What has been fixed, and what should be? Many questions...

[Mazzeroth]

Hey,

I own Shogun, Medieval, and Viking Invasion, and, in a week or so, I should have my very own copy of Rome. Sweet!

I've read a few posts in the Rome forums, and it seems that most peoples' complaints regard the killing & charging speeds, as well as cavalry units being overpowered, probably because spearmens' anti-cav bonuses aren't "working." Is this true?

And, if so, has anyone released a mod which lowers the killing & charging speeds, while also making the battle time limit appropriately longer? And is there any way to give spearmen & phalanxes a greater bonus against cavalry?

Also, are there any significant problems with the strategy map aspect of the game? I get the impression that Rome will be absolutely perfect once the real time battles are modded to be most realistic. What do people who actually have the game think of this?

Also, are units like screaming women, dogs, flaming pigs, and gladiators handled realistically?

Can screaming women actually engage the enemy? Or, more realistically, do they only strenghten their husbands' morale? Are they easily routed? And does their unit description still contain that ridiculous line which refers to them as "twisted cheerleaders", or something of the sort?

Do the units of dogs have human commanders, who show them the general direction of the ennemy and decide when to set them loose? Or do they unexplainably know what they are being ordered to do? Once they attack, can they, unrealistically, still be controlled? Are they in any way overpowered? Can they attack their own troops, if they come too close to them once the dogs have been loosed?

How are the pigs led into the field of battle? Before they are set on fire, are they being held in the arms of roman soldiers? Do they appear to spontaneously combust, or is there some sort of animation which shows how they come to be on fire? Do they eventually burn to death? Are they effective against anything other than elephants?

Does the gladiators' unit description do anything to explain why gladiators would be fighting in the regular roman army, for the romans? Or are they units that appear only in rebellions and civil wars?

Finally, does anyone here know anything about roman military history, and in particular about cavalry? I know very little, but I seem to remember that cavalry, until 400 AD or so, was not very effective (or not as effective as medieval cavalry), because european horses were very small and because iron stirrups either had not been invented or were not commonly used. (Stirrups prevent the rider from being thrown off his horse when he charges into the enemy). So, if this is true, is roman cavalry overpowered? I think that, historically, barbarian (eastern european, particularly?) & north african cavalry was more powerful than its roman equivalent.

Finally, I remember seeing pics of huge siege towers which frankly look quite ridiculous. Do these cost an extravagant amount to build? Or do they take many turns to construct? I remember someone who justified their existence in the game by saying that 30m siege towers were built at some particular battle, but did this happen more than once or twice in the history of the ancient world? Is their inclusion in the game a slight historical inaccuracy?

Thanks for any answers or comments.

[fey]

Some answers for you...


Hey,

And, if so, has anyone released a mod which lowers the killing & charging speeds, while also making the battle time limit appropriately longer? And is there any way to give spearmen & phalanxes a greater bonus against cavalry?

Partly. Look through the threads here, a couple of people have done a speed-lowering mod. I haven't seen a slower-killing-speed mod yet... It's arguable whether it's needed.



Also, are there any significant problems with the strategy map aspect of the game? I get the impression that Rome will be absolutely perfect once the real time battles are modded to be most realistic. What do people who actually have the game think of this?

I haven't heard many complaints about the strategic part. I like the way it works, it's much better than MTW or STW.



Also, are units like screaming women, dogs, flaming pigs, and gladiators handled realistically?

LOL. I guess it depends on your definition of the word "realistically". In the final analysis they are but a bunch of pixels moving on your screen :-)



Do the units of dogs have human commanders, who show them the general direction of the ennemy and decide when to set them loose? Or do they unexplainably know what they are being ordered to do? Once they attack, can they, unrealistically, still be controlled? Are they in any way overpowered? Can they attack their own troops, if they come too close to them once the dogs have been loosed?

Dogs have human handlers who set them loose. The handlers may or may not participate in the attack. Once loosed, the dogs cannot be controlled. They do not attack friendly troops. Dogs are highly effective against the barbarians, much less against armored foes. They are powerful, but I don't think they are overpowered.



Finally, does anyone here know anything about roman military history, and in particular about cavalry? I know very little, but I seem to remember that cavalry, until 400 AD or so, was not very effective (or not as effective as medieval cavalry), because european horses were very small and because iron stirrups either had not been invented or were not commonly used. (Stirrups prevent the rider from being thrown off his horse when he charges into the enemy). So, if this is true, is roman cavalry overpowered? I think that, historically, barbarian (eastern european, particularly?) & north african cavalry was more powerful than its roman equivalent.

Roman-time cavalry had no stirrups which greatly limited what a man on horseback can do. That's why most of Roman cavalry is armed either with spears or with javelins -- they could not effectively fight with swords. Also, the game correctly emphasizes that the strenght of the cavalry lies in its charge. If bogged down in melee, cavalry is cut down very quickly. Also in RTW just by looking at unit stats, barbarian and north african cavalry *is* better than the Roman cavalry. I think Sacred Band cavalry is considered to be the best in the game.

Fey

[Salazar]

Well, from what i've read i would say that screaming Women etc. are quite ok, but i dont have the Game yet so i dont really know it yet.

When it comes to Cavalry: Yup Roman Cavalry was compared to almost everything else, but imho that didnt come because of the Lack of Stirrups but much more from Roman Military Doctrine takting Cavalry only in Account as Scouts and harassing Troops but at not as the Shock Troops they could have been. So in fact everybode (except maybe the Greek City States) had much better Cavalry then the Romans.

The Siege Towers, well i think these huge things were used in one or two Sieges but not so often, so what? They were used they are historically correct and as long as they're quite expensive they're ok.

[zentuit]

Killing speed mod has been released. Thread is located here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=36883

[Ulstan]

"Do the units of dogs have human commanders, who show them the general direction of the ennemy and decide when to set them loose?"

Yes. It's pretty cool.

"Once they attack, can they, unrealistically, still be controlled?"

I don't believe so. The handlers set them lose, and then run back to your lines while the dogs run off and chew on things (ineptly if they are attacking armored wearing troops). Any further orders to the dog unit only applies to the handlers as far as I can tell.

[camulos]

I don't believe so. The handlers set them lose, and then run back to your lines while the dogs run off and chew on things (ineptly if they are attacking armored wearing troops). Any further orders to the dog unit only applies to the handlers as far as I can tell.

This is true but I would like to add an important note. Once the dogs are set loose you should protect the handlers. After the battle is over the dogs will be regenerated giving you a full unit again as long as the handlers are still alive.

From what i can tell there are 12 handlers who can handle 4 dogs each. The unit strength is determined by the number of handlers rather than dogs. So 12 handlers = 48, 11 = 44, etc. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong..

[Red Harvest]

I think a lot of the problems can be modded. The game speed is very high because of the kill rate. I've not yet tried the mod for that but it promises to fix the biggest problems. With that and the timer removed (via mod or a trick that someone has discovered) it should start to make more sense. I think that will give back the feel of watching a battle vs. watching a movie on 4x speed.

The strategic AI is better/more interesting although some flaws are apparent.

Ship battles have improved a lot, but there are problems, especially with few outright sinkings in major engagements. Moving armies by sea is good though. On high settings at least, if you attack with a much larger naval force you still tend to take disproportionate casualties. If you get into a naval war you can spend every dime just repairing your fleet and still lose ground. The ship strategic AI is weak. They don't exploit naval superiority to blockade ports.

The strategic AI is bad about sending a trickle of attackers at you rather than large forces. This makes for a lot of "trash" battles that must be fought. (If you try to use autocalc on high settings you get hammered pretty badly, and the enemy force is not usually destroyed, just beaten.)

The AI really likes bribing armies and family members! This is a real threat, deploy agents in your cities to reduce the chances of success of this AI tactic (I learned this the hard way.)

City sieges are cool. The map and road approach is great. You will spend a lot of time trying to manage your cities. Squalor is a problem that none of us have found a full answer for yet.

The mercenary system is much improved. You probably won't see as many of them, but you can upgrade their armour/weapons (but not train recruits to fill), and you can *merge* like units--so you don't have to throw away partial units after they have been through a tough fight.

The new engine heavily favours charges. This is a bit of a problem with the rapid kills and movement. You can't issue a general charge well (without hitting pause and doing it.)

Diplomacy is more interesting and useful with trade agreements being very hard. However, on "very hard" I still can't get alliances that should be "no-brainers" (like offering an alliance to a faction that is also at war with my enemies.)

[Red Harvest]

I forgot to mention that the "suicidal daimyo" is still present. The AI will do it with friendly reinforcement armies if they are led by family members.

Javelins seem to have improved a bit in their role, although they still take quite a bit of management.

Friendly fire is overdone. Men in the same unit will shoot each other. (This happened some in STW.) If you leave fire at will on they will kill a bunch of your other units in melee. If you turn fire at will off to stop this, you must issue a "halt" command as well, or they keep on merrily shooting everyone.

[camulos]

I forgot to mention that the "suicidal daimyo" is still present. The AI will do it with friendly reinforcement armies if they are led by family members..

This is extremely annoying which is why I try to have only 1 family member in a battle. Unfortunately this sometimes requires sending them off to a safe city or ship while the battle is taking place.



Javelins seem to have improved a bit in their role, although they still take quite a bit of management. .

I find that the "skirmish" setting for javelins doesnt work very well. I like using them to draw enemy cavalry away from the main force but this requires some babysitting to not get them slaughtered.



Friendly fire is overdone. Men in the same unit will shoot each other. (This happened some in STW.) If you leave fire at will on they will kill a bunch of your other units in melee. If you turn fire at will off to stop this, you must issue a "halt" command as well, or they keep on merrily shooting everyone.

Archers firing up a hill take a lot of friendly fire. The ones in the rear just shoot the others in the back. In MTW didn't the back rows not fire in this situation?

[Arakasi]

I find with multiple generals that I just keep them all in the primary army. Then they just stay there. Although I really have not fought any battles with over 20 units so I haven't had to combine armies like that yet. If I do I'll likely transfer the generals into the main army that attacks.

Haven't noticed the suicidal daimyo problem yet. It seems the enemy throws the leader in once most everything else is committed. I almost always get the leader killed message in the last bit of the battle.

[desdichado]

have seen anyone mention this but skirmishing units actually skirmish - they run from the enemy back to your lines and then move back and shoot when threat is gone - you still have to watch enemy light cav but is a vast imrpovement over mtw where you had to micromanage them to the point of distraction.

I fought a battle against an inferior enemy and just shot them to bits - they had some light cav but not once did they catch my skirmishers and not for lack of trying. I just watched the whole time - I didn't have to order them to move anywhere. Kudos to CA for getting this right.

[Sinner]

Finally, does anyone here know anything about roman military history, and in particular about cavalry? I know very little, but I seem to remember that cavalry, until 400 AD or so, was not very effective (or not as effective as medieval cavalry), because european horses were very small and because iron stirrups either had not been invented or were not commonly used. (Stirrups prevent the rider from being thrown off his horse when he charges into the enemy). So, if this is true, is roman cavalry overpowered? I think that, historically, barbarian (eastern european, particularly?) & north african cavalry was more powerful than its roman equivalent.


Roman-time cavalry had no stirrups which greatly limited what a man on horseback can do. That's why most of Roman cavalry is armed either with spears or with javelins -- they could not effectively fight with swords. Also, the game correctly emphasizes that the strenght of the cavalry lies in its charge. If bogged down in melee, cavalry is cut down very quickly. Also in RTW just by looking at unit stats, barbarian and north african cavalry *is* better than the Roman cavalry. I think Sacred Band cavalry is considered to be the best in the game.

The lack of stirrups is not the great limitation so commonly assumed. Go check this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=34989) which includes a link to the experiences of modern full contact jousting reenactors. In short, stirrups have little effect on a charge - one reenactor notes that he could knock down a 200 pound target without using stirrups - instead it's the size & strength of the rider plus a built-up saddle that allows for effective charges. A saddle isn't that necessary if the rider is strong enough, although they'd have a greater chance of being unhorsed from the impact of a charge. Stirrups are more useful for mounted archery, allowing the rider to stand in the stirrups for a more stable 'firing platform', they do give greater stability in close quarters combat making it less likely that the rider can be dragged off to either side of the horse, plus as an added benefit (although one greatly appreciated!) they increase the rider's comfort during extended time in the saddle.

[fey]

The lack of stirrups is not the great limitation so commonly assumed. Go check this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=34989) which includes a link to the experiences of modern full contact jousting reenactors. In short, stirrups have little effect on a charge - one reenactor notes that he could knock down a 200 pound target without using stirrups - instead it's the size & strength of the rider plus a built-up saddle that allows for effective charges.
Agreed -- which is why Roman-time cavalry was armed with spears and why its charge was so devastating.

However my point was that the lack of stirrups prevented effective sword fighting (or mace/morningstar fighting) on horseback a lot of which youl see in medieval European wars. Without stirrups a rider is not stable enough for this.

Thus, as correctly modeled in RTW, as long as Roman-times cavalry is charging, it's fine. Once it finds itself bogged down in melee combat and not moving much, it's very vulnerable.

Fey

[Sinner]

Agreed -- which is why Roman-time cavalry was armed with spears and why its charge was so devastating.

However my point was that the lack of stirrups prevented effective sword fighting (or mace/morningstar fighting) on horseback a lot of which youl see in medieval European wars. Without stirrups a rider is not stable enough for this.

Thus, as correctly modeled in RTW, as long as Roman-times cavalry is charging, it's fine. Once it finds itself bogged down in melee combat and not moving much, it's very vulnerable.

Fey

However, swords, etc were effectively used by cavalry, Roman and otherwise, prior to the stirrup; the spatha for example being adopted by the Romans around the 1st century. A rider with stirrups would have some advantage in close quarters over one who didn't, but that wouldn't make the latter ineffective.

The biggest disadvantage for any horseman in melee, with or without stirrups, is that his horse presents a large and generally poorly armoured target, especially the legs, plus the rider suffers deadzones where he can strike and defend because the horse is in the way. To give himself the widest & clearest field of view to attack, the rider has to be side-on, thus exposing the greatest area of his rather vulnerable horse. With attacks to the front, the horse's head obstructs his attacks plus he cannot reach much beyond the horse, again making his mount vulnerable to attack... unless he's using a spear, which does help somewhat but not entirely.