials.
BUT....
Upgrading the barracks took some time and my speed was so fast, that the reinforments (especially the army from Rome you see), could not catch up with the conquering troops. In reality, just 4 groups of Imperial legionaires recruited at the front did actually take part in a battle.
Still, you had me there, my bad/:oops:
~Fluvius
Fluvius Camillus
06-26-2009, 23:27
do u auto resolve alot of them when you blitz ?
has anyone blitzed the map without pikes or romans?
Although AP told you already...
No, I fight 98% of the battles myself. It's so sad that auto resolve cant handle simple battles... Trusting auto resolve is something I rarely do, they lose simple battles or lose a ridiculous amount of troops, the AI cant handle my sophisticated armies. Doing small battles of no importance and simple hammer-anvil standard procedure battles which autoreslove cant win are really the only thing that I find boring on the campaigns.
~Fluvius
Mikhail Mengsk
06-26-2009, 23:48
i have to say that autoresolving is useful when you assault a city poorly defended. Sometimes bugs when units are climbing the walls makes you suffer extra losses. For some reason, losses stays low when you autoresolve.
Macilrille
06-27-2009, 00:07
I do believe I recollect him stating the converse.
Yep. I think it was the Aedui, (with a small chance of it being an Arverni) world domination. Every other world domination posted on these forums was either forged by the sarissa or the gladius. Either do a forum search yourself, or wait for me to find it.
Hmmm... I am in a Sweboz campaign where I have to restrain myself. I think it could be done with them, though I dunno about the HA, have not met them yet.
Macilrille
06-27-2009, 00:13
Although AP told you already...
No, I fight 98% of the battles myself. It's so sad that auto resolve cant handle simple battles... Trusting auto resolve is something I rarely do, they lose simple battles or lose a ridiculous amount of troops, the AI cant handle my sophisticated armies. Doing small battles of no importance and simple hammer-anvil standard procedure battles which autoreslove cant win are really the only thing that I find boring on the campaigns.
~Fluvius
I agree to this, I very rarely autoresolve unless it is a siege and 10+ - 1 in my favour. Someone mentioned a bug incurring losses when fightingn sieges and that might explain a lot. Or perhaps a few select sieges are the only things I am bad at in battles.
You are completely right, and a bit wrong!:beam:
Yes I modded the thing to make imperials available earlier because if I were to conquer the world, I also wanted the WHOLE roman experience. I knew that with this pace, it would be useless to wait for imperials.
BUT....
Upgrading the barracks took some time and my speed was so fast, that the reinforments (especially the army from Rome you see), could not catch up with the conquering troops. In reality, just 4 groups of Imperial legionaires recruited at the front did actually take part in a battle.
Still, you had me there, my bad/:oops:
~Fluvius
I'm totally the opposite as far as conquering goes. I do it slow and methodical. I savior every moment and enjoy marching a victorious army back to Roma for a triumphas. So I know how you feel when you want the "whole roman" experience, but I think sadly you didn't come anywhere near it.
I'm totally the opposite as far as conquering goes. I do it slow and methodical. I savior every moment and enjoy marching a victorious army back to Roma for a triumphas. So I know how you feel when you want the "whole roman" experience, but I think sadly you didn't come anywhere near it.
Xurr has it right, blitzing everything to hell ruins alot, not only do you not get to savor every victory, but you don't let any of the factions get any dominance, basically turning it into easy mode.
Xurr has it right, blitzing everything to hell ruins alot, not only do you not get to savor every victory, but you don't let any of the factions get any dominance, basically turning it into easy mode.
So you are saying Blitzing = Fail??
Aemilius Paulus
06-27-2009, 02:10
Xurr has it right, blitzing everything to hell ruins alot, not only do you not get to savor every victory, but you don't let any of the factions get any dominance, basically turning it into easy mode.
That is your opinion. Although I am the slow and methodical guy as well.
i have to say that autoresolving is useful when you assault a city poorly defended. Sometimes bugs when units are climbing the walls makes you suffer extra losses. For some reason, losses stays low when you autoresolve.
I tend to get extreme losses on autoresolve if fighting a siege.
If there's a general on the enemy army I will end up losing even though the odds are ridiculously in my favor.
I autoresolve fights against rebels when I use cheap garrison troops because 1 I don't really care about losing town watch or whatever levy is being used as garrison and 2 rebels stacks are destroyed if they lose the battle whereas factions just run away
Fluvius Camillus
06-27-2009, 09:21
I'm totally the opposite as far as conquering goes. I do it slow and methodical. I savior every moment and enjoy marching a victorious army back to Roma for a triumphas. So I know how you feel when you want the "whole roman" experience, but I think sadly you didn't come anywhere near it.
You got me somewhat wrong, I did march my armies back to Rome several times, but when you are fighting the Pahlava in their homelands it will take ages to return, so I had every army advance.
Earlier times, like the guy who conquered Carthaginian Africa, returned to Rome with his veterans, to retrain and set out on a new campaign. I had around 10 times a Triumphator.
If you are talking about the Roman experience yes I did, but in a smaller level. You may come up with something which I did not have, I will tell you if I had it or not. You underestimate how deep I went in that campaign.
Xurr has it right, blitzing everything to hell ruins alot, not only do you not get to savor every victory, but you don't let any of the factions get any dominance, basically turning it into easy mode.
What did I ruin, I got epic battles like these, and far better ones, which I did not save.
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/BattleofMediolanium.jpg?t=1246091108
No dominance, I have a savegame at one point where I could stop. I ruled the west, AS rules the east.
Also I don't really see what the fun part is when you can choose to fight a faction, defeating them in a decisive battle, conquering and later on to another faction with unique troops and culture.
While if you choose to let factions grow they will conquer other nations and you will end up fighting the same brainless AI stacks over and over and over again.... And as they overtook other nations, you will find the same boring automated fullstacks of the same culture with the same troops as you fougth 30 times earlier....
As mentioned before, I agree with this post (I roleplay a bit though, at least more than most here think):
Everyone has different tastes and playing styles.
I find it no fun to sit around on my butt waiting to be attacked or letting myself be attacked while I could be expanding. I also don't have the patience to "roleplay." I play to win.
It seems very possible to achieve a whole map conquered in that timeframe.
And you guys really think all I did was advance? No I did not, I could have beaten it 10 maybe 20 years earlier, but then there comes the part where you are talking about, actually not fun anymore.
~Fluvius
Am I the only one who enjoys watching the AI nations develop?
I mean In my last Roman compaign I took countless pleasure from watching Bactria completely anihilate the east.
Besides if you play your cards right you don't get stuck fighting the same countless armies because the different factions are still alive 70 years in and you can go fight them for a change.
Also if your Roman you get better fights if you only use half stack legions... :p
Mikhail Mengsk
06-27-2009, 10:11
If you go slow you will have more RP and other, but you risk that, as Fluvius Camillus said, a faction grows too strong. If a faction annihilates its neighbours, you will have to fight countless battles against the same kind of armies. Boring...
A nice game would be to grow at "average" speed, so you could enjoy every turn, and you will fight every faction before one of them get wiped out by onother AI.
But its not fun without watching an AI faction conquer like your average powergaming blitzer.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.