View Full Version : Italy should have more cities to represent Roman manpower
This post is a suggestion for EB II based on playing EB 1.2.
I've tried playing EB 1.2 as Carthaginians and as Dacians on the RTW 1.5 engine, on BI and on the Alexander Total War engine.
The Romans troop types are historically accurate (i especially love that Campanian heavy cavalry can skirmish with javelins, as they did historically) but the Romans' relative weakness in terms of numbers and their passivity are very unhistorical.
istorically the Romans had massively greater manpower than most of their enemies due to their system of conscription and allied legions. They beat the Gauls not because Roman armies were superior, but because they outnumbered them by a factor of at least 5 to 1 in the Telamon campaign and at least 2 to 1 in the battle of Telamon (according to WRG Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars).
They beat the Carthaginians for a similar reason - they could field armies simultaneously in Northern Italy, Southern Italy, Spain, Sicily and Africa.
Because of this making the Romans' cities just proportional to the population of Italy massively under represents their actual military manpower, which was out of all proportion to Italy's population.
It would make the mod more historically accurate and more fun and challenging to play to increase the number of cities in Italy and under Roman control at the start of the game in order to represent this.
(I say that as someone who never plays as the Romans, but as Carthaginians or Dacians)
Then Roman forces could fight in several countries at once (as they often did) and it would be a challenge to fight against them, rather than a bit dull.
The problem may be partly the Alexander engine here, but the trouble is that only Alexander has half-decent battlefield AI. BI and RTW 1.5 have aggressive naval invasions but very poor battlefield AI (in 1.5 especially generals often just kamikaze into the middle of my army just to kill some skirmishers).
Some of the AI problems could be fixed in EBII if Medevial II AI is moddable (?) , but more cities in Italy to represent Roman military manpower might be the best solution (that or having more than one allied Roman faction as in RTW vanilla)
Dunadd is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message
antisocialmunky
09-11-2009, 04:23
You posted this in the EB1 forum. The problem is the AI going North and suiciding on full naked gaul stacks. The EB team has said on numerous occasion that they will be representing geography in a fair way to all factions. Rome isn't going ot get more cities.
The General
09-11-2009, 13:52
Besides, you can recruit several units per turn per city/castle in M2:TW.
You posted this in the EB1 forum. The problem is the AI going North and suiciding on full naked gaul stacks. The EB team has said on numerous occasion that they will be representing geography in a fair way to all factions. Rome isn't going ot get more cities.
This is EB1. In EB2 there is a different system of capping units (low replenishment rate), so with this and a little AI scripting (especially the diplomacy AI) and the problem may not be as serious as in EB1.
When it comes to geography of various factions, I think there won't be many changes in Italy (unless a new faction in this region will be present). However, population growth values and unit replenishment rate should be adjusted instead, especially that it can be balanced in different ways - we can, for example, decrease population growth globally (because Huge Cities are the plague of the later games), but Roman faction would not be as severely affected.
Maybe - but the solution that worked in the original Rome Total War was to have three Roman factions. That way they didnt all go North. The Southern faction went South. The Northern one went North and West. The Eastern one went East. In other words the Romans did exactly what they did historically.
Despite the original RTW being historically inaccurate in all kinds of ways and EB being a massive improvement on that in most ways, the original RTW represented the Romans' historical behaviour and military strength much more accurately - and having just one Roman faction (which is meant to make the game less 'Romano-centric') actually results in it being unhistorical.
If in EBII we got all the historical accuracy of EB and the lovely client ruler stuff etc along with restoring the 3 Roman factions it'd be the best of both worlds and the most historically accurate it could get.
A Very Super Market
09-11-2009, 23:21
Exactly? You mean they were in Iberia, North Africa, Macedonia and Gaul in the 250s?
No - i mean that during the 1st Punic war (264 to 241 BC) they were in both Sicily and north Africa and attacked Sardinia and Corsica - and fighting in the Po valley against the Northern Italian Celts not much later (Telamon was 225 BC) and probably before and during the 1st Punic war too
The mod starts in 272 BC so that means about 30 to 40 turns in (at the latest), to act historically, they'd have to be fighting Carthage across much of the western mediterranean.
They also considered sending troops to Macedonia during the 2nd punic war (218-201 BC) and intervened in wars in Greece a lot after that.
But i take part of your point - that going east in 270s to 250s BC is too early.
So say you drop the Eastern Roman faction and just have two Roman factions - one in the Northern part of central Italy, one in the Southern part. Then the Romans have effective manpower far higher than any other faction (due to their system of conscription and allied legions, not to greater population) - and they also don't only go North, they go South too, coming into conflict with both Carthage and the Po Valley Celts relatively early in the game (or as soon as they get Tarentum from Phyrrus' Epeirots).
After the 2nd punic war they did expand in every direction at once - and thats still not that far into the EB period (after 201 BC)
You shouldn't take expansion patterns of EB1 as a guide as to what is going to happen in EB2. M2:TW offers more settings and a comparatively more clever strategic A.I., so A.I. expansion is going to be more sensible. Not to mention that there will be more factions that can influence the expansion of other factions.
Even so, there are not going to be multiple Roman factions, in the same way there are not going to be multiple Carthaginian factions to direct Carthaginian warfare operations.
Multiple Roman factions was one thing in vanilla Rome Total War that did work reasonably well - it ensured they went South and North at the same time and had the ability to field several big armies at once. That at least was more historically accurate than EB with a single Roman faction, even though EB is more historically accurate in pretty much every other way.
Three Roman factions, as in the original RTW, is maybe too many, but two might work well.
I'd like to believe Medieval II's AI can be modded well enough to make the Romans not just go North - remains to be seen though - and having two Roman factions might be much less work, much less complicated and give as good or better results.
The General
09-12-2009, 22:39
Multiple Roman factions was one thing in vanilla Rome Total War that did work reasonably well - it ensured they went South and North at the same time and had the ability to field several big armies at once. That at least was more historically accurate than EB with a single Roman faction, even though EB is more historically accurate in pretty much every other way.
:wall:
I would like you to provide information proving that Rome was practically ruled by three major houses in 272BC who governed their respective areas autonomously (in name only, practically as independent allied states), and that the Senate only held direct power over Latium and only enough power to inquire as to whether a certain major faction would be so kind as to direct its insanely speedy conquest to the general direction a particular city.
If not, I'm going to go with the view supported by anyone other than you and CA that SPQR was one state.
I'm not arguing anything of the kind and never had, so don't need to provide evidence of something i've never claimed. What i said was that having more than one Roman faction did too things that were historically accurate.
1) Gave the Romans massively more armies than other factions (historically accurate due to their method of conscription and allied legions)
2) Made the Romans attempt to expand aggressively across the Western Mediterranean, attacking Corisca, Sardinia, Sicily and North Africa early in the game - just as they did in the punic wars.
I also argued that having two allied Roman factions might be an easier and more effective way to achieve that than modding AI would be.
So please don't waste your time arguing against something i never claimed.
Well it's not going to happen. Manpower will be represented by the replentish rates etc,... and the AI will be changed to be more fitting and realistic.
I hope that works and if it does i'll have no problem with it - I just think maybe 2 Roman factions would be less work and represent it as or more effectively. The Romans should really be able to field at least 2 or 3 times as many troops at once than most of their rivals at once (e.g Telamon campaign, Punic Wars). That, not the supposed superiority of the legions, was their main strength (generally veteran legions won battles and inexperienced legions lost them)
Is the campaign and battlefield AI in Medieval Total War moddable or only the campaign level? And how much better do you think it could be made than BI/ALEX AI?
The General
09-12-2009, 23:26
I'm not arguing anything of the kind and never had, so don't need to provide evidence of something i've never claimed. What i said was that having more than one Roman faction did too things that were historically accurate.
1) Gave the Romans massively more armies than other factions (historically accurate due to their method of conscription and allied legions)
2) Made the Romans attempt to expand aggressively across the Western Mediterranean, attacking Corisca, Sardinia, Sicily and North Africa early in the game - just as they did in the punic wars.
I also argued that having two allied Roman factions might be an easier and more effective way to achieve that than modding AI would be.
So please don't waste your time arguing against something i never claimed.
Now that we've established that SPQR was one state, I'd be curious why you insist on having 2-4 of those precious, precious faction slots used to make one faction (collective) expand more, thus creating a very, very ahistorical geopolitical situation in Italy, in a very much history/realism driven mod?
In EBI, SPQR can easily field several fullstacks while owning only Italy (not even Sicily, Mediolanum, Corsica or Sardinia), the problem is that the campaign AI of R:TW all too often fails to put them into good use (as those Pedites Extraordinarii/Triarii stacks do obliterate the opposition).
As has been pointed out already, however, M2:TW makes the AI moddable so it should be possible to make the factions behave more realistically (hopefully not just more aggressively, in EBI the AI factions are just suicidal as they can't resist picking a fight with the player, no matter the situation...).
Andronikos
09-13-2009, 16:37
Having more Roman factions would be sacrificing many historicaly accurate things for one minor.
I don't understand why so many people request that the romans be superior, from the start of the game (year 272BC), to everyone else. They justify that statement with the argument that they "ruled the world", "that they owned everyone else" or simply "they should be superior only because they are Romans". If you want so badly to see a "Historical Roman Empire", play with them, conquer the world, and be happy for that. Even if EB tries to be as most "historical" has it can be, in the end, it's only a game, and being a game, it's about making your own history.
In 272BC, I doubt the Romans were strong enough to be called "The only true contenders to become a superpower". They were a power in rising, yes, but they weren't strong enough to do what Alexander did in his lifetime (maybe not the best comparison). There were many factors that determined their rising, and many times their "power" was contested by other factions. History could have been very different, there are many "what if" in Rome path to glory, but that's would be just speculating.
Ahhh... before I end... I don't like romans to much, but at least I don't come here to the forums asking for them to be "nerfed", so no need to call me "Roman Hater". They are perfect has they are now
Just keep on playing....and be happy:2thumbsup:
Yours truly, Raiuga
Raigua wrote
I don't understand why so many people request that the romans be superior, from the start of the game (year 272BC), to everyone else. They justify that statement with the argument that they "ruled the world", "that they owned everyone else" or simply "they should be superior only because they are Romans". If you want so badly to see a "Historical Roman Empire", play with them, conquer the world, and be happy for that. Even if EB tries to be as most "historical" has it can be, in the end, it's only a game, and being a game, it's about making your own history.
In 272BC, I doubt the Romans were strong enough to be called "The only true contenders to become a superpower". They were a power in rising, yes, but they weren't strong enough to do what Alexander did in his lifetime (maybe not the best comparison). There were many factors that determined their rising, and many times their "power" was contested by other factions. History could have been very different, there are many "what if" in Rome path to glory, but that's would be just speculating.
I agree with all that and i'm not asking for them to be superior. In fact i think if anything the quality of their units is over-rated. Until the middle of the 2nd punic war their cavalry was pretty poor and ridiculously small in numbers and their leves skirmishers didnt even have shields.
What they did have was massive manpower (not due to high population but their conscription and allied legions system of recruitment) and it was their greater manpower that won them wars most of the time - not superior armies (e.g Telamon campaign the Romans had several armies each of which outnumbered the Po Valley Celts' one allied field army; against Phyrrus they never got better than a draw but could shrug off losses that he couldnt; in the Second Punic War Hannibal beat them in 3 major battles but they just raised new armies)
I'd just like to see AI controlled Romans attack aggressively overseas and fight in Sicily and the other Mediterranean islands and North Africa fairly early in the game. If the Medieval II AI can be modded to do that without much trouble fine - i was just noting that in the original RTW it was done by using more than one faction and while in theory thats historically inaccurate the actual resulting behaviour of the Romans was reasonably historically accurate.
... it was their greater manpower that won them wars most of the time - not superior armies (e.g Telamon campaign the Romans had several armies each of which outnumbered the Po Valley Celts' one allied field army;...I don't have any great objection to the general thrust of your argument, but you're mangling the facts here. The Gallic army that invaded Etruria in 222 BC numbered 50,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry (Polybios 2.23).
On the Roman side (Polybios 2.24) there was an Etruro-Sabine army of 50,000 foot and 4,000 horse and two consular armies, each of 25,400 foot and 1,600 horse. One of these two consular armies was evidently in Sardinia when the Gauls began to move. I ought to point out that that both the Shuckburgh and Paton translations are defective here: each Consul had only two legions, not four, and the 32,000 allies were split between the two consular armies (see e.g. Walbank's Commentary on Polybius). Finally, a large reserve force of 50,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry was stationed at Rome. A number of smaller forces were scattered about Italy and Sicily.
So, far from being outnumbered by every Roman army, the Gallic army was significantly larger than all of the individual Roman forces.
A Terribly Harmful Name
09-13-2009, 22:59
The problem with the Romani is both that of manpower and stats. Notwithstanding the fact that the bulk of the Roman army is at best semi-professional, in EB they get incredibly high stats (for line troops) and very good bang for the buck together with ridiculously low prices. In my view, EBII would do well to change this and make individual Romani units more numerous but with even smaller stats, especially now that a certain variance in equipment can be afforded. From reading historical sources, it seems that mail armour was still rare in the 2nd Punic War, let alone any armour at all for a hastatus in the early game period.
It changes campaign to campaign. Some I see the Romans AI very aggressive, doing just what you said. If it is a Historical expansion, I think it is very difficult to mod that. As for the manpower, having more cities in italy would mean less in other places. In EB1 Roman units are less expensive to recruit and keep. You can always give money to rome, even give cities to them, if you want them to be stronger
The problem with the Romani is both that of manpower and stats. Notwithstanding the fact that the bulk of the Roman army is at best semi-professional, in EB they get incredibly high stats (for line troops) and very good bang for the buck together with ridiculously low prices. In my view, EBII would do well to change this and make individual Romani units more numerous but with even smaller stats, especially now that a certain variance in equipment can be afforded. From reading historical sources, it seems that mail armour was still rare in the 2nd Punic War, let alone any armour at all for a hastatus in the early game period.
Agreed. Compared to other "similar units", they are extremely more cheaper and stronger.
WImPyTjeH
09-14-2009, 23:58
I don't have any great objection to the general thrust of your argument, but you're mangling the facts here. The Gallic army that invaded Etruria in 222 BC numbered 50,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry (Polybios 2.23).
On the Roman side (Polybios 2.24) there was an Etruro-Sabine army of 50,000 foot and 4,000 horse and two consular armies, each of 25,400 foot and 1,600 horse. One of these two consular armies was evidently in Sardinia when the Gauls began to move. I ought to point out that that both the Shuckburgh and Paton translations are defective here: each Consul had only two legions, not four, and the 32,000 allies were split between the consular two armies (see e.g. Walbank's Commentary on Polybius). Finally, a large reserve force of 50,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry was stationed at Rome. A number of smaller forces were scattered about Italy and Sicily.
So, far from being outnumbered by every Roman army, the Gallic army was significantly larger than all of the individual Roman forces.
Yeah I wanted to ask this too. Wasn't it the strenght of the legions that though outnumbered in several occasions, they could still win the battle? Wasn't Ceasar heavily outnumbered when he besieged Alesia?
Megas Methuselah
09-15-2009, 07:25
Wasn't Ceasar heavily outnumbered when he besieged Alesia?
The citizen legions of 222 B.C. were not the same professional full-time legions employed by Caesar.
Meneldil
09-15-2009, 09:47
You can already faceroll your way to global domination blinded and with your hands tied with the EB1 romans. Making things even easier would be overly stupid, knowing Roma was on the edge of being wipped of the face of earth a few times (which never ever happens in EB).
Furthermore, it's one of the few AI nations that expands somewhat historically (as is, not going for Poland and Estonia first). Sure, if they could fight with Carthage a bit more, that'd be nice, but you can't ask much to the RTW AI.
Edit : It looks like your main issue is that SPQR rarely goes for Carthage. This is solely due to RTW AI and lack of naval invasions. I've seen the roman AI fight on several fronts (and often winning thanks to its underpriced and overpowered early units), and it's certainly doable for a human player, once you get a hold in Italy proper.
Yeah I wanted to ask this too. Wasn't it the strenght of the legions that though outnumbered in several occasions, they could still win the battle? Wasn't Ceasar heavily outnumbered when he besieged Alesia?
Yes, Caesar's army numbered 80.000, including auxillaries and allies. The number of Gallic warriors is generally estimated to 200.000 or more. However, I have my doubts about this: 80.000 seems to have been the upper limit for Roman armies, so how the hell did the far less sophisticated Gauls cope with the logistics of 200.000 men in one place? 200.000 men isn't an army, it's a 30 km tailback. And that's not including the ox-carts, armourers, servants, priests, etc. that would have accompanied it.
Also, keep in mind that the only records we have are those of Romans or Greeks working for Romans. From periods in history in which do have records of both sides, it appears that most chroniclers count every enemy twice, and include cooks, stable boys and servants in that number. The obsession of Romans with enumerating their victories probably would have contributed to that. Lastly, battles like Alesia and Watling Street were last-ditch efforts at throwing the Romans out. The majority of combatants would have been levies, not warriors.
Prussian to the Iron
09-15-2009, 20:20
@OP: FORGET IT. It's obvious that you're not getting more than 1 roman faction, and that the M2 A.I. may be able to compensate for that, and be told to go certain directions. Feel free to mod it in if you want. I'll be the first to playtest it and compare it to EBII.
@Ludens: While I agree that 200,000 is somewhat unhistorical, remember that they were in their home territory, and could probably have survived for a couple weeks before any real problems were encountered. so I would say maybe...150,000? And I agree that they would be more of a rabble than true warriors. However, you must remember Boudica(sp?) and her army, ravaging Roman Britain until Roman numbers and tactics finally beat her.
Everyone has to admit that the Romans, while very well trained, did combat many enemies (like the Greeks) with sheer numbers, combined with good tactics. But if you have a few thousand skirmishers, then that makes you seem much better than you are numerically.
I wouldn't be opposed to having maybe 2 more cities in Italy, though in natural strongholds owned by factions that held them. That would give the Romans a challenge; Let them grow, build an army, and then move in for the kill? or use 1 un-supportable army against a natural fortress packed with warriors?
The General
09-15-2009, 20:57
I wouldn't be opposed to having maybe 2 more cities in Italy, though in natural strongholds owned by factions that held them. That would give the Romans a challenge; Let them grow, build an army, and then move in for the kill? or use 1 un-supportable army against a natural fortress packed with warriors?
Q: Is the campaign map larger?
A: Both Rome - Total War and Medieval 2 - Total War have the same hardcoded number of provinces (199), so no new settlements can be added to the game. However, the scale of map will increase (approximately 1.3x).
Europa Barbarorum II FAQ (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=102768)
The provinces' shape will change though from what I recall, but I doubt they're removing provinces from other regions and adding new ones in Italy, which I think has enough already. I might be wrong of course, though. As it is though, SPQR's rich, its cities populous and its infantry dirty cheap, so the problem is the campaign AI, and as has been mentioned several times already, it can be modded in M2:TW.
Prussian to the Iron
09-15-2009, 21:57
I said wouldn't be opposed to it under certain circumstnces; he made several less than historical comments and suggestions.
The General
09-16-2009, 09:11
Hey, don't get snippy with me. I said wouldn't be opposed to it under certain circumstnces; he made several stupid comments and suggestions.
I didn't mean to sound snippy; previous post edited.
And I agree that they would be more of a rabble than true warriors. However, you must remember Boudica(sp?) and her army, ravaging Roman Britain until Roman numbers and tactics finally beat her.
Sorry for the added criticism but Boudicca (Boudicca, whichever you prefer) was not overwhelmed by numbers, she lost her last battle, outnumbering the Romans almost at 100:1. (btw, this was around 60 AD, not the Republican era)
And is it solid now that two roman factions are not going to happen. I am almost sick of "Roman rule, they were the greatest/ Romans needed more" kind of thing.
Prussian to the Iron
09-16-2009, 13:12
I know it wasn't republic era.
I wasn't sure on the numbers; haven't seen that special in like a year.
and thank you The General. editing my post now as well.
she lost her last battle, outnumbering the Romans almost at 100:1
I highly doubt she outnumbered them by that much, Tacitus and Dio were prone like most ancient writers to vastly inflating the enemies numbers and even they only claim 10:1 or 20:1 superiority.
3:1 or 4:1 would be more likely.
antisocialmunky
09-16-2009, 14:27
Yes, Caesar's army numbered 80.000, including auxillaries and allies. The number of Gallic warriors is generally estimated to 200.000 or more. However, I have my doubts about this: 80.000 seems to have been the upper limit for Roman armies, so how the hell did the far less sophisticated Gauls cope with the logistics of 200.000 men in one place? 200.000 men isn't an army, it's a 30 km tailback. And that's not including the ox-carts, armourers, servants, priests, etc. that would have accompanied it.
Also, keep in mind that the only records we have are those of Romans or Greeks working for Romans. From periods in history in which do have records of both sides, it appears that most chroniclers count every enemy twice, and include cooks, stable boys and servants in that number. The obsession of Romans with enumerating their victories probably would have contributed to that. Lastly, battles like Alesia and Watling Street were last-ditch efforts at throwing the Romans out. The majority of combatants would have been levies, not warriors.
Well, most decentralized tribal societies can raise a ridiculous amount of troops seemingly out of nowhere by just sending out the runners with muster notices and having every ablebody person from the country side show up in one place with a small supply of food, some sort of weapon to go fight some enemy within a few days before going back home with all the loot they carry.
So you have a crapton of hardy random guys join the core of the professional warriors and march off to battle.
No ability to of course for a prolonged conflict but still capable of rapid mobilization of the population for a battle or two.:smash:
@That Celtic Lady - She managed to beat several isolated Roman armies in quick succession by using numbers and surprise. So what?
Prussian to the Iron
09-16-2009, 14:40
I highly doubt she outnumbered them by that much, Tacitus and Dio were prone like most ancient writers to vastly inflating the enemies numbers and even they only claim 10:1 or 20:1 superiority.
3:1 or 4:1 would be more likely.
absolutely true. just like how herodotus numbered the persians at Thermopylae at 5,283,220! lol:laugh4:
antisocialmunky
09-17-2009, 03:44
"Good odds for any Spartan!!!"
Prussian to the Iron
09-17-2009, 13:37
Ha-ooh! Ha-ooh! HA-OOH!
...Immortals. We put their name to the test.
I highly doubt she outnumbered them by that much, Tacitus and Dio were prone like most ancient writers to vastly inflating the enemies numbers and even they only claim 10:1 or 20:1 superiority.
3:1 or 4:1 would be more likely.
The 100:1 was unlikely indeed. They are, most unfortunately, the only sources we can get. The supposed 100k warriors on the field would of been the size of a province or two in the same place. Supposedly, by the time of Augustus, Rome had the same population of Modern day Sydney (seemingly impossible).
Prussian to the Iron
09-17-2009, 23:33
how many people does modern day sydney have?
Azathoth
09-18-2009, 00:46
4,399,722 , according to Wikipedia.
So it really is impossible for Rome to have had as many people as modern-day Sydney.
antisocialmunky
09-18-2009, 01:33
Depends if you count only those living in the city proper or in the surrounding country side and travelling though. The estimates for the size of Rome at its zenith places the population between 5Mil and 10Mil.
Modern cities sizes are inflated because of all the suburbs and things growing in between cities.
Depends if you count only those living in the city proper or in the surrounding country side and travelling though. The estimates for the size of Rome at its zenith places the population between 5Mil and 10Mil.
Modern cities sizes are inflated because of all the suburbs and things growing in between cities.
I always thought that Rome never got much bigger than say Brisbane is nowadays (to continue the Australia references). That would make it somewhere around 1million people. I find it hard to imagine an ancient city that can sustain 5 - 10 million people. Its hard enough these days with all our transport and sewers and water pipes. How do you move enough food in every day to feed those people when everything moves at the speed of an ox cart? And how do you move an equal amount of human crap out? I know they tended to dump it on the streets but even so they didn't swim/wade through crap after 3 days so it must have been going somewhere.
Maybe you are exaggerating slightly? If not please link me to your sources. I love to know about this kind of stuff, especially if I have been getting it wrong all these years. And what year/time period was this population reached?
I think we will see Roman manpower well represented by higher replenishment rates for certain categories of troops. This M2TW mechanism has so much potential, I can't wait to see how it pans out in EB2.
Hypothetically (I know this will never happne but bear with me) you could have extremeley limuited use units avaible only once every 200 turns or so, so we could have flaming pigs arrive in time for Zama, and then never become available again! Likewise Hannibals torch bearing bulls and other quirky (possibly imaginary) units from eccentirc historians accounts.
EG if they decide to include the Irish or Spanish super-heavies (I know they're out, but bear with me) they could be a once in a lifetime opportunity.
I think we'll see players hoarding uber units at the rear of the battle line "saving them for a rainy day", like napoleon with e guard at Borodino, not flinging them into the teeth of battle at every opportunity 'cause they are quickly replaceable.
Still no way round the FM refresh glitch though. Its realistic there's an elite bodyguard for princes and the like, just not that they came for free.
My antiquity teacher was saying the other day that the roman empire, at it's greatest extention, only had an army of 300 000 men. Not the biggest army ever, especially considering the territory they had to cover.
The assyrians (i believe they had the biggest army of Antiquity, not sure though) had an army approximated at 500 000 men. This useless bulk was part of their downfall too, as i recall. Too many for the empire to support.
Now, both infos are out of the time frame, but we were talkin bout the size of the roman army, so.
The General
09-18-2009, 16:58
My antiquity teacher was saying the other day that the roman empire, at it's greatest extention, only had an army of 300 000 men. Not the biggest army ever, especially considering the territory they had to cover.
The assyrians (i believe they had the biggest army of Antiquity, not sure though) had an army approximated at 500 000 men. This useless bulk was part of their downfall too, as i recall. Too many for the empire to support.
Now, both infos are out of the time frame, but we were talkin bout the size of the roman army, so.
Rome had a standing army exceeding 300,000.
This is very different from actual manpower and troops that could be raised/levied. For example, prior to the Second Punic War, Polybius claimed Rome to be able to raise 770,000 sodiers (though some estimate the real number to have been maybe 90% of that).
(More) Ancient states, such as Assyria, often relied on the use of huge (usually poorly armed and armored) levies to gain the benefit of numbers.
Atilius wrote
I don't have any great objection to the general thrust of your argument, but you're mangling the facts here. The Gallic army that invaded Etruria in 222 BC numbered 50,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry (Polybios 2.23).
On the Roman side (Polybios 2.24) there was an Etruro-Sabine army of 50,000 foot and 4,000 horse and two consular armies, each of 25,400 foot and 1,600 horse. One of these two consular armies was evidently in Sardinia when the Gauls began to move. I ought to point out that that both the Shuckburgh and Paton translations are defective here: each Consul had only two legions, not four, and the 32,000 allies were split between the two consular armies (see e.g. Walbank's Commentary on Polybius). Finally, a large reserve force of 50,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry was stationed at Rome. A number of smaller forces were scattered about Italy and Sicily.
So, far from being outnumbered by every Roman army, the Gallic army was significantly larger than all of the individual Roman forces.
Ah ok - thanks - either WRG had it wrong then or else (at least as likely) i've misremembered what the WRG book said (while since i read it - i'll check it again)
Bobbin wrote
I highly doubt she outnumbered them by that much, Tacitus and Dio were prone like most ancient writers to vastly inflating the enemies numbers and even they only claim 10:1 or 20:1 superiority
I think i read somewhere that most modern historians think Roman authors often added in the numbers of non-combatants to enemy armies' strength, as Celtic women and children sometimes turned up to battles to feed the warriors and to cheer them on.
The General wrote
Now that we've established that SPQR was one state, I'd be curious why you insist on having 2-4 of those precious, precious faction slots used to make one faction (collective) expand more, thus creating a very, very ahistorical geopolitical situation in Italy, in a very much history/realism driven mod?
You could argue it either way on whether it'd be more or less historical. It might make the Romans more powerful than they were at the very start of the period, but closer to their actual strength and behaviour 20 years later.
The General wrote
In EBI, SPQR can easily field several fullstacks while owning only Italy (not even Sicily, Mediolanum, Corsica or Sardinia), the problem is that the campaign AI of R:TW all too often fails to put them into good use (as those Pedites Extraordinarii/Triarii stacks do obliterate the opposition).
As has been pointed out already, however, M2:TW makes the AI moddable so it should be possible to make the factions behave more realistically (hopefully not just more aggressively, in EBI the AI factions are just suicidal as they can't resist picking a fight with the player, no matter the situation...).
If that works, i've no problem with it and since i'm not one of the modders obviously i can only make suggestions and if most modders disagree (as they seem to) it won't be done that way.
I just thought two Roman factions might get the same effect with less modding work/ difficulty with AI.
You may well know better as you're one of the modders who understands the code etc - i don't.
@various people on Boudicca
Yes, Boudicca almost certainly outnumbered the Romans in her final battle and what i was saying, like most generalisations, doesnt hold good in every case. In the wars with Pyrrhus, the Po Valley Celts and Carthage the Romans had an advantage in manpower. From the Marian reforms on smaller numbers of Romans did beat larger enemy armies due to better training and organisations.
At Alesia (i think?) Caesar had built fortifications facing inwards to besiege Alesia and outwards to stop the relieving force breaking the siege, so it was his legions training in field fortifications that was decisive. If he'd fought the same number of Gauls in an open field battle it might have gone differently - and he relied heavily on dividing and conquering the Gauls, with many of his cavalry being Gallic allies.
Prussian to the Iron
09-18-2009, 18:25
Yeah, it's Alesia
Rome had a standing army exceeding 300,000.
This is very different from actual manpower and troops that could be raised/levied. For example, prior to the Second Punic War, Polybius claimed Rome to be able to raise 770,000 sodiers (though some estimate the real number to have been maybe 90% of that).
I wonder how he calculated that. The senate had to suspend property-requirements for levying and recruit slaves after Cannae, so I am guessing Rome's manpower reserves had been seriously depleted at this point.
Furthermore, according to Goldsworthy, conscription was very unpopular by the time of Augustus (as evinced by the trouble the emperor had in recruiting soldiers after the Teutoburg disaster), so the Roman army could not count on the endless reserves it had during the middle Republic.
@ Dunadd
Please don't double post. Use the multi-quote or edit functions to reply to multiple posts.
The General
09-18-2009, 20:05
I wonder how he calculated that. The senate had to suspend property-requirements for levying and recruit slaves after Cannae, so I am guessing Rome's manpower reserves had been seriously depleted at this point.
Furthermore, according to Goldsworthy, conscription was very unpopular by the time of Augustus (as evinced by the trouble the emperor had in recruiting soldiers after the Teutoburg disaster), so the Roman army could not count on the endless reserves it had during the middle Republic.
@ Dunadd
Please don't double post. Use the multi-quote or edit functions to reply to multiple posts.
Here's Polybius's account (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/2*.html#24). (That's before the Second Punic War.)
Also, while it's possible (well, quite likely actually, since legions were being positioned on the frontiers, far from home for most soldiers...) that conscription got unpopular by the time of Augustus Rome also had a population that numbered in tens of millions by that point.
Prussian to the Iron
09-18-2009, 20:52
no. just...no. Romes population is less than 4 million today, and it has had from the dark ages untl now to grow, so over a thousand years to grow and it has gone down by tens of million? I don't think so.
Azathoth
09-19-2009, 00:36
no. just...no. Romes population is less than 4 million today, and it has had from the dark ages untl now to grow, so over a thousand years to grow and it has gone down by tens of million? I don't think so.
He's clearly talking about the territory under Rome's direct control at the time of Augustus, not the city itself. :sweatdrop:
antisocialmunky
09-19-2009, 01:52
no. just...no. Romes population is less than 4 million today, and it has had from the dark ages untl now to grow, so over a thousand years to grow and it has gone down by tens of million? I don't think so.
Sorry, population doesn't work like that. Average city sizes plummeted after the fall of the Roman Empire and its massive network of trade. It was only in the 1800s that average city sizes got even close to what they were back then.
Rome itself pretty much lost several million in emmigration after the fourth century and hasn't tried getting back to that size anytime since. Rome at its zenith was producing massive amounts of food by peasants and slaves, shipping it from all across the known world to Rome via a massive complex network of trade. Once that was gone - a system that took 700+ years to put together, everyone just went somewhere else like Constantinople or went to the country side.
However, I will take my claim that 5mil+ was the population of Rome, most estimates seem to indicate a size of between .5-1.5mil permenant residents so I'm not sure about my geography professor's source on his claim of 5mil+. It is worth mentioning that ancient Rome was smaller and modern Rome only has ~2.67mil
For example, prior to the Second Punic War, Polybius claimed Rome to be able to raise 770,000 sodiers.To clarify for everyone: Polybios' figure of approximately 770,000 is the total number of men, Roman and Allied, subject to military service in 225 BC. It would have been impossible to mobilize them all at the same time since these same men constituted most of Italy's farmers.
During the 2nd Punic war, the size of the Roman army peaked in 212 BC with 26 legions in service, totaling roughly 250,000 men, Roman and allied. In the same year, the Consuls were having difficulty raising recruits, so two pairs of triumvirs were assigned to "inspect all free-born males in every country district, market town, and local centre, and to enlist for service any who seemed fit to bear arms even though not yet of military age" (Livy 25.5). That's a pretty clear indication that Rome was reaching the limits of its available citizen manpower. This is in substantial agreement with demographic studies (e.g. Scheidel) estimating that Roman citizen mobilization peaked at about 30% on three occasions: the mid-4th century, the 2nd Punic War and the Social War.
The General
09-19-2009, 15:48
This is in substantial agreement with demographic studies (e.g. Scheidel) estimating that Roman citizen mobilization peaked at about 30% on three occasions: the mid-4th century, the 2nd Punic War and the Social War.
That's a pretty large number, though, for an agriculture based society.
And yes, I was, obviously enough I thought, talking about the population of the state, not the city itself.
antisocialmunky
09-20-2009, 13:41
Well, during the Second Punic War, they raised two massive armies in Italy itself, invaded Illyria, and then Spain while the Emprie was Italy proper and Sicily. I can't speak about the Social War, but the Crisis of the 4th century saw Hispania, Gaul, and Palmyra declare independence and barbarians invade. It was a miracle that they were able to hold it together for another 200 years. Really, the 4th century marked the turning point in Rome's power against the Gauls.
Anyway, at all 3 periods the existence of the Empire was in great jeopardy so the massive mobilization of the upper and middle class was not surprising(you have to remember, 30% of all citizens doesn't account for all foreigners or slaves - slaves that made up the majority of the Roman population). You also have to remember that citizenship was gotten through military service or you were born into it. So in reality all that happened was veterans were called back to active service and new legions were raised.
In that quote Polybius mentions the 770,000 as the manopower pool yes? And they had about 250,000 under arms at that time. Thats a fair effort for a state that basically covers the Italian peninsula and a few extras.
I read in a neat little history of Makedonia that the ruler of Pella typically raised a force of about 20,000 men for his army, with a reserve of another 20,000 in times of crisis: thats over the period from about 350-BC to the 160's or whenever they were sbnuffed out. Just ballpark, but that shows you the massive advantage Rome's colonae and socii gave them.
I believe in the later republican period there were about 200-300,000 legionaires and an equal number of auxilliaries: doubling and tripling the territory did not double or triple the manpower because those territories were often friends of Rom,e rather than directly administered territories..
I think at the height of the civil wars there were about a million Roman and allied combatants running amok, but that was a heavy overload on the econmoy and Augustus halved it.
Prussian to the Iron
09-21-2009, 23:00
if it was during the civil wars, then technically they were private armies, not roman (belonging to the roman state) correct?
if it was during the civil wars, then technically they were private armies, not roman (belonging to the roman state) correct?
Weeeell, according to the winning side, Octavian did what was required for the good of the state. After the fact it became legal
...a bit like the American revolt. "We, the people (who are breaking our oaths of loyalty to his Majesty)..."
The "senate and people of Rome" (including those people intent on overthrowing the senate) were capable of fielding those large armies. Certainly the Roman state was enlarged by new system of recruitment, but it meant the hands on the tiller were changed.
I can't speak about the Social War, but the Crisis of the 4th century saw Hispania, Gaul, and Palmyra declare independence and barbarians invade. It was a miracle that they were able to hold it together for another 200 years. Really, the 4th century marked the turning point in Rome's power against the Gauls.I ought to have clarified this point: mid-4th century means 4th century BC - the time period of the Latin War.
Anyway, at all 3 periods the existence of the Empire was in great jeopardy so the massive mobilization of the upper and middle class was not surprising(you have to remember, 30% of all citizens doesn't account for all foreigners or slaves - slaves that made up the majority of the Roman population).Slaves were definitely not a majority of any population in Italy until after the mid 2nd century BC and there is no clear evidence they ever were. There was no significant "foreign" population (as I undestand the term) in Italy during the three periods in question.
You also have to remember that citizenship was gotten through military service or you were born into it.Citizenship was not offered for military service until well after the Social War.
antisocialmunky
09-22-2009, 13:57
Like I said, I thought you said 4th century AD so I ended up focusing on the later period when refering to all three. So thanks for pointing out the problems with what I said. I also should have stated taht slaves made up one of the largest segments of population.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.