Wish List -- Food for thought

[shingenmitch2]

Here's a wish list for Roman Total War:

UNITS & ERA

1. Keep the time period 500 BC - 100 BC. (or EARLIER)

2. Sarmatians - with saddle and lance. (dare I say Scythians?)

3. Roman inf. should be better over uneven ground, but lose vs. head up fight against phalanx.

4. Macedonian cav. - this was Alexander's biggest advantage over the Persians. There is evidence that he used his cavalry as shock-cavalry. What was his large advange? -- some historians think it may have been an early form of the Gallic saddle. (which may very well have developed in the steppes -- see Scythians, Sarmatians and Hsung-Niu)

5. Etruscans

6. Samnites

7. Illyrians

8. Hypaspists. Alexander should have units of these and they should most likely be excellent trained, light hoplites. (these were the troops who provided the link between cav. & phalanx and covered the phalanx ends.)

9. Thracians -- we need both mountain tribesman with their Pelta, javelins & skirmish tactics, and the plains horsemen. Also some heavier armied footies with the Rhomphia (an early falx-like weapon), shield & helmet. or some Thracians armed with gegae? (knobby crooked staff designed to break off spear heads)

10. Celt-iberians

----------------------
GAME ENGINE

1. Have each turn equal to several months -- ie. 3/4 turns equals a year. This would more closely approximate the provincial distances able to be covered in a year. Current MTW is ridiculous with player being able to move only one province per year. (perhaps money expenditure, like in STW, is only at the beginning of the year -- in this case, once every 3/4 turns...)

2. Be able to move through 2 provinces per turn if they are friendly / controlled provinces.

3. Romans build roads much quicker than everyone else and provinces w/ improved roads can be moved at 3-4 per turn if friendly.


-----------------
TACTICS QUESTIONS

1. Phalanx -- since historians have not figured this out, I wonder how CA will solve the problem of the number of sarrisas from any one file being able to make contact with the enemy in front. (do all 5 ranks hit, thus implying varying lengths to the sarissa), or can only the first 2-3 hit, with the remaing actingly like additional spears as the enemy gets inside the effective distance of the first spears.

2. Roman/Phalanx, will there be rotation of troops within the files? bringing fresh back men to the front. Historians are again at odds as to whether this was possible or not.

3. With the Phalanx, were only the first 3-8 men in the file of 16 fully armored and the rear rankers only helmet and shield?

[Hakonarson]

There's almst not evidence of varying pike lengths - it makes no sense as there's no formulae that gives a sensible length for the rear ranks.

Roman rank replacement is not attested to AFAIK, and many nations practiced raplacing formations in battle in italy - the Romasn got the idea of small sub-units (cohortes) from other hill tribes after all.

Armouring of the phalanx depends upon the time and place.

As with many formations the front ranks could be more heavily armoured than the rear, but apparently msot were relatively uniformly armoured.

I doubt RTW will ahve different armour in a single unit.

MTW doesn't do it and the same arguments apply throughout all of history and can be made for German "Gothic" Knights - where only the front ranks ahd the excellent plate armour, Viking foot - where the richer beter armed and armoured men took the front ranks, etc.

[shingenmitch2]

Hark --

First off I wasn't offering solutions to those problems, just wondering how CA plans on handling them and which historical models they were thinking about following. But your response sounds very authoritative, as if these things are all givens and well known. They are not. There is no definitive proof for any of these tactics questions and top historians still debate these details of ancient combat.

As for sarissa lengths I agree with you... however, Sarissas have been found in differing lengths from 13' to about 18' and historians are unsure what that means that means tactically. Though not the likely scenario, it could very well mean that the lengths were different for each of the first five rankers.

Regardless of that, I was asking how CA plans to simulate the stand-off distances represented by the length of the sarissa and the fact that if all sarissas are the same length, then there would be spear tips every 3' starting from about 13' infront of the first rank with the first 2-3 spear tips being able to stab at any 1 target.

Not sure what AFAIK is... but I never said Romans practiced rank rotation... Certainly there was rank replacement --- as each soldier fell, another steps foward to take his place... however, there may very well have be rotation within the file to keep the men fresh. Again, historians are unsure and there is nothing definitive to say this did or didn't happen.

(and yes, along with cohort / phalanx articulation... the Romans learned open-order skirmish tactics and javelin use from the Samnites and hill tribes.)

To further muddle things --- beyond the question of rank replacement, historians have serious questions about something as seemingly straight foward as how Roman maniples shifted from checkerboard into line... If and when that happened and under what circumstances... could entire formations replace after initial contact? Did these shifts only occur before the battle started?

Even the simple pila thow is an unknown among historians. How did the roman lines fire their javelins--- one at a time as they charged to contact? or did only the first few men throw while the century made contact and then the rear ranks throw later from where they were standing? Was it a mass volley while running wildly or controlled and timed event?

[CBR]

CA's current way of doing rank bonus (2 supporting ranks for spears and 4 for pikes) is a way of doing it.

Sarissas come in different lengths just as we see pikes in medieval times. A matter of development and different tactical approaches.

IIRC we do know of battles/skirmishes taking hours where the Romans didnt run out of javelins. Think there is some "heretical" article in the latest issue of Slingshot about the role of the Hastati http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif oh time for dinner.

CBR

[Galestrum]

more diplomacy

more role play aspects (glorious achievments, etc)

ways to win the game besides combat, and make them worthwhile not afterthoughts

"high modability" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

more of the small things that make you feel like your doing more than just fighting an endless series of battles

more random events that have serious consequences, not just heres a famine, but intrigue, generals plotting ag you , unforeseen barbarian hordes coming from nowhere etc

a highly immersive atmosphere, numerous and distictive music, armies/units, role play aspects, event movies/animations, throne room etc

[Nowake]

I don't have very much time in order to post my wishes, but a question:

why 500BC-100BC? Were would be then the roman military in its height? Where would be then Marius, Sylla, Caesar, Pompeius Magnus, Crassus etc.

[shingenmitch2]

Gale - I hear what your saying... I think those things would be good as long as they don't distract from military strategy of the game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif The more strategic the better for me. Role playing should be much lower in importance... don't forget the heart of this game is the realistic battles on the battle map. Now if the campaign part could only add as much realism and detail. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

As for winning without fighting? Never happened back then... Empires and peoples only succeeded in lasting if they could defeat their enemies in battle.

-------------------
PR -- okay, maybe up to 1 BC.

My thinking is that the early Republic (200 B.C.) was a more interesting time-period with a huge diversity of peoples who could all potentially defeat and superceed Rome. The Etruscans or Samnites may have been able to win Italy... Roman military might was just developing and their armies had a more interesting internal diversity too (Hestati, Triarii, etc.) Other peoples of the time like Carthage were strong. The Successor states of Alexander were at their hight... The Celts and Celtiberians had not been subdued... and the Germanic/protoGermanic tribes exist in the far north, and the Sarmatians begin to make their appearance.

500 B.C. gets you classic greece with Athenians, Thebans and Spartans... Persia at its hight, the Phoenecians, Scythians are still strong. The Thracian tribes are running around in all their nastiness.

Granted 20 BC gets you the late Republic and the civil war -- but that gets to more "everybody got the same army" and Rome owns most of the show...

The Imperial era only gets more boring... tho I suppose it does give you Dacians (but the Thracians are the same), Germans (who were around earlier), Palmyra, and Parthians (Sarmatians would take care of this)

[Hakonarson]

Shing where I sounded authoritative it's probably because those aspects aer not in much doubt.

For example there is no doubt that there's not a single case of rank rotation attested to in an actualbattle, and we have reasonably detailed accounts of a lot of battles.

The placing of more heavily armoured men in the front ranks is also not really in doubt.

Certainly many of the details are not well known and the exact specifics can be argued from here until armageddon - it's true that we do not know precisely when the Romans threw their pila, but we do know that they threw them immediately before contact, and that is actually enough detail for our purposes.

we do know that differnt pike lengths are attested at different times and places - never together. I beleive something like that was tried in medieval times, and quickly dropped.

while historians may quibble over the specifics of changing from chequerboard to line we know it happened - because Roman armies fought in line and were not constantl overlapped - again the precisse details realy need not concern us as long as we get teh effect right.

Indeed as where nothing precise is known it is impossible to be certain to get the mechanism "right", and so getting the effect right becomes the only measure of accuracy.

AFAIK means "as far as I know".

[Galestrum]

Quote[/b] ]As for winning without fighting? Never happened back then... Empires and peoples only succeeded in lasting if they could defeat their enemies in battle.

I meant that i just dont like the whole ganging up effect seen in mtw - where you essentially end up fighting wars against every faction for 100 years - in history there were many wars, but many were short and sporadic as well not 100 years against the world all the time.

As far as role playing i mean have events and situations that are driven by history, events which have consequences etc....not just a series of wars that happem in a diplomatic, political and economic vaccumn.

And to me the heart of the game should be a realistic expression of building an empire with realistic battles. If there is going to be a strategic aspect to the game, it shouldnt be an afterthought, diplomacy, naval power, intrigue, economics, religion random unstoppable events etc should all be a part of the game, so that one can face a challeneg as a ruler

Otherwise, just make a bunch of linked battle campaigns and MP and dont waste my time. I personally would like to see this game be the best strategy game with the best battles. If this game was just a tactical battle generator, i would never play it.

[Hakonarson]

I don't mind the "ganging up" thing in MTW - usualy it involves long periods of little activity followed by a 1-5 year "offensive" by one side or toerh and another long period of inactivity.

Seems quite reasonably historical to me.

[Galestrum]

seems quite unhistorical to me that one nation had every existing faction at war with it all the time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif but oh well we shall see what they do

[Foreign Devil]

Try and think of it as balancing the inherent weakness of the AI versus a human player. This is a game, after all.

[Galestrum]

try actually thinking that a good product should be made as oppossed to making excuses for poor work http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

certainly there are improvements that can be made other than

"hmmm we cant make this game good so once they get 10 cities everyone in the world declares war on them"

[Lehesu]

Galestrum, there is a fine line between constructive criticism and whining. Unless you know the specifics of the techinicalities and time that it takes to create realistic AI and it's impact against quirks in the game, I advise you to be quiet. CA probably didn't think that the game was "not good" and that they had to make up for it with treacherously sabotoged AI scripts. Rather, I think the problem came with the AI, as it is often unpredictable at best, and positively loony at worst. You never know what it's gonna do when certain variables are imposed on it.

[lonewolf371]

Well in RTW declaring war won't be in much conflict with history, as "war" was largely an abstract thought. Two countries could be at "war" without any sort of formal declaration. It could also be considered "war" when two countries are simply at hostilities aka when you see a military unit from another country marching through yours (to fight with a country on the other side) and you destroying it could be considered "war". Essentially, barbarian tribes and Rome were always at war, so the impossibility of gaining a peace that MTW expresses would not be a problem.

PS-As for the checkerboard formation expressed by a Manipular legion AFAIK the Hastati in front would throw their pila and engage. If they managed to make some sort of impression on the enemy line the second line (Principes) would charge in, throw their pila over the Hastati and engage filling up the gaps. The Triarii would then act as a reserve force, and if the Forward line was maintained they would march around the flanks of the enemy army along with the cavalry and attack there. Thusly an enemy army would be enveloped and routed. The late-game Cohortal legion was basically something that revolved around more brute force with the first line expected to blast through the enemy lines and the two lines behind to act as a reserve force for flanking and stopping enemy flanking maneuvers.

[Galestrum]

Lehesu,

Call it whine or what have you, it is possible to make a good AI, amazingly I have actually seen games with AI's far superior to MTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif I run my own business, and i know what it takes in the business world - most businesses take short cuts, and thats why many businesses fail, whether its pc games, law offices, or corner stores. There are so many shortcomings in MTW, it certainly looks like they either didnt put in the necessary effort or rushed the game.

If you think the game is great, I am happy for you - I was severely let down by the game. When you accept poor work from a business you will not get better work/products in the future. We have a difference of opinion, I think the AI sucks and that it can be better - you want to make excuses for them. I wont tell you not to keep your opinion, dont presume to tell me mine.

[Galestrum]

I am sorry lonewolf, but there is simply no basis in history to say "rome was at war perpetually with all barbarians", or the other factions. War was a major undertaking, and rarely done lightly. The barbarian tribes were very often allies, i might add. There was also trade between Rome and the Gauls and germans and others. You cant have trade with people that you are "always" at war with. Treaties were made, with varying terms. The only reason that there is a perception that rome was at war with all barbarians - was due to the fact that over hundreds of years the romans expanded into their territory, but usually it was on tribe at a time, while relations with other tribes were neutral, if not friendly or serving rome. The politics of this time were often fairly delicate and intricate, not simple and "look there be bad guys, let us kill grrr argghhh" hehe

And as to my main point, please cite me a moment from history where say, 20 nations of varying culture, ethnicity, language, geographical area etc said "hmmm, look at that nation - they have just acquired 100,000 sq miles of territory, 99,999 sq miles was ok, but this is too much. Let us forsake all our trade treaties and past alliances and attack them". It is just a very weak and unimaginative way to "balance" the game.

There are any number of ways that this can be improved upon, over and above just making a capable AI.

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ April 07 2003,13:24)]Here's a wish list for Roman Total War:

UNITS & ERA


2. Sarmatians - with saddle and lance. (dare I say Scythians?)

3. Roman inf. should be better over uneven ground, but lose vs. head up fight against phalanx.

4. Macedonian cav. - this was Alexander's biggest advantage over the Persians. There is evidence that he used his cavalry as shock-cavalry. What was his large advange? -- some historians think it may have been an early form of the Gallic saddle. (which may very well have developed in the steppes -- see Scythians, Sarmatians and Hsung-Niu)

5. Etruscans

6. Samnites

7. Illyrians

8. Hypaspists. Alexander should have units of these and they should most likely be excellent trained, light hoplites. (these were the troops who provided the link between cav. & phalanx and covered the phalanx ends.)

9. Thracians -- we need both mountain tribesman with their Pelta, javelins & skirmish tactics, and the plains horsemen. Also some heavier armied footies with the Rhomphia (an early falx-like weapon), shield & helmet. or some Thracians armed with gegae? (knobby crooked staff designed to break off spear heads)

10. Celt-iberians

----------------------
GAME ENGINE

1. Have each turn equal to several months -- ie. 3/4 turns equals a year. This would more closely approximate the provincial distances able to be covered in a year. Current MTW is ridiculous with player being able to move only one province per year. (perhaps money expenditure, like in STW, is only at the beginning of the year -- in this case, once every 3/4 turns...)


3. Romans build roads much quicker than everyone else and provinces w/ improved roads can be moved at 3-4 per turn if friendly.


-----------------
TACTICS QUESTIONS

1. Phalanx -- since historians have not figured this out, I wonder how CA will solve the problem of the number of sarrisas from any one file being able to make contact with the enemy in front. (do all 5 ranks hit, thus implying varying lengths to the sarissa), or can only the first 2-3 hit, with the remaing actingly like additional spears as the enemy gets inside the effective distance of the first spears.

2. Roman/Phalanx, will there be rotation of troops within the files? bringing fresh back men to the front. Historians are again at odds as to whether this was possible or not.

3. With the Phalanx, were only the first 3-8 men in the file of 16 fully armored and the rear rankers only helmet and shield?
--> 1. Keep the time period 500 BC - 100 BC. (or EARLIER)

The timeframe was set by CA and very much doubt that they are going to change it. A Gaul mini-campaign is already promised. And I know they said that the dates are not fixed but if they change IMO you can expect the new date to move beyond 14 CE but not go earlier than 264BCE.

Quote from CA;
"On to content... we've said in the PC Zone UK preview that it will be more or less 260 BCE to 10 CE - the main campaign will be the rise of the Empire from the Republic, including Civil Wars and the various reforms of the Roman army - Velites/Triarii/Hastati vs Marius' mules and so on. We'll probably include an option to play on after you've won, but that's where the artists' time ran out."

--> 2. Be able to move through 2 provinces per turn if they are friendly / controlled provinces.

The campaign map will not be province based. My guess is that movement will be based on turn length/troop type/terrain.

---> 3. Romans build roads much quicker than everyone else

Road construction will be in there - and the Roman's should have an advantage here.

---> 1. Phalanx -- since historians have not figured this out, I wonder how CA will solve the problem of the number of sarrisas from any one file being able to make contact with the enemy in front. (do all 5 ranks hit, thus implying varying lengths to the sarissa), or can only the first 2-3 hit, with the remaing actingly like additional spears as the enemy gets inside the effective distance of the first spears.

You will probably see pikes of a single length - and uniform armor - since modeling variables like this w/in a unit could get to be quite taxing on the game engine.

---> 2. Roman/Phalanx, will there be rotation of troops within the files? bringing fresh back men to the front. Historians are again at odds as to whether this was possible or not.

No idea how this will could be handled. We probably have to expect that it will not - too many unknowns, too complex to model.

___

My hope is CA gives us more selection options regarding unit size. In M:TW you can double the size of the unit (40 Hobilars to 80). There is a doubling of training time and unit cost though.

I would like to see the ability to go up to 10 times the size (cohort of 100 men up to 1,000), w/o the time and cost penalties - of course the AI would get the same settings.

This approach has the advantage of allowing you to field larger forces - if your PC can handle it, while keeping all other variables the same. It also effectively eliminates my issues w/ the 16 unit limit. CA has stated that the R:TW battlefields are much larger than in M:TW (Battle Maps will be up to 9x9 km), so larger armies can be accommodated.

Finally, we should know much more about the Campaign map after E3 in late May.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[lonewolf371]

Every place you described was divided up into many tribes, and at any time some aggressive movement could be undertaken and war without any formal declaration could start. War, at least during Roman times, was an abstract thought. We define war as the time from it's declared to the time the peace treaty is signed. With the Romans some barbarian tribe or Roman legionairries might just pounce on one another and fighting would erupt with the defeated side pearhaps returning later. Yes trade did occur but it was only with the more peaceful tribes. Tribes hostile to Rome would most likely simply plunder any Roman merchants or goods moving through their territory.

As for the time when 10 countries gang up, yes it has happened. Napoleon took over much of Russia, faltered at Moscow and then Britain, the German countries, Austria, Sweden, and just about every other place he ever conquered suddenly rose up in revolt. Also, Germany and Russia twice destroyed Poland right before some larger conflict flared up. Massive revolts happened all over the Mongolian empire when it expanded too much. Right after Israel was established just about every Arab country in the region declared war on it. During Fredrick II's reign in Prussia a huge alliance of countries declared war and marched on his capitol. I've just named many instances when countries ganged up on each other. What's to stop a country in the game from taking that simple advantage of you being weak? It's simply good strategy, and if you can't handle it dock down the difficulty.

[Hakonarson]

Actually Napoleon had all those countrys allied with him when he attacked Russia (Except England) - his army was 2/3rds non-French - it had an entire Corps each of Italians, Austrians, Prussians and Poles, and several of his corps had large numbers of Germans and Italians, plus a few Spanish and Portuguese.

But generally I agree.

Campaigns were certainly major undertakings, but low level border raiding was the normal state of affairs everywhere.

It was PEACE that was specifically declared and governed by treaties. Breaking a treaty to go to war was much like we imagine today, but if there wasn't a treaty then the other people were fair game.

At this time "international politics" were still essentially inter-tribal.

[lonewolf371]

By the end of the battle of Leipzig Napoleon's entire army consisted of French save the Saxon king himself and VERY few Saxon soldiers. Even as is, the Saxons deserted Napoleon DURING the battle, and yet the French still held, but were later forced to reatreat due to lack of artillery ammunition.

However, Napoleon's German allies did assist greatly in the retreat from Moscow, and from the account of an assistant to Marshal (general?) Davout, on numerous occasions German Grenadiers or Hussars helped save a few French soldiers. This also happened in British accounts. Apparently the Germans were valuable allies, and could be unleashed with devastating effect if united (aka WWI).

[Hakonarson]

Scythed chariots - gotta have 'em - Mithridatic and Seleucids used them a fair bit - I wanna see them rout back through friends cutting them down too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Barkhorn1x]

I believe this earlier post by a CA developer answers the question - indirectly - of whether there will be pikes of varying lenghts;


Quote[/b] ]"There are Hoplites and Phalangites/Phalangists. Hoplites are the earlier type who are named for the hoplon shield they carried, and were armed with 8-10 foot thrusting spears.

Phalangists/Phalangites (depending on the exact period) were a tactical evolution of fighting style from the Hoplites. They used a longer sarissa "pike", some 18-20 feet in length. As a result, the shield they carried became smaller because they needed two hands to control the long pike.

In a phalanx formation the main purpose of the rear ranks of Hoplites was to add mass and "push" to the unit. Given the length of their spears only the first 3 ranks at most could have engaged the enemy.

With phalangites the position is different. Up to 5 ranks can use their spears to drive into an enemy unit; deeper than that and the rear ranks are replacements and for mass again. There's also some evidence that troops further back pointed their spears into the air over the heads of the front ranks to break up incoming barrages of arrows a bit.

MikeB ~ CA

So short answer = NO.

Barkhorn.