Are the Romans too Powerful? [Archive]

Stuperman

05-17-2007, 14:25

this whole discussion stating essentially "they've beaten everyone in history they should be doing so in game" is flawed IMO and this is why:

a) In "real" history the Romans faced defeat inumerable times (Pyrhus, Hanibal, Celtiberian&Gaulish&Germanic&Balkan Tribes, Carrae, Teutoberg Ward and many others battles lost) - they learned from it though and adapted their style and equipment, and this adaptability gave them an edge. Their battles were nowhere easy or won before fighting actually happened. This is not accounted for in the game, as their units are the best in every "era" by default.

Most of the battles you have listed were lost due to poor leadership on the roman side, or military genius on the behalf of the roman opposition. In generally all situations, man to man, the romans were MUCH better trained and disciplined, especially after the marius (marian?) reforms.

b) From a gameplay perspective it is absolutely wrong to give all winning cards in one team - the game is no fun then. All factions should have strengths and weaknesses in the field giving overall equal chances of success and this is poorly implemented in RTW (although attempted) as the Roman units can beat the equivalent of most other factions in the field and also field the best units in every department , which is boring and historically inaccurate.

The romans (in game) do have a few ahistorical units (urban cohorts, high end cav), but I wouldn't say they have all the wining cards, Cataphracts(sp) are the best cav, pharos bowmen, cretian archer and forester warband are all better missle units. Spartans, Bastarnae, beserkers, and Sacred Band can all beat post marian armies. Scutarii/spanish mercs and most phalanx units can beat pre marian armies relitively easily.

Some factions (carthage) are grossly underpowered but that is really for game play reasons and Vanilla Balance mod ( https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79547 ) helps fix that if it really bugs you that much.

The Romans had no archery or equastrian traditions they were terrible horseman and ineffective with the bow - they've always relied on mercenaries and auxiliaries for this.

Many Thanks

Noir

Not going to touch the horsemen one, but after the reforms the archer units avaiable to the romans are called archer auxillia.

Thanks

Stuperman

Noir

05-17-2007, 15:13

Originally posted by Stuperman
Most of the battles you have listed were lost due to poor leadership on the roman side, or military genius on the behalf of the roman opposition.

Agreed, however the same can be claimed for their victories, no? (ie poor leadership of opposition and Roman military genius - not to mention Roman logistical strength past some point).

Originally posted by Stuperman
In generally all situations, man to man, the romans were MUCH better trained and disciplined, especially after the marius (marian?) reforms.

Yes, however the game has other factors than simply giving better fighting stats to reflect this - like for example morale and discipline. These were fully employable in the old engine STW/MTW, but i have no clue how much they matter in the new one.

If anything the Roman units should be having lesser stats than say the Barbarian units that were larger and stronger men.

Originally posted by Stuperman
...but I wouldn't say they have all the wining cards, Cataphracts(sp) are the best cav, pharos bowmen, cretian archer and forester warband are all better missle units. Spartans, Bastarnae, beserkers, and Sacred Band can all beat post marian armies. Scutarii/spanish mercs and most phalanx units can beat pre marian armies relitively easily.

They have: the best infantry, excellent cavalry and very good missiles. They overall excel over other factions by a large margin except the Seleukids and the Egyptians (in these cases the margin is smaller) - that also can be beaten easily with a little patience to shoot out the troublesome chariots and elephants.

What you list is a few units that are better and not a faction that has equal chances.

By the way both the Egyptians and the Seleukids have dead flat boring overpowered rosters IMO.

As for the most phalanx units beating principe and hastati or postmarian legionaires i doubt it in a practical situation as they take ages to do so and need to engage front only in order to. By then they are dead.

Originally posted by Stuperman
Some factions (carthage) are grossly underpowered but that is really for game play reasons and Vanilla Balance mod ( https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79547 ) helps fix that if it really bugs you that much.

Well it "bugs me" so much i'm afraid that i gave up on RTW after playing it and many of its mods for almost 2 years. My favorite mods were: RTRplatinum with Naval&City Mod and EB as well as others not in the setting (tried Chivalry, The Crusades, Napoleonic and others).

The battles are only a shadow of what they've been in the older games IMO. Balancing is accoding to SP criteria only most of the time that do not account exactly for the best results relative to tactics. Ironically enough mods that turned RTW "more tactical" took out key TW features like morale or increased defence and morale to the skies (essentially taking them out again) to make melees last longer.

Originally posted by Stuperman
Not going to touch the horsemen one, but after the reforms the archer units avaiable to the romans are called archer auxillia.

Yes, auxilia recruitable all over the Italian peninsula in the provinces of the old Res Publica- not very convincing i'm afraid.

Many Thanks

Noir

caravel

05-17-2007, 15:32

The whole problem seems to me that CA contrived it so that the Romans would do very well, whether controlled by the AI or the player.

In doing this they had to ensure that the Romans won a large proportion of autocalced battles, and to achieve this the Roman units' stats were souped up.

Also Celtic, Germanic and other "barbarian" warriors were fearsome fighters and should excel in the "bumrush", whereas the Romans should excel in using cautious advance, and strong tactical formations, relying more on their morale and guts.

Again the problem is down to weak AI. Unable/unwilling to find any other way to represent the superior Roman tactics, deployment and logistics the developer has simply treated the Roman units in RTW like the Saxon/Viking Huscarles in the MTW/VI campaign with artificially increased stats. In this campaign, Anglo-Saxon hegemony was assured by the presence of these uber units in the unit roster to imbalance autocalc battles in the Anglo-Saxon faction's favour.

Stuperman

05-17-2007, 16:29

Agreed, however the same can be claimed for their victories, no? (ie poor leadership of opposition and Roman military genius - not to mention Roman logistical strength past some point).

The roman logistical strength was superior to most opposition, true and Roman military engineering (siege engines, Ceasar's defensive lines at alesia) was really second to none.

Yes, however the game has other factors than simply giving better fighting stats to reflect this - like for example morale and discipline. These were fully employable in the old engine STW/MTW, but i have no clue how much they matter in the new one.

If anything the Roman units should be having lesser stats than say the Barbarian units that were larger and stronger men.

lesser attack maybe, but I doubt defensive skill, roman training would have kept that high. Roman diets would probably have been better than 'barbarian' diets too.

They have: the best infantry, excellent cavalry and very good missiles. They overall excel over other factions by a large margin except the Seleukids and the Egyptians (in these cases the margin is smaller) - that also can be beaten easily with a little patience to shoot out the troublesome chariots and elephants.

What you list is a few units that are better and not a faction that has equal chances.

Seleukids, Egypt, can both beat the romans, I think Makedonia could too if they were farther away from rome geographically, whicch would give them time to develop.

As for the most phalanx units beating principe and hastati or postmarian legionaires i doubt it in a practical situation as they take ages to do so and need to engage front only in order to. By then they are dead.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1511373&postcount=14

that's what I thought too.

Well it "bugs me" so much i'm afraid that i gave up on RTW after playing it and many of its mods for almost 2 years. My favorite mods were: RTRplatinum with Naval&City Mod and EB as well as others not in the setting (tried Chivalry, The Crusades, Napoleonic and others).

I like RTR platinum 1.8, Metro and navel mod is really nice cause many cities have no walls. Gave EB a try, but at that time there were very few unit cards and I found it too annoying to play, finding the correct group of units when they all look the same at the bottom is not fun.

The battles are only a shadow of what they've been in the older games IMO. Balancing is accoding to SP criteria only most of the time that do not account exactly for the best results relative to tactics. Ironically enough mods that turned RTW "more tactical" took out key TW features like morale or increased defence and morale to the skies (essentially taking them out again) to make melees last longer.

AI tactics leave a lot to be desired, I agree there, I'm not sure what you mean about the moral thing, I find it way too low in the regular game, RTR:PE on hard is about right for me. IIRC in RTR:PE hard gives +3moral and attack and VH gives +7 to both.

Yes, auxilia recruitable all over the Italian peninsula in the provinces of the old Res Publica- not very convincing i'm afraid.

And all factions can recruits thier own troops from any barracks. For example I can recruit hastii from a barabrian or greek barracks if I have recently taken the settlement and haven't built a roman one yet. The lack of AOR is regretable, but is a gameplay issue, infact I think roman citizenship (and thus military service) barely extended beyond Italy until the reforms of Marius.

Regards

Stuperman

caravel

05-17-2007, 16:46

AI tactics leave a lot to be desired, I agree there, I'm not sure what you mean about the moral thing, I find it way too low in the regular game, RTR:PE on hard is about right for me. IIRC in RTR:PE hard gives +3moral and attack and VH gives +7 to both.
Morale appears to be too low because kill rates are two high. In fact base morale has been increased in some mods to stop premature rout problem. The high kill rates causes the "losing badly" status to kick in very early and the rout begins, and then chains off to the other units. Battles in STW and MTW didn't have such accelerated kill rates and real tactics played a bigger part. It would take much longer to defeat and rout a unit. Increasing morale alone only keeps the unit on the field longer to die instead of it running away. The root of the problem is poorly balanced unit stats, over the top cavalry charges and exaggerated movement speeds.

Noir

05-18-2007, 11:31

Originally posted by Stuperman
lesser attack maybe, but I doubt defensive skill, roman training would have kept that high. Roman diets would probably have been better than 'barbarian' diets too.

Disagree on this one. The Romans didn't necessarily excel on an individual basis over others. Their main attribute was fighting with high morale and discipline. There were other ways to instill this in game as i said, for example a legion unit could get rank bonuses when keeping the formation.

The diet playing a part in strength linearly i find very debatable.

Originally posted by Stuperman

Seleukids, Egypt, can both beat the romans, I think Makedonia could too if they were farther away from rome geographically, whicch would give them time to develop.

In fact anyone can beat the Romans regularly, i have done so with every faction, even with Numidia and Gaul in the hoghest difficulties and much more easily (almost for fun) with the theoretically "weak" Carthage. As Carthage for example i was very depressed when i realised in one of my first campaigns that 4 units of elephants charging head-on will win you the campaign. I used 3 round shield cavalries to scoop up routing enemy units. It worked every time and i left the campaign after 6 battles like this and never played like that since.

The fact that others can beat the Romans doesn't mean that factions and their rosters are balanced. The game is full of exploits that unbalance it all around in the campaign and in the field.

Originally posted by Stuperman
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpo...3&postcount=14

that's what I thought too.

You mean? All i see that is there is that phalanxes will beat the legion when engaging head-on and lose if they are attacked from the flanks. I agree on this as i said before, however i repeat that in the field it doesn't happen exactly like this - even the AI when playing the Romans tries to flank, sometimes succesfully. I also did similar tests for some home modding i did long time ago now.

Originally posted by Stuperman
I like RTR platinum 1.8, Metro and navel mod is really nice cause many cities have no walls. Gave EB a try, but at that time there were very few unit cards and I found it too annoying to play, finding the correct group of units when they all look the same at the bottom is not fun.

Metro and naval mod is really good for having no walls as you say and for the incomes in provinces that are linked with the little villages. I took it in fact one step further and moded out the machine gun towers - so even the cities with walls would be interesting battles. Just before an assault in them i added to their garrison militias and archers instead for the AI to use in the walls with a cheat.

Eb is much better since the latest version was released sometime before Xmas. I reccomend it to anyone who plays RTW SP.

Originally posted by Stuperman
AI tactics leave a lot to be desired, I agree there, I'm not sure what you mean about the moral thing, I find it way too low in the regular game, RTR:PE on hard is about right for me. IIRC in RTR:PE hard gives +3moral and attack and VH gives +7 to both.

The TW AI is probably in RTW as competitive it was in MTW and that is not bad at all in fact. What killed it was the taking out of the blobbing penalty, and as Cambyses II says the higher movements and higher kill rates and chain routes and super overpowered charges and unbalanced unit stats.

If you ever try MTW, try the Samurai Warlords mod that goes for balanced armies in the campaign - the AI is a very hard opponent there without uber units or campaign beefings - it might pleasantly surprise you how much actually. This cannot manifest in RTW though because of the gross imbalances IMO and the way the engine works.

Originally posted by Stuperman
And all factions can recruits thier own troops from any barracks. For example I can recruit hastii from a barabrian or greek barracks if I have recently taken the settlement and haven't built a roman one yet. The lack of AOR is regretable, but is a gameplay issue, infact I think roman citizenship (and thus military service) barely extended beyond Italy until the reforms of Marius

Agreed, the problem is way more general as you describe - most mods took good care of this as you mention.

Many Thanks

Noir

Afkazar

05-18-2007, 15:11

In campaign mode id say it depends how you build your army to counter them.I play as selecuids. half sythed chariots and half cataphract combo has yet to lose me a single battle.I think I've taken on armies 3 times my size and crushed them. Romans should be rightly afraid of 3 things. Elephants,Berserkers and chariots. Romans have to semi prepare on how they plan to combat these threats.Phalanx armies have no trouble with these problems.
Also in campaign mode Phalanx armies Have GODLY defense of city streets and squares. In my selecuid campaign I literally routed thracian and macedonian armys at least 10 times in the one city. I think its where constantinople should be.

In multiplayer me and an ally defeated some romans with all phalanx armies. He took spartans and i took sacred band inf.

guineawolf

05-18-2007, 15:12

I am running vanilla RTW at 1.5. To compare the troop qualities of the Greeks and the Romans I created a custom battle with one army of only Spartan hoplites, all upgraded veterans, and another army of Roman troops, all of which were Legionary 1st Cohorts, upgraded to the max. The Spartans were defending an unwalled minor city, sort of like Sparta in the 'Siege of Sparta' historical battle. According to their unit card description, they are 'perfect soldiers'. However, in reality, they were massacred to the last man by my endless waves of Roman legionnaires, even when I set the difficulty to the highest possible level. Even though this was not really a formal, scientific, closed-system no-variable experiment, the fact that these Roman legionnaires could basically chew up and spit out the very, very, very, very best the Greek cities can offer chills me. Does anyone else recognize this problem?

do you ever noticed your spartan's stamina?
when both side stamina reduce to lowest level,that it will lower their attack and defense "skill"=combat effecientcy,but not their armor value.....
roman legion=12 armor
spartan hoplite=3 armor

i only figure out a way that read in roman history,when using phalanxe for defense,try using some rotation method,that will conserve their stamina,like first line unit fall back behind second line unit after receive first wave of attack for resting,then when the second line unit fall back behind first line unit,those first line units oredi become fresh again,and so on ......:idea2:

Afkazar

05-18-2007, 15:59

i only figure out a way that read in roman history,when using phalanxe for defense,try using some rotation method,that will conserve their stamina,like first line unit fall back behind second line unit after receive first wave of attack for resting,then when the second line unit fall back behind first line unit,those first line units oredi become fresh again,and so on ......:idea2:
There are a few problems with this theory.
1. Romans enjoy having cav break you side flanks.Any attempt to run away would end in more casualties than normal.
2.Having troops that could be in combat sit and rest seems kinda crazy to me.

However, in reality, they were massacred to the last man by my endless waves of Roman legionnairesAhh so thats the problem. Your commanding the romans not the spartans. The AI has proven a bit...Stupid at times. The best way to defend any city is to take your phalanxs,find the main entrances that lead to your town square and place the phalanxs there. You should have about 4 points that need covering. This will allow you to clog the romans at these choke points without the worry of romans hitting you in the back. No one enjoys taking 9 ft spears head on. Not even elephants.

Noir

05-18-2007, 16:02

Originally posted by Afkazar
In campaign mode id say it depends how you build your army to counter them.I play as selecuids. half sythed chariots and half cataphract combo has yet to lose me a single battle.I think I've taken on armies 3 times my size and crushed them. Romans should be rightly afraid of 3 things. Elephants,Berserkers and chariots. Romans have to semi prepare on how they plan to combat these threats.Phalanx armies have no trouble with these problems.

Agreed and in fact i implied this earlier when saying that "...Romans can beat the Seleukids and Egyptians with a little patience to shoot the troublesome elephants and chariots". This is made all the more easy in SP as the AI decides to skirmish many times with the chariots if they have bowmen or even worst send them directly front charge to spears.

Sometimes (usually when he has superior power) he goes for a full head on attack combining all units together that its his strong point (as he can control them simultaneously much better than the player) giving some hard times with the chariots.

Originally posted by Afkazar
In multiplayer me and an ally defeated some romans with all phalanx armies. He took spartans and i took sacred band inf.

Is this in a single battle or a series of battles? Is it against a particular set of players or against random unconnected players? How often those opponents have fought an all phalanx army? How experienced are they and how experienced are you? Just a few curiosity questions.

As far as i knew (never was interested in RTW (*edit*in RTW MP, i mean) and as things stand never will be) Roman armies were very much prefered generally in MP with the Seleukids being also a strong choice.

Many Thanks

Noir

caravel

05-18-2007, 16:55

2.Having troops that could be in combat sit and rest seems kinda crazy to me.
It is, because with RTW's game engine there is no tactical advantage to reserving units due to the lack of the squeeze penalty. You may as well through your men into the melee blob and have them fight to wear down the enemy faster. Historically the Romans would have fought similarly, in the pre marian era anyway, to how guineawolf described and it was effective. The formation usually advanced with the Velites up front, the Hastatii behind, Principes behind them and Triarii at the back. These tactics are worthless in RTW due to unrealistic fatigue and exaggerated kill rates, except perhaps for having your velites up front, as you are better of simply bumrushing and encircling.

:bow:

guineawolf

05-18-2007, 18:52

There are a few problems with this theory.
1. Romans enjoy having cav break you side flanks.Any attempt to run away would end in more casualties than normal.
2.Having troops that could be in combat sit and rest seems kinda crazy to me.

yes,it is posible when you are defending a street,mostly i put 3 line of phalanxe waiting for enemy come for slaughter so when they pass through the first line there will be second line of spearwall waiting for them.You dun need to cover all streets,coz enemy won't move a lot to go to your back,mostly they attack from front and your side.:yes:

i idn't tell you to run away,but you can wait for the gap that enemy fall back and regroup,in that time,you are free to fall back,let the full strength squad to replace your duty.

OliverWKim

05-19-2007, 03:19

guineawolf

05-19-2007, 06:32

I retried the battle experiment, this time with the Spartans upgraded to the max in terms of armor, weapons and veterancy, and suffered the same results. The Spartans' flanks were definitely secure, as they clogged up the streets with unit after unit. However, even then my Romans were able to cut down the Spartans in the flanks until a little vacuum appeared in the flank, and then I ordered them to pour in and cut down the Spartans from the sides.

perhaps you should try using spartan hoplites to siege roman legions defenses,try set phalanxe off,guard off and use your sword......
coz phalanxe get bonus fighting cavalry,but get penalty fighting infantry......:shame: i think still the 12 armor problem..........

OliverWKim

05-21-2007, 12:05

perhaps you should try using spartan hoplites to siege roman legions defenses,try set phalanxe off,guard off and use your sword......
coz phalanxe get bonus fighting cavalry,but get penalty fighting infantry......:shame: i think still the 12 armor problem..........

I was playing as the Romans, not the Greeks. :beam:

guineawolf

05-21-2007, 15:18

I was playing as the Romans, not the Greeks. :beam:
what i trying to say here,you will find out you will slaughter those romans with spartans as simple as you slaughter those spartans with romans..:yes:

experienced it,you will find out why.....

Ossie The Great

05-21-2007, 15:58

I think the romans are to strong as i had taken a good part of eurpoe with britan but when it came to fighting the romans they seemed to be impossible to beat and had armys everywhere. All though saying this i managed to beat 1023 romans with armina and did not even lose one man :grin:

Plebian#10

05-21-2007, 17:19

I have only played the Greeks and the Macedonians but I have had only a little problem beating the Romans on medium battle difficulty. I believe the true weakness is only the AI. While I agree that historically the Romans were at best weak in the calvary and archer departments before the Marius reforms how can we explain their historical expansion before the Marius reforms and not include their superb tactical ,logistical, and engineering capabilities. This is not to say that the Romans were unbeatable as pointed out by Noir but they just kept coming - tenacious is a word that comes to mind.
IMHO the game is as balanced as possible with the weak link going to the AI ability to play against a human. If a human versus a human game is conducted the results would be much different than a human versus the AI.

Noir

05-21-2007, 17:42

Originally posted by Plebian#10
IMHO the game is as balanced as possible with the weak link going to the AI ability to play against a human. If a human versus a human game is conducted the results would be much different than a human versus the AI.

Indeed they are different - and they most likely indicate that the balance you describe is not there. I've read that RTW Multi Player is effectively dominated by certain factions (as two players cannot take the same one to my understanding) - that is there is a process in finding out the best units and use only them in order to win, as far as understand. Someone that has experience in playing RTW online might give us a better insight relative to the truths of my sayings - because i just played RTW Single Player and read the forums for MP.

If you ever try the older TW games, most notably the original STW and the VI expansion for MTW, you'll find that they are (most likely) better balanced for MP, that is units give more equal chances to both opponents and this means that the game is not decided by taking "the best" units, but by playing with the most skill.

It is also indicative that many mods nerfed the Roman units considerably.

As i posted before the TW AI is actually quite good IMO if he is given equal armies and plays in flat terrain (that is how a multiplayer opponent would play you anyway) - at least he was so in STW/MTW and i find it very difficult to believe that it radically changed or had been dumped down since then. The new battle engine in RTW is in my opinion way more responsible for the "bad" AI in RTW, rather than the AI himself.

Many Thanks

Noir

Ludens

05-21-2007, 21:36

As i posted before the TW AI is actually quite good IMO if he is given equal armies and plays in flat terrain (that is how a multiplayer opponent would play you anyway) - at least he was so in STW/MTW and i find it very difficult to believe that it radically changed or had been dumped down since then. The new battle engine in RTW is in my opinion way more responsible for the "bad" AI in RTW, rather than the AI himself.
Back in the early days of R:TW I had a discussion on this subject with several members that have investigated R:TW engine thoroughly. Unfortunatly, I can't find the thread, but we identified many situations in which the R:TW A.I. underperformed compared to M:TW and S:TW. My own contribution to this discussion was to point out that the R:TW A.I. never uses ambushes on the battlemap. If it's units are hidden, it's just because they happened to be between the trees. Also, if the player's units hide, the A.I. forgets about them. I recently saw the A.I. chase one of my skirmisher units through the forest. I ordered my unit to halt, and they went into hiding. The A.I. broke of pursuit, and ordered it's units to return to the collunm. For all intents and purposes, it acted as if it had forgotten about my skirmishers.

Another example is the use of height advantage. In M:TW and S:TW the A.I. would move to gain as much height advantages as possible. If you moved to negate this, it would reposition itself to maximize height advantage again. This could lead to an elaborate dance with the player in which both tried to turn the terrain to their advantage. The R:TW A.I. also likes to take the hills, but if you move around it to gain the higher ground, it does nothing to prevent that. It merely swivels to face you. If the hill it positioned it's army on is very small, you can sometimes make it swivel it's army of the hill :shrug: .

From this and several other examples we concluded that the A.I. in R:TW was not the same as the one that powered M:TW. This was back in the 1.1 or 1.2 days, and the A.I. did improve in the mean time, but both of the above arguments are valid for R:TW 1.5.

Noir

05-22-2007, 01:31

Originally posted by Ludens
My own contribution to this discussion was to point out that the R:TW A.I. never uses ambushes on the battlemap.

There was an ambush morale (or attack?) bonus (or was it penalty for the victims, or both? - need to check) for units previously in hiding attacking other units in the older engine (legendary for working in the infamous STW fog). This bonus together with many others seems to have been taken out - i have no clue if this is the cause for the AI not finding ambushes worthwhile anymore, but it might as well be related.

Other bonuses including penalties for cavalry in woods and accuracy penalties for archers and volley density relative to sight obstructions and formation shape were also removed. These are only a few examples to my understanding. All these simplifications might possibly account for simpler behaviour for the AI to a lesser or higher degree.

If the AI used in RTW was the same as that for MTW, even in principle - the simplifications in the engine might have confused it and made it look goofy IMO.

Originally posted by Ludens
If it's units are hidden, it's just because they happened to be between the trees. Also, if the player's units hide, the A.I. forgets about them. I recently saw the A.I. chase one of my skirmisher units through the forest. I ordered my unit to halt, and they went into hiding. The A.I. broke of pursuit, and ordered it's units to return to the collunm. For all intents and purposes, it acted as if it had forgotten about my skirmishers.

I really didn't know about that, i must say - thanks for the information.

Originally posted by Ludens
Another example is the use of height advantage. In M:TW and S:TW the A.I. would move to gain as much height advantages as possible. If you moved to negate this, it would reposition itself to maximize height advantage again. This could lead to an elaborate dance with the player in which both tried to turn the terrain to their advantage. The R:TW A.I. also likes to take the hills, but if you move around it to gain the higher ground, it does nothing to prevent that. It merely swivels to face you. If the hill it positioned it's army on is very small, you can sometimes make it swivel it's army of the hill.

I disagree on this one. The MTW AI is indeed better to use the high ground however he does fall in the "change facing trap" and also allows advance to the player to a certain extent if you move from a smoother slope to meet him.

In many cases (also very recently actually) i got it to completely give up his edge camping strong position by advancing fully from the flank. The AI redeployed to a far off position and in the process lost the high ground and i got the chance to attack him. It was in an Almohad campaign in my home mini-mod for MedMod IV. The same behaviour i have noticed in other mods and in vanilla MTW/VI.

I remember that similar things could happen in STW WE.

Many Thanks

Noir

IceWolf

05-22-2007, 04:57

I think that the RTW AI is ok with the more advanced civs-Romans, Macedonians. But less so with th gauls and Brits.

IceWolf

Ludens

05-22-2007, 10:58

I disagree on this one. The MTW AI is indeed better to use the high ground however he does fall in the "change facing trap" and also allows advance to the player to a certain extent if you move from a smoother slope to meet him.

In many cases (also very recently actually) i got it to completely give up his edge camping strong position by advancing fully from the flank. The AI redeployed to a far off position and in the process lost the high ground and i got the chance to attack him. It was in an Almohad campaign in my home mini-mod for MedMod IV. The same behaviour i have noticed in other mods and in vanilla MTW/VI.

I remember that similar things could happen in STW WE.
True, yet the defensive A.I. of M:TW was far more mobile and proactive in trying to gain height advantage. The R:TW A.I. simply picks its spot and sticks to it.

I don't think the lack of ambushes is matter of bonuses. A morale penalty is hardly the only or even the most important consequence of an ambush.

Noir

05-22-2007, 11:40

Originally posted by Ludens
True, yet the defensive A.I. of M:TW was far more mobile and proactive in trying to gain height advantage. The R:TW A.I. simply picks its spot and sticks to it.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Ludens
I don't think the lack of ambushes is matter of bonuses. A morale penalty is hardly the only or even the most important consequence of an ambush.

Morale penalties can make a true difference if the game is on the line (when the decisive melee is joined) and at the closing stages of a battle were armies are scattered all over the map, are fatigued and undermaned.

Having joined the MP game recently, i start understanding that there is a very fine morale "link" in the MTW engine that keeps together an army. Units need to support each other in terms of space and time, and against other units if they are not to rout.

In the SP game this is not always visible due to all the upgrades and bonuses - for example 30 turns in the campaign in the original MeddMod IV, my swordsmen would fight till the last man as they carry many valour,armour,weapon and morale upgrades.

If you play without upgrades (in the campaign or online) this is not the case and morale is instrumental. So ambushing, ie attack from a hidden place at a critical point can have a massive hit in the "relationships" that the enemy is having for keeping his units together morale wise, and turn the tables in a short time to a massive rout that usually is irrecoverable.

Similarly, if the AI had an all infantry army versus a cavalry heavy army, he would set it in the woods, since they was something to be gained (cavalry was getting hefty penalties in woods in STW/MTW but not in RTW).

Anyway, it is only a suspicion i have relative to the RTW AI behaviour and so unsubstantiated.

Another example isthat in MTW 1.0 spears were more of cavalry killers until they were nerfed (in order to lose from swords by popular demand).

However the AI is still using the spears past that stage as cavalry killers, when they are now pinners (low attack, high defence). Cavalry killers are now halberds,other cavalry and even swords when properly valoured-upgraded.

All in all the AI kept his habit and that put him at a disadvantage. Something similar might be happening in RTW or simply of course whole AI sections were taken-out to make the game more simple and so accessible, perhaps.

For another example the MTW AI is a very keen flank charger with cavalry - the RTW is much less keen on this but then again there is no blobbing penalty and charges seem to work just as well through friendly and enemy units.

Another thing to consider is perhaps the control the AI has over individual men. In the older engine i read that calculations were being done on a per man basis and this does not seem to be the case in the newer one.

Many Thanks

Noir

Ludens

05-22-2007, 18:55

If you play without upgrades (in the campaign or online) this is not the case and morale is instrumental. So ambushing, ie attack from a hidden place at a critical point can have a massive hit in the "relationships" that the enemy is having for keeping his units together morale wise, and turn the tables in a short time to a massive rout that usually is irrecoverable.
Very true.

Anyway, it is only a suspicion i have relative to the RTW AI behaviour and so unsubstantiated.
Several particapants of the thread I refered to shared your suspicion. However, personally I think the A.I. has lost they capability of doing so, rather than still being able but chosing not to. However small the height advantage is, it's still an advantage so why does it it given away? It can't be because the A.I. does not want to tire its units, because it shows no consideration for the level of fatigue in combat.

Another example isthat in MTW 1.0 spears were more of cavalry killers until they were nerfed (in order to lose from swords by popular demand).

However the AI is still using the spears past that stage as cavalry killers, when they are now pinners (low attack, high defence). Cavalry killers are now halberds,other cavalry and even swords when properly valoured-upgraded.

All in all the AI kept his habit and that put him at a disadvantage. Something similar might be happening in RTW or simply of course whole AI sections were taken-out to make the game more simple and so accessible, perhaps.
In my view, this supports my hypothesis that the A.I. does not calculate the actual combat value, but operates on routines.

Another thing to consider is perhaps the control the AI has over individual men. In the older engine i read that calculations were being done on a per man basis and this does not seem to be the case in the newer one.
The older engine definetly made combat-calculations on a man-to-man basis. Why do you think this has been changed?

Noir

05-23-2007, 11:13

Originally posted by Ludens
However, personally I think the A.I. has lost they capability of doing so, rather than still being able but chosing not to. However small the height advantage is, it's still an advantage so why does it it given away? It can't be because the A.I. does not want to tire its units, because it shows no consideration for the level of fatigue in combat.

Sorry, but i lost the flow of thought there - if it gives away (the position advantage) then how can he be showingconsideration for not tiring his units, since he does so (tiring hi units) in the process?

I agree that the AI shows no consideration for fatigue at all almost; in fact this is interesting as for some home modding i did i put the movement modifier much lower (about 45% to 60% - tried values) to slow down the movement speeds. The result was that fatigue was far more pronounced to units in other words it was like they walked more ground for the same distance in that way. I didn't play long enough that way to gauge AI response to that though.

Originally posted by Ludens
In my view, this supports my hypothesis that the A.I. does not calculate the actual combat value, but operates on routines.

Not necessarily - when i play MTW & mods the AI seems fully conscious of his overall melee power of his and the opponents army, and if he has more melee infantry than the player he rushes, in a full scale attack and i noticed the same behaviour in RTW. If not, he plays more safe, skirmishing, deploying piece meal and trying out flank moves or just stays there until he is attacked.

He also seems to be doing the same at various times during a battle, ie re-assess and act accordingly.

Originally posted by Ludens
The older engine definetly made combat-calculations on a man-to-man basis. Why do you think this has been changed?

I am no expert in these things but it would appear to save some calculation power (cpu) for other things, that probably have to do with graphical appearances.

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).

Units in the older engine were very obedient in taking orders and also could do quite amazing courses of action that gave tactical options for the skilled player. One example is the way they spreaded in chasing down routers - you can clearly see that they were operating well in an individual basis.

Another example is that i have seen for example cavalry that charges a close opponent split in two, ending up attacking a second opponent too if you give the order to them to do so in the last moment. In a recent battle i was able to hold up two enemy "blobs" this way until help arrived with 1 single heavy cavalry unit. It shows that the AI was "instilled" in each sprite individually probably, as well as in the unit as a whole.

In RTW units move as one whole/blob and such tricks as well as effective router chasing do not happen (at least i didn't notice them). They also seem to be slightly deficient in the way they gang up on enemy soldiers.

This last bit, together with the larger amount of battles on avergare per campaign due to the introduction of the new campaign map system, may be the source of the very fast kill rates that were also responsible for a loss in tactical depth in RTW. In other words the game would look bad and boring and take ages to complete with more "reasonable" kill rates, and this can be seen in certain mods that the units duke it out with their repetitive hits or in RTR that there is an endless array of relatively long battles that render it too long to be trully fun for a new player non-TW hardcore.

All in all - the extra complexity seems to have taken out forcibly some of the options engine abilities for tactical depth as there has to be a compromise between what can be achieved (system requirements), what looks believable (appearance - feeling of a battle) and tactical depth. That is tactical depth has to share consideration with two other parameters that "do not care" for it, in fact they contradict it in many cases.

In the end, the results look goofy to me even to this day. The animations of 3-D men, however advanced - still defy belief and are ridiculous, and if i may add of hollywood-like aesthetics that are cheap and populistic IMO. They would need uber computers to make them act really proper, and once one starts going down that route there is no end to the amount of detail you can include.

At the same time, the game suffers on the gameplay side because of this, in the battle-map (and in the campaign map IMO, but that's another story).

Many Thanks

Noir

caravel

05-23-2007, 12:27

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).
Men in the older engine were constantly tracked through out battle and the campaign, I'm not so sure about the new engine. Every many had his own valour stats IIRC. The unit valour is just an average of the valour of every man in the unit. I believe that this is no longer the case in the newer engine.

Units in the older engine were very obedient in taking orders and also could do quite amazing courses of action that gave tactical options for the skilled player. One example is the way they spreaded in chasing down routers - you can clearly see that they were operating well in an individual basis.
True, I have noticed this also.

In RTW units move as one whole/blob and such tricks as well as effective router chasing do not happen (at least i didn't notice them). They also seem to be slightly deficient in the way they gang up on enemy soldiers.
I find them unwieldy and they never seem to target a particular man in a unit but more so attack the mass of the unit, I've observed cavalry riding past jabbing at thin air, and a man on the ground suddenly fall down dead when he was clearly not close enough. This is more obvious when you're trying to clean up routers. Also you can end up having to pull units out and send them in again just to kill off a lone enemy in a "glob" this is more of a problem in city plazas. The contact is simply unconvincing. If they were individuals then one of those individuals would be able to kill that lone enemy inside the mass of your men, this leads me to believe that somehow they're not. STW/MTW had poor sprite based unit graphics but if you look you can see exactly which man is attacking which.

This last bit, together with the larger amount of battles on avergare per campaign due to the introduction of the new campaign map system, may be the sourse of the very fast kill rates that were also responsible for a loss in tactical depth in RTW. In other words the game would look bad and boring and take ages to complete with more "reasonable" kill rates, and this can be seen in certain mods that the units duke it out with their repetitive hits or in RTR that there is an endless array of relatively long battles that render it too long to be trully fun for a new player non-TW hardcore.
True, the battle engine has been designed around a different principle. Trying to apply the STW/MTW principles of slower speeds, lower kill rates etc doesn't work for RTW IMHO.

In the end, the results look goofy to me even to this day. The animations of 3-D men, however advanced - still defy belief and are ridiculous, and if i may add of hollywood-like aesthetics that are cheap and populistic IMO. They would need uber computers to make them act really proper, and once one starts going down that route there is no end to the amount of detail you can include.
The problem with the battle engine is that CA's entire focus was on 3D unit models, and nothing else. In a strategy game where if you're actually zoomed in close enough to appreciate it all, then you cannot really oversee the battle effectively. The physics of this are quite simply appalling. Men shooting through the air in all directions, flying horses, slow and unrealistic lunges and swipes. The physics seemed to have taken second place to the appearance.

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).
And this is, for me, the interesting part. 3D men with no substance. They are 3D visually only. They still work on the principles and same attack round system of SWT/MTW, as far as I can tell. The weapons and attack swings are only cosmetic and very often out of sync with the opponents death. This is no more advanced than STW/MTW in terms of combat, and not truer combat physics such as that seen in some hack and slash games where the actual weapon is picked up, and used to attack the enemy causing damage on intersection with the mesh/bounding box. It doesn't work like this in TW games because a true physics engine for combat, for thousands of men, and not just a few, would eat the CPU. In short their 3D nature is only cosmetic, it adds nothing to the physics and dynamics.

Noir

05-23-2007, 13:00

Originally posted by Cambyses II
The problem with the battle engine is that CA's entire focus was on 3D unit models, and nothing else. In a strategy game where if you're actually zoomed in close enough to appreciate it all, then you cannot really oversee the battle effectively. The physics of this are quite simply appalling. Men shooting through the air in all directions, flying horses, slow and unrealistic lunges and swipes. The physics seemed to have taken second place to the appearance.

Now connect this with the fact that the long distance sprites were, and are to this day simply awful. This one was very important to whoever was playing the game for tactics and not zoomed in half of the time; even if you look at battles from miles away with IAN mode at the older engine the sprites and their actions, and even the arrows mid air, are reckognisable. In RTW everything turns blurred, past step 3 or 4 in the camera that allows for effective battlfield surveyllance.

Originally posted by Cambyses II
They are 3D visually only. They still work on the principles and same attack round system of SWT/MTW, as far as I can tell.

This might or might not be the case for M2. The combat results and apparently cycles are strongly connected to the animations and thus the 3-D
men may have substance there. I haven't played the game long enough (for 2weeks upon release) to really observe this; my comment is based in reading the forums and intuition. In RTW i agree that the system seems to be fairly similar to that of the old engine - if not identical.

Many Thanks

Noir

IceWolf

05-24-2007, 22:20

Is it just me or do the Roman General's bodygaurds (heavy cav) turn into the stormtroopers of death after Marius? They are just unstoppable now, I've seen them slaughter ridiculus amounts of my Scythians lately. My Scyth Generals can't stand up to them anymore.

IceWolf

Ludens

05-26-2007, 13:02

Sorry, but i lost the flow of thought there - if it gives away (the position advantage) then how can he be showingconsideration for not tiring his units, since he does so (tiring hi units) in the process?
The point is that the A.I. lets you take the height advantage without responding (other than changing it's facing). If, like you suggest, the A.I. does this because it believes it gives it the highest combat modifiers, maintaining or regaining height advantage must mean a trade-off with another combat modifier. The only modifier I can think of is fatigue, but the A.I. shows very little concern for fatigue in other conditions. Ergo, I do not think the A.I. calculates optimal combat modifiers, but instead works with routines.

Not necessarily - when i play MTW & mods the AI seems fully conscious of his overall melee power of his and the opponents army, and if he has more melee infantry than the player he rushes, in a full scale attack and i noticed the same behaviour in RTW. If not, he plays more safe, skirmishing, deploying piece meal and trying out flank moves or just stays there until he is attacked.

He also seems to be doing the same at various times during a battle, ie re-assess and act accordingly.
True. However, as you said it still employs it's spear as cavalry-killers even though they are not suited for that after the 1.1 patch. Again, this suggests to me the A.I. works on routines rather than always calculating combat modifiers.

On the other hand, according to Puzz3D the A.I. of M:TW would never attack an enemy unit with a weaker one, so apparently there is some calculation of modifiers going on. This is not the case in R:TW, though.

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).

Units in the older engine were very obedient in taking orders and also could do quite amazing courses of action that gave tactical options for the skilled player. One example is the way they spreaded in chasing down routers - you can clearly see that they were operating well in an individual basis.

Another example is that i have seen for example cavalry that charges a close opponent split in two, ending up attacking a second opponent too if you give the order to them to do so in the last moment. In a recent battle i was able to hold up two enemy "blobs" this way until help arrived with 1 single heavy cavalry unit. It shows that the AI was "instilled" in each sprite individually probably, as well as in the unit as a whole.

In RTW units move as one whole/blob and such tricks as well as effective router chasing do not happen (at least i didn't notice them). They also seem to be slightly deficient in the way they gang up on enemy soldiers.
Good points. However, I recall one of the developers stating that they did not implement overhand spears because they had trouble with the hit-boxes. Also, animation speeds also have an influence on combat outcome. Thirdly, I've seen the "general killed" animation start, and suddenly stop without the general dying, apparently because an enemy soldier in the general's vincinity was cut down. This does suggests that combat is calculated on an individual basis.

All in all - the extra complexity seems to have taken out forcibly some of the options engine abilities for tactical depth as there has to be a compromise between what can be achieved (system requirements), what looks believable (appearance - feeling of a battle) and tactical depth. That is tactical depth has to share consideration with two other parameters that "do not care" for it, in fact they contradict it in many cases.

In the end, the results look goofy to me even to this day. The animations of 3-D men, however advanced - still defy belief and are ridiculous, and if i may add of hollywood-like aesthetics that are cheap and populistic IMO. They would need uber computers to make them act really proper, and once one starts going down that route there is no end to the amount of detail you can include.

At the same time, the game suffers on the gameplay side because of this, in the battle-map (and in the campaign map IMO, but that's another story).
Very true, sadly.

guineawolf

05-29-2007, 10:34

i am thinking that romans aint that powerful if they do not have that 12 armor,armor piercing pila and swordarm......and every romans unit have better morale than other factions.....romans unit can fight without general.

coz i have try to playing Brutii in different way,since the Brutii are so rich,then i decide to using numbers to overwhelm every faction of the campaign.............(just like the zerg overwhelming those terrans with zerglings)(it is fun to see my enemy killing a lot of my troops but still get exterminated=overwhelming!unstoppable!!!i am going to use eastern infantry next time)

i have use town watch as my regular infantry,but seem the town watch are too weak for combat and it's morale are too low to prolonged their combat,then i decide to build temple of Mars=3 exp(1exp give 1 morale bonus) and 1 morale bonus=give 4 morale bonus(since Mars also got increase tradeable goods by 2 compare to Mercury).And i am using generals with morale boost retinue and traits to boost town watch low morale...:yes:

my town watch have fight greek armour hoplites,hoplites,militia hoplites and spartans..
Fighting militia hoplite is easy,same armor,easy kill...hoplites?slower a bit than militia since only 6 armor,spartans same with hoplite just take out a lot of my troops...then armoured hoplites,that is pain in the ass,i can't even take down 1 unit of armoured hoplites with 20 units town watch surrounding it WITHIN 30 MINUTES!!!(those hoplites are using phalanxe formation)
I flank them on their side and their back do me no good,those armoured hoplites keep falling and keep stand up and fight!( there is a 10 command star general leading my town watch)time end!always got 10 to 20 leftovers,then i decide to use auxilia,finally it finish the job,just a little bit faster......
then facing Julii's legions,still same,town watch can't kill them in time,auxilia finish the job,of coz with high casualties too!:sweatdrop:

i do custom battle,1 general,4 militia,against 1 legion.results=1 militia rout with 20men left,another militia rout the legion(legion left 10 men) with only 30-40 men lost,the miliita hoplite can kill legion very fast too without flanking move(face to face) with just swordarm not phalanxe,but town watch just a little bit faster than campaign battle...

my conclusion here is it seem when they reach more than 10 armor,it is impossible to using spears to against them.....
it explain a lot why my parthians hillmen can't hurt those legions while militia hoplites can....and it explain a lot why barbarian light warband(short spear warband)can take many hastati and principles with them but not legion with lorica segmenta armor(12 armor)
Even those phalanxe pikemen that using swordarm in my old Seleucid campaign can beat legion,if they(phalanxe pikemen) can have higher morale then they can fight longer even without general....(legion got 10 morale while phalanxe pikemen have 4 only)

1 of my custom battle,gladiators vs gladiators,free at will,i use Scipii mirmillo(weapon=spear),i wait and let Julii samnite(weapon=sword) fight with Brutii velites(weapon=spear),samnites take out velites easily fight with my mirmillo,my mirmillo wins,but with high casualties

note:all my units oredi have silver equipments(level 2 weapons and level 2 armor)

guineawolf

05-29-2007, 13:12

this time i am using light auxilia(romans javelinmen) to against greeks cities,coz it have 6 javelins to against phalanxe formation,and sword that can effectively against infantry and fast moving that can do fast flanking move..and it just 290 denarii to train compare to auxilia 430 denarii,same upkeep 170 denarii....
i got 7 unit from city own temple city of Horus and city own large temple of Mars,it's attributes:
-unit from Horus- ***-unit from Mars-
melee attack -7 9
missile attack-9 11
charge bonus-2 2

armor *****-5 4
defence skill -3 5
shield *****-2 2

total defence-10 11

my army face 3 unit of armoured hoplites=484 soldiers,i take out all of them with 7 unit light auxilia=1127 soldiers,just 450 to 470 casualties......

it seems swordarms works...sweet!!!..:yes:

a movie=Battle for rome, Romans vs the Jews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xum38KinXQ4&NR=1

after a few battle,it prove that light auxilia are very useful with it's fast moving and swordsarm after shower of javelins to it's enemy....just make sure always get a general to take care of them......(even enemy archers can't resist them.....)

guineawolf

05-31-2007, 12:06

after watching first EPISODE of Ancient Rome from youtube,those infantry uniform look like principles,it seems that they are still using principles after Marius Reforms,it just better trained.
And i read from history that classic legion(legion with lorica segmenta armor) is introduced by Augustus,i think i will put principles into militia barrack,1 level lower than original principles producing barracks(city barracks) for early swordmen for romans.(since the principles having the same armor with auxilia):yes:

link to that movies,it got 6 part:
Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4g5DnhjBjo

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufv75Wn9ZHk

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIb1G12AItQ

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsXwEqqdhbM

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKlU8cmBy0

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGfyFnSv-GM

after reconsidering for the game balance here,i think i will use light auxilia to replace the principles........

Rascal

05-31-2007, 16:21

Game balance is great but look at the facts here. The Romans were a superpower unlike the world had never seen before. They conquered almost all of the known world and dominated it for hundreds of years. They are not overpowered in the real scheme of things, they were in fact that powerful. Nobody could withstand a full scale Roman invasion for very long. They lost battles and legions and left some regions alone for lack of profit, but when they rallied their armies all fell before them. Game balance only goes so far and thats what difficulty levels are for. I still lose a rare battle from being too cocky and trying to prove my might with small forces, so be it. If I want more balance I play another faction who are not as powerful and let the romans do their thing and build into their normal superpower then take em head on. That makes a long campaign with a lot of angry Romans sending wave after wave of troops at me...

Noir

05-31-2007, 16:47

Originally posted by Rascal
...but look at the facts here. The Romans were a superpower unlike the world had never seen before. They conquered almost all of the known world and dominated it for hundreds of years. They are not overpowered in the real scheme of things, they were in fact that powerful. Nobody could withstand a full scale Roman invasion for very long. They lost battles and legions and left some regions alone for lack of profit, but when they rallied their armies all fell before them. Game balance only goes so far and thats what difficulty levels are for.

I object this view for the simple reason that Rome didn't started as an superempire - it started as a bunch of little villages around a larger village that were trying to protect themselves from raiding Gauls and other local competitors such as the Samnites and the Greek City states in the South.

The Romans were expert at assimilating other cultures and peoples and that was a major strength and reason for their growth, that was slow, difficult and far from predestined. In many cases they were "drawn-in" to the conquest game that they didn't really intend to play until some advanced point.

The vanilla game fails to portray all these struggles and ups and downs because it lacks subtlety in the details - it sets forth to the predestined conclusion that is the "from our time" view of Rome as a superempire.

I also very much doubt that you get play-balance by the higher difficulty levels and playing the other factions.

Many Thanks

Noir

Ludens

05-31-2007, 17:51

The Romans were expert at assimilating other cultures and peoples and that was a major strength and reason for their growth, that was slow, difficult and far from predestined. In many cases they were "drawn-in" to the conquest game that they didn't really intend to play until some advanced point.
True. Some of Rome's greatest victories (conquest of Greece and Asia, Gallic wars) happened again enemies weakened by infighting. During the Punic wars, when the Romans were up against an enemy at the peak of its power, they often got trashed pretty bad. You also notice that as soon as the veterans from the second Punic war retire, the Romans suddenly suffer from a string of defeats in Iberia and Africa. Their legions were strong, but not invincible, and the Punic wars were won more due to their ability to field army after army in the face of defeat, rather than any superiority at fighting.

zoyclem

06-02-2007, 02:27

Noir,

I play Rome for fun rather than for historical accuracy. The game developers at Creative Assembly did a commendable job on creating a quasi-simulation while retaining the simplicity and quick pace of a game. Adding the features needed to provide a true simulation would slow the game down and make it too complex for most players.

Instead the developers chose acceptable (for the most part) historical and mechanical compromises in both the strategic and tactical aspects of the game to enhance playability and provide an advantage to Rome so that it stood a good chance of becoming the dominant power in the Mediterranean. Seeing that Rome actually did conquer and impose its culture on Western and Southern Europe, North Africa, and both the Middle and Near East makes that premise sensible.

That said I prefer Medieval II or Barbarian Invasion over Rome. One thing I like about Barbarian Invasion is that it captures a sense of how desperate the situation was for the western half of the empire in the closing years of the fourth century. I'm reading Ammanus Marcellinus right now and he's chronicling the years roughly from AD 354-378, and the mood he creates with his writing is very similar to the mood created by Barbarian Invasion. Both the reading and the game playing are enjoyable experiences. The game manages to create a good 'gloomy' general picture of the situation faced by Rome circa 376.

Obviously, the challenges one faces in Rome, Barbarian Invasion, or Medieval II aren't especially accurate in regards to known historical events, but these are games, not re-creations. And the truth is (especially in the later empire) there is much more that we do not know about Rome than we do, so a little creativity in a game setting is tolerable. Finally, the developers did allow for fairly extensive game modification, so that should largely address the realism concerns of purists. I’m happy enough with the packaged games myself.

Someone mentioned Roman citizenship: I believe it was Lucius Julius Caesar who introduced the law to grant citizenship to the Italian allies before finishing his term as consul in 90 BC. The actuality came about only after the ‘Social War’ ended. This war between the Italian allies and Rome erupted in 91 BC (after the assassination of Marcus Livius Drusus the Younger, a tribune who also promoted citizenship) and ended in 88 BC.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla, who won the Grass Crown during the war—the highest Roman military honor—and Pompeius Strabo (the 'Butcher') probably played a bigger role in ending the conflict than Gaius Marius. Marius had become a destructive force by this time and his actions during the Social War and the atrocities committed in his seventh Consulship only weakened the republic and cultivated the events that followed. Interesting times...

Citizenship throughout the entire Empire was granted during the reign of Caracalla (AD 212). Also interesting times, but this post is too long already.

Cheers.

IceWolf

06-03-2007, 07:17

Excellent links GunieaWolf. Though it bored Mrs IceWolf to tears, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Noir

06-05-2007, 12:53

Originally posted by zoyclem
I play Rome for fun rather than for historical accuracy. The game developers at Creative Assembly did a commendable job on creating a quasi-simulation while retaining the simplicity and quick pace of a game. Adding the features needed to provide a true simulation would slow the game down and make it too complex for most players.

Instead the developers chose acceptable (for the most part) historical and mechanical compromises in both the strategic and tactical aspects of the game to enhance playability and provide an advantage to Rome so that it stood a good chance of becoming the dominant power in the Mediterranean. Seeing that Rome actually did conquer and impose its culture on Western and Southern Europe, North Africa, and both the Middle and Near East makes that premise sensible.

I doubt that very much zoyclem. CA's solution-line of design, follows the path that had followed throughout their games eversince MI for STW (the only time that they plausibly deviated from this was STW itself).

This line is characterised by wanting to recreate historical eras/periods through the principle of "Sengoku Jidai" essentially, that predictably matches well only with... Sengoku Jidai. This IMO had implications as degrading the battles as well as the strategic portion. For example there are no proper homelands in TW other than in mods (there are few generic ones). This means that as soon as you conquer a place you start... churning troops out of it, that is fine in Sengoku Jidai Japan, but defies belief and destroys plausible campaign running/progression in MTW or RTW for example.

CA has incorporated many little campaign features in the two newer games that are a tedium in essense and add very little extra to strategic options/deciisions IMO than what the original STW campaign had. Some additinal features of importance in the campaign game were inserted in MTW such as families with marriable daughters, loyalty and civil wars, titles, the pope, hordes (that were present eversince MI in essence in TW) as well as the GA mode. Several of these must have been planned for STW as well as you can see that there is the announcer voice for princess in STW WE as well for example, and the Emperor, the possible predecessor of the pope.

Most of those were actually removed in RTW and some saw a return in BI and M2 in a largely unsuspected of them new fanbase.

The game is essentially as simple as it was in its conception in strategic terms - if not more - all that has been added was micromanaging jingles and many unit types that exceed the range of usefulness the engine provides apparently as most of them tend to be underpowered or overpowered. This is natural as it is very hard to really balance all those units (100+!) in a real working environment - the only reason i can think of for their inclusion is because the majority of the gaming audience finds interest through them, simply by means of presence and graphical appearance (that have little to do with gaming fun actually IMO).

For the proof of this, try to imagine what releasing something similar to STW for the current TW fanbase will incur - the game will be murdered first and foremost by the fans.

As for "simulating" history lets leave please this cliche argument out - it is entirely off the mark IMO and yes, i also play games for fun, that's why i point out the absence of balance that kills the fun, because it kills the challenge by introducing exploits. It also very much depends on your definition of "fun" and how this blends in with history that clearly has to play a certain part in a history inspired game.

What i am suggesting is a game that's more detailed where it matters - not an actual simulation of history that is anyway impossible to do in the frame of a game engine as it would be way more comlicated.

History is infact the consolidation of a certain stream of events through millions of possible others that result by circumstantial factors - and it is in the many "ifs" that exist as possible byroutes in that stream of events that a game such as TW is based on. I wouldn't like the game to have the same run all the time if that's what you mean by simulation - but i would like the game to provide challenges that relate to those politico-sociological and military challenges that a faction/ethnicity has gone throughout its existance in playing the game. Such challenges include: search for ethnical-cultural-religious identity, political balance through the levers of power and administration including the military, fund raising and prosperity by making use of native resources and by obtaining/maintaining/bidding for control to trade international resources. If the game presents me with a-priori conditions for certain "historical" things to occur then it is much more of a simulation as you seem to mean it and actually not a fun one. At the moment the military part is exagerated as it is very easy to convert territories to your own and expedite forces throughout the map. Factors such as army supply and ethnical background of places are entirely neglected.

The main ways that TW games simulate history is from starting positions, preset tech trees and preset rosters and the last two are way more decisively restricting the game into a "simulation" than what i am suggesting, but nobody complains about them. Set rosters by theway work well in small frame games such as BI, and much less well in larger time frame game as RTW.

To make an example why the Byzantines have to have a decadent roster over time in M1&2? Why the Romans have to have a better roster over time in RTW? Two appropriate rosters may have been designed with having in mind the possible position of each of these factions over time and these could be "triggered" for example by the condition of the faction at a "change of era point", if you hold x amount of provinces have x amount of money you can make building y and have the Marian reforms say. Instead the Marian reforms depend upon an imperial palace whithin Italy, which you can have embarassingly early and even if you haven't conquered much yet (even if you are losing provinces instead of gaining). I very much doubt that Rome would make its soldiers professionals if they hadn't conquered what they did by the time these reforms were made.

In short TW claims for re-writing history by giving the Romans for example a-priori some of the strongest units (if not the strongest) in the game no matter how the game plays.

Many other things could be added to represent history and its challenges better as the afformentioned homelands, an ethnical inedx for provinces (much like the religion index with whom it can interact), that would determine homalands or no homelands to say only a few examples. These would be inserted in a feasible and easy to understand use way and the campaign game would gain some much needed depth instead of staying a hollow and superficial re-iteration of the STW principle.

If a game for the rise of the Roman empire would get too long to play if properly done (for example Europa Barbarorum?), then CA should have went for smaller campaigns as they actually orginally intended for RTW (now finally in kingdoms they will implement this idea) because their games simply play in their long run progression without the least respect or resemblance to historical challenges (that is supposed to be the aim) as they are way too simplistic reative to the time-frames and number of factions they aim to represent.

Some fans resented even the inclusion of the whole medieval Europe when MTW came out because it was impossible to realistically properly portray it in principle with the TW engine - the result was VI. TW would have been much better off including smaller time frames, less factions and less units that would make it easier to set a better balance in the strategic portion and the tactical portion. Infinite such scenarios existed such as: the Reconquista, the Crusades-holyland, the 100 year wars, Byzantino-Turk conflict in Asia Minor, the Crusades-north, the Italian city states etc etc Most of these were first touched by moders.

Instead CA went for "more": more factions, more units, more years in period covered and consequently more unbalanced and less challenging (due to the exploits that result from unbalance) games. This is natural as balancing the game while having to create the engine for it at the same time sounds impossible to me.

Their decisions IMO are catered for design, but that design aims to make a grandiose release in paper that is "fun to play" ie in actuality is an unbalanced and simplistic mess that very little deviates from the core game in STW in what matters (as Mike Simpson stated in the "Eras" special: "We made the core game (in M2) unreckognisable"); RTW and M2 are the epitomes of those principles actually. CA's aims are less pure as far as i am concerned than good game design descisions only.

By the way Rome didn't impose its culture to the world more than the world imposed its culture to Rome IMO - the Romans were notorious for being very practical people far from puristic cultural pursuits like the Greeks or from the inspirational individuality/autonomy that was powered by a strong sense of personal freedom that the northern peoples put at the centre of their existence. They were capitalists first and foremost, taking only what was necessary, integrating rather than destroying, masters of politics, with little regards to morality or perfection of any kind and the greatest engineers (and not Architects, that would indicate a strong culture) ever, in fact.

The Romans had strong principles - but very little culture IMO, and so they adopted elements from every other and called them "theirs", and were trying to blend-into these "foreign" trends even in the hey-day of their power.

In fact i believe that it was the very absence of a strong culture that ensured that Rome developed in an empire and that that empire survived for as long as it did (do not refer to Byzantium here as it had an entirely different identity).

Many Thanks

Noir

caravel

06-05-2007, 13:34

Agreed completely. Shogun was indeed the only original TW game that CA ever made. MTW was definitely on too big a scale, I have had that sense since I first bought the game when it was released. The MTW engine with it's 1 year per turn and provinces the size of entire kingdoms just doesn't do feudal era Europe any justice.

All later games have been based on STW with it's lack of homelands and a style of play more suited to a smaller time frame and smaller region. This is why I felt that VI was a better concept than MTW, though VI's main flaw was in it's execution. Boring and linear gameplay and horrendously imbalanced units have contributed to me never playing VI for long. With VI the campaign had been set up so that the English factions would win, mainly the Mercians or Saxons, and the others would lose. The Vikings were an inflexible and destructive "Mongol Raider" faction with uber units and the ability to make port anywhere. This did not represent Norse colonisation of Britain and actually made the Vikings a nuisance that were very easy to exploit and defeat. Also because battles between AI factions make use of the auto-calc battle system, missiles were not taken into account, which equates to the toughest melee units winning the day. Those factions making use of bows were always at a disadvantage, having to rely on their melee skills. This is why the Turks in MTW were almost always wiped out early.

This kind of mindset that gave us the overpowered Saxons, Mercians and Vikings and ruined the VI campaign has continued into RTW with the Roman faction, due to it's perceived destiny to win, being very overpowered.

Quite simply a smaller period and region would not appeal to many of the current fan base. An Hundred Years War - Total War or Italian City States - Total War with only a hand full of factions is simply not enough for those that see more factions, more units, more men on the battlefield as a necessity.

econ21

06-05-2007, 15:38

Aradan

06-05-2007, 15:44

I have nothing to add here, except for a wish that future TW games will be focused on gameplay (which is anyway the quintescence of a strategy game) rather than fancy visual effcts, and "more" stuff.
And also I want to give my compliments to Noir and Caravel for a trully great (in every way) discussion and for clarity of thought and expression. :bow:

Noir

06-05-2007, 18:42

Originally posted by econ21
The Romans are a bit overpowered in RTW, I think. As one of the earlier posters said, it may be because lorca segmenta and related Roman armour is over-rated in the stats. In terms of the stats, it seems to be regarded like plate mail when one only has to look at it to see there are so many exposed parts. The Roman (auxiliary) archers and (legionary) cav are also over the top from a historical point of view, although so are elite missiles and heavy cavalry in RTW generally.

However, the Romans do have some weaknesses in RTW which are historical. Head-on, a decent phalanx line can walk over their infantry - the AI won't pull this off, but you can against the AI.

Although i agree to a large extent, i would like to point out that the AI as you mention does not play with uninterupted "stretched" phalanx lines and also that the 6 to 10 stars German generals versus the none to one star Roman generals in exhibit A must also have a part to play in the results. I would suspect that in exbibit B, holding the high ground also incurs a certain advantage to the Seleukids.

(edit: in MTW units under the command of a general would gain 1 valour for every 2 command stars to my knowledge. 1 valour = +1 attack +1 defense +2 morale. If exhibit A was in MTW, i would say that that fight wouldn't be lost for the Germans even if... Jupiter himself was guiding the Romans.)

Many Thanks

Noir

caravel

06-05-2007, 19:04

However, the Romans do have some weaknesses in RTW which are historical. Head-on, a decent phalanx line can walk over their infantry - the AI won't pull this off, but you can against the AI. Exhibit A, Germans trouncing hastati:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=729854&postcount=4
I hate to say it but around 2600 men, mainly made up of the German phalanx warbands, led by two very high command generals vs an army of mainly Hastatii led by a 1 star general, seems like a forgone conclusion - overpowered Romans or not. Add the phalanxes to the equation and it's a massacre. When playing RTW I had to give up on all types of phalanx units because it was so shockingly easy to win with them. Your other examples are also Phalanx and of course Horse Archers which are so ridiculously overpowered that you can often leave them to their own devices and check back later to see that they've cleared the field. Aside from the obvious Romans, phalanxes and horse archers are the other two non Roman units that are severely overpowered.

Stuperman

06-05-2007, 19:10

Noir, I have to disagree, CA set out to make a game, not a history lesson. Yes it is regretable that many of the historical events come at...interesting times, but the game you describe in the 9th paragraph of your previous post sounds like SimRome, not Rome TOTAL WAR. In mind it sounds like the Ceaser games of yore that were complicated to the point of being not fun. The focus is (and should be) on the military conquests of each faction, many of the critisisms(sp) you outline (no area of Recruitment - 'homelands') are there for gameplay reasons, to allow RTW to compete with other RTS games out there. I'm also a bit confused, you critisize RTW for having too many 'micromanaged jingles' then ask for more?

Now this is just me, but the Idea of smaller, more scripted campaigns really turns me off. I want to build MY own empire, not necessarly re-create something from history. Set my own goals, lead factions to victory that never reached any sort of glory in 'real' history.

More detail and simpler, more balanced unit rosters are polar opposites.

edit (Caravel posted while I was typing):

So, Roman infintry, archers and cav is over powered, as are all phalanx and HA units.......What does that leave that ISN't over powered in your opinion?

Noir

06-05-2007, 19:49

Stuperman,

I recently managed to reach as closely as the engine of MTW would allow to the game i am describing, campaign wise, by making a home mini-mod of the MedMod IV by Wes Whitaker. The mod had already taken out many of the redundant units, simplifying the rosters and giving a decent dedicated unit in each role (shooters, cavalry, melee) at every faction, that makes the battles way more interesting IMO as they are challenging and fun, for me at least.

The result is that every faction plays to its potential and that superempires are very very difficult to form. Faction petentials are not the same ie larger factions such as France and the HRE have more potentialthrough having more homelands. Smaller factions such as for example Serbia or Sweden have less and they present a different challenge. It is not published, however it is available privately on request and i would be more than happy for anyone to try it and see whether its "simulating" to the point of boredom or not.

This is of course the gameplay i personaly like and i don't expect anyone else to follow through.

Note that i also mention nowhere the word "scripted" and that it is you that mentions it instead.

I dislike superempires contrary to you, especially in TW, because in my experience the game has little point past the stage that you struggle to establish yourself. The ideal situation would be that you stay in that stage for the entirety of the game as then every decision and battle matters. If you reach in TW the well known mid-game, that is you have conquered the local chalenge then the game is over - you have so much resources that you can swarm the opponents and the rest is IMO a futile and vain megalomanic exercise. All the changes i propose are relative to that.

Making a game about the Roman Empire and its era or one relative to Medieval Europe, while all the whilst largely ignoring most other things rather than the military aspect, is simplistic IMO and it ends with RTW and M2 being what they are, which is close to AoE, TW version. If this is what you enjoy fine - its just not what i do enjoy, and the reason i was attracted originaly to TW is because it offered strategy and tactics in depth rather than the candy in front of the donkey better units RTS principle. The fact that CA made the decision to follow the route it did does not make the gameplay necessarily better. Neither all other ways to do things, that now seem impossible for many would have been rejected as much as they are now if CA has walked another path IMO.

I will avoid the cliche that goes for "its all a matter of opinion" for the simple reason that if CA had chosen another way to do things, people would probably react also like "that was the only viable good thing to do" and just take it for granted, as i feel they did with RTW and now M2.

Originally posted by Stuperman
I'm also a bit confused, you critisize RTW for having too many 'micromanaged jingles' then ask for more?

More detail and simpler, more balanced unit rosters are polar opposites.

Not at all, i ask for detail if you read back where is needed in the campaign game and not in order to remember to do this or do that in an ineconsequestional click frenzy that characterises the vanilla RTW/M2 campaign as it stands.

The changes i propose would affect the way the campaign progresses, as well as strategic choices while playing it, and not how many little things you need to remember to do - that have no real effect actually- such as moving around retinues and the like.

Many Thanks

Noir

Stuperman

06-05-2007, 20:43

Admitedly I've never played STW or MTW, only Rome and on, and I supose I can only comment on how I interpert what you are describing.

The scripted thing was about KingdomsTW..It's looking like a map/mission pack instead of an expansion to me, I'm very disappointed.

I do know what you mean though about RTW, after 12-14 provinces are yours, the game can get very easy, especailly if you are rome, as one of your flanks(fronts?) is covered until the civil war. I like to 'turtle' my campaigns a bit to avoid this, Large factions (20+ provinces) can turn out full stacks way too easy IMHO

Making a game about the Roman Empire and its era or one relative to Medieval Europe, while all the whilst largely ignoring most other things rather than the military aspect, is simplistic IMO and it ends with RTW and M2 being what they are, which is close to AoE, TW version

Cheap arguement ON:

it is called Total War for a reason....

Cheap arguement OFF.

The mod had already taken out many of the redundant units, simplifying the rosters and giving a decent dedicated unit in each role (shooters, cavalry, melee) at every faction, that makes the battles way more interesting IMO as they are challenging and fun, for me at least.

Don't all the factions 'feel' the same then? (it's a genuine question, not trying to be an ass)

As you said, as cliche as it is it's all down to a matter of opinion, I for one think the Mundus Magnus (sp) map with 197 provinces adds TONS to the game, but it sounds like you would disagree with me.

caravel

06-05-2007, 20:45

edit (Caravel posted while I was typing):

So, Roman infintry, archers and cav is over powered, as are all phalanx and HA units.......What does that leave that ISN't over powered in your opinion?
Roman Cavalry are ridiculously overpowered, most of their infantry are also overpowered, especially the post Marian units. Archers are also overpowered and available early on despite the Romans not being noted for archers in that period. This has been covered before too many times to go into it again.

The phalanx units are quite blatant. My ageing grandmother could probably win a campaign as the Greek Cities using nothing but phalanx. Also the AI neither knows how to utilise nor how to counter phalanxes, often throwing it's cavalry and especially chariots straight at them. There is no challenge there. IIRC RTR removed the phalanx formation from most if not all units for this reason. Also the player can always beat the AI phalanxes with ease, due to them constantly breaking formation and being easily flanked when they're in formation. The whole mechanics of the phalanx in RTW is fatally flawed.

Horse Archers are pretty much self explanatory. Besides arrows having nothing even resembling true physics in RTW and their being grossly overpowered, horse archers simply transfer what is in essence a mass killing machine to a highly mobile platform. I have often fought battles with horse archers where they surprised me in just how quickly they could despatch the enemy units with minimal intervention by the player. I could concentrate on other parts of the field and leave the horse archers to it.

So in fact I mentioned two other types of units besides the Roman units that are overpowered, namely Horse Archers and Phalanx units. I did not mention sword infantry units, peltasts, non phalanx spears or the rest of the cavalry units. I could also include Archers, for very good reason, though at least there is a chance that they can be chased down and routed.

Noir

06-05-2007, 21:19

Stuperman
first please receive my thanks for making this very nice and rich if i may say debate possible. :bow:

May i also suggest that you try the older games - for the simple reason that they are great fun - and not for comparison pusposes or anything else.

IMO they are more than worth it and at the time it stroke the market as something radical with their gameplay, style and depth, to the point that i guess the game industry didn't knew where to categorise them and CA how to make the best commercial use of them IMO, which led to RTW that comes accross as a more "conventional" RTS.

While M2 doesn't appeal to me, i would suggest not to judge Kingdoms from the size of the campaign, but by the actual gameplay.

STW started as a "restricted" scenario by today's standards with only 11 units. All of them were generic and almost all other units with few exceptions that we saw in later TW games are more or less variances of those 11 basic units:

a cheap, low morale, anticavalry only spear
a higher morale, half melee, anticavalry spear
a cheap shock attack, vulnerable to missiles, low defense, sword
an expensive good all around,vulnerable to missiles, best melee sword
a moderate price slow, well armoured, high defense, decent melee sword
a moderate price archer, moderate morale, no armour, moderate melee
cheap gun, with very low morale and melee
better gun, with better missile damage, better morale

a fast anti cavalry, high charge, moderate morale moderate melee cavalry
a fast missile cavalry, moderate morale, low melee, cavalry
a slow, high morale, high charge, high melee, well armoured heavy cavalry

These were available to all factions. Contrary to common belief the battles were better by far as the AI army composition and the AI unit use was better, and what mattered was army use through match ups and flanking maneuvers while accounting for terrain and the weather effects and not any sort of uber unit winning the day. All units had their counter and to win you would have to use them in combination.

Do not believe that making a skin x10 or x20 skins give better gameplay - at least i dont. They are basically the same thing, the nly added extra is the capturing of the imagination through graphical means. This is fine and nice, however, if the game is poor or just a "enjoy the view" thing then it has little value as a game other than an interactive phantasy projection.

As for factions feeling all the same, then i would say this: not necessarily - in the MedMod IV that i mentioned all factions have peculiarities in their roster and specific styles, for example the Byzantines are professional but expensive and few, the Catholics are tough to kill but slow and impetuous, the Muslims have better morale and attck and are faster. However and despite their styles nobody lacks in any area as many faction do by a lot in MTW vanilla or in RTW vanilla - everyone has strengths and weaknesses but nobody has gaps in their rosters.

The baeuty of TW games IMO is in this relative to the battles and in the way that the battles interact with the strategic choices you make in the campaign. IMO this beauty was abandined to a certain extent once attention to graphics and to the "more factions/more units" princple was introduced.

And yes it is called Total War which is the principle to waging war between countries with a countries full resources. However, if the setting of the game is to be expressed properly and capture the era that is supposed to be portraying then additional things in the campaign may only add to the warmaking.

*edit* by additional things i mean things that affect the strategic choices not little micromanegement/role playing games.

There is a circle that needs to be expressed in the campaign game that is defend, attack, expand, consolidate and this is repeated. There are blank points in that circle that may cause you set backs such as civil wars for example, or such that other local factions resist your expansion or put you under pressure.

If its Total War all the time, then the gameplay ends up with the linear result that exists in RTW, that says: "rich becomes richer, poor becomes poorer" end of the day. This is neither realistic neither good for the gameplay as you have also observed.

The Mundus Magnus map is great and i agree that it adds to the game - it is the fast conquest rates that accelerate even more the ascention of few faction to the state of "superempire" that i dislike and the fact that game mechanics do not allow factions on the up to descend or factions on the low to ascend. The map is very good - however is how the games on it progress that matters to me.

Many Thanks

Noir

Stuperman

06-05-2007, 21:38

@Caravel
OK, but

Roman units being too powerful makes the 3(or4) roman factions overpowered.

Phalanx makes the seleucids, Greeks, Maks, Germans, Thracians, Pontics, Armenians, Egyptians and Carthiginians over powered.

HA makes the Parthians, Armenians, and Scythians over powered.

so are you saying that only the Numidians, Gauls, Dacians, Britons, and Spanish are 'fair'?

did I miss anyone?

econ21

06-05-2007, 22:49

Noir and Caravel - don't be distracted by the high command of the German generals. Command does not alter combat stats in RTW, unlike MTW. That's one of the improvements of RTW/M2TW over the STW/MTW. It only affects morale and I doubt morale was the issue here (although I admit the Julii broke early). Also numbers were not terribly important - the point was just that a solid phalanx wall walks over hastati face on. I guess you had to be there to see it, but it surprised me at the time how effortless it was. The thing is that in RTW phalanxes seem virtually invulnerable to non-phalanx infantry head on - it is like the Roman swords just can't make contact with the enemy (a reach advantage).

... phalanxes and horse archers are the other two non Roman units that are severely overpowered.

I disagree on both counts. As I said, I think both are historical weaknesses of the Romans.

On the phalanx, before it came out, I wondered how RTW would handle the phalanx vs legion match up. I am not historian, but the way it is done just feels right. Head on the phalanx wins; with flanking the legion wins. It seems perfect. It is just a shame the AI can't handle phalanxes (either attacking with them or against them). Phalanxes are woefully underpowered vs cav, though.

On horse archers, I think RTW and M2TW have got them just about right (maybe RTWs Parthian shot is overpowered). They are now a real force to be reckoned with - the one unit type (apart from generals) you are going to take significant losses fighting. You can see how the Romans and Greeks would struggle against them. In STW, they took too much micro-management and in MTW, they were just fodder for foot archers.

Caius

06-05-2007, 22:57

Sorry if i go off-topic, BUT

Is Egypt overpowered?

He talk as how Romans are overpowered, but we never talk about the egyptians, who are powerful, sooner or later they arrive near the Pontus zone.

They have chariots, and those pharaoh bowman and those who have pikes.They are supertroops also!

econ21

06-06-2007, 01:44

Is Egypt overpowered?

I'm too historically minded when it comes to TW to think about "overpowered" except in terms of "unrealistically powerful". As the RTW Egyptian army is almost entirely ahistorical, to me asking if they are overpowered is a non-question. It's like asking if a Space Marine with a dual hyperblaster from planet Zargon is overpowered... :laugh4:

But yes, you are right: Egypt has always struck me as the number 2 faction after the Romans (at least until you get to a late game Seleucia - by which time the game is almost over). Egyptian chariots seem to combine the annoyance factor of horse archers with a pretty devastating shock capability. And their large archer units, nasty axe infantry etc are not too shabby either.

Although I don't know how they would fare against Parthia, as I can't bear to look at RTWs Egyptians and I don't have the patience to play horse archers. The match up almost sounds like how foxhunters in the UK were described - the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.

guineawolf

06-06-2007, 10:45

Excellent links GunieaWolf. Though it bored Mrs IceWolf to tears, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
i learn my history along with history base games,after playing those games you will have good mood to continue the search of the answer for your curiousity......hmmm:2thumbsup:

guineawolf

06-06-2007, 11:05

The Romans are a bit overpowered in RTW, I think. As one of the earlier posters said, it may be because lorca segmenta and related Roman armour is over-rated in the stats. In terms of the stats, it seems to be regarded like plate mail when one only has to look at it to see there are so many exposed parts. The Roman (auxiliary) archers and (legionary) cav are also over the top from a historical point of view, although so are elite missiles and heavy cavalry in RTW generally.

However, the Romans do have some weaknesses in RTW which are historical. Head-on, a decent phalanx line can walk over their infantry - the AI won't pull this off, but you can against the AI. Exhibit A, Germans trouncing hastati:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=729854&postcount=4

and exhibit B, levy phalanx walking over Praetorians:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1083387&postcount=7

And horse archers can murder "historical" Roman armies which are light in missiles and cav. Even the AI can do this to you, if you let it. Exhibit C, AI Sarmatians humilitiating my mid-game Julii army:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1263657&postcount=26

"(legionary) cav are also over the top from a historical point of view"
this is what i agree,after reading some history of roman military,the RTW Romans faction's cavalry are overpowered and historical inaccurate,coz romans are infantry base factions(that is the reason Hannibal Barca decide to use cavalry to against them)....

and the whole Roman eastern army being completely destroyed by heavy cavalry at(The Roman Army AD 250-378-----
In AD 378 the Gothic cavalry annihilated the eastern army under emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis).
The point had been proven that heavy cavalry could defeat heavy infantry in battle.
.......:yes:

Noir

06-06-2007, 14:18

Originally posted by econ21
Noir and Caravel - don't be distracted by the high command of the German generals. Command does not alter combat stats in RTW, unlike MTW. That's one of the improvements of RTW/M2TW over the STW/MTW. It only affects morale and I doubt morale was the issue here (although I admit the Julii broke early). Also numbers were not terribly important - the point was just that a solid phalanx wall walks over hastati face on. I guess you had to be there to see it, but it surprised me at the time how effortless it was. The thing is that in RTW phalanxes seem virtually invulnerable to non-phalanx infantry head on - it is like the Roman swords just can't make contact with the enemy (a reach advantage).

As i said before i agree with your previous assessment largely and there is no need to be there and see happening it as... i've been there. I also wrote that the Egyptians and the Seleukids are also overpowered and that the phalanx will beat the legion head-on previously in this thread.

Your screenshots reminded me my very first campaign as the Germans in VH/VH a long long time ago. The Britons put me under pressure since they were way richer and went for an all out rush attack that i counter with the aid of the HC boduguards and the only unit i could built due to the meager income: the German phalanx.

Strecth long and wide and guard the flanks with HC and the enemies would sooner or later rout - simple as that. So simple in fact that i completely eradicated the Britons taking over their island and then got all the later German units and crossed the Alps and started trashing Roman stacks for fun.

It was a hideous campaign as most of the others i played for the simple reason that the game is full of exploits on the battlefield and that is true for most factions - if not all. The way to play the phalanx is an exploit and the way to play the legion is also an exploit, and that is all the more so because the AI is largely unaware of how to do these properly and how to defend against these properly leaving the player always on top.

I also said that "if it was in MTW" as i had no clue wether the command stars affect valour and what valour means in RTW - thanks for enlightening me.

The point i was trying to make is that if you want to show proof then you ideally want to connect with another computer or on the net, choose two units for each army (one general and one the one you test), pit them in flat ground with the generals way behind so they don't interfere and see what happens. This would be entirely objective and undisputable exhibit/evidence, way more than battles that you outnumber the opponent, have a better general and hold the high ground.

Originally posted by econ21
On horse archers, I think RTW and M2TW have got them just about right (maybe RTWs Parthian shot is overpowered). They are now a real force to be reckoned with - the one unit type (apart from generals) you are going to take significant losses fighting. You can see how the Romans and Greeks would struggle against them. In STW, they took too much micro-management and in MTW, they were just fodder for foot archers.

Disagree. In RTW there is no need for micromanagement of HAs (it used to be called: control army skill) because if there was, no man or god for that matter would be able to do it: the action is way too fast to control armies at the height of the battle even to control the main infantry action; let alone horse archers unless you pause all the time and sorry, but if that's the case with you, pausing in TW isn't my idea of fun by any means. This is probably why we get all those flashy buttons with special abilities and the unit having higher lethality: because if these were out, the HAs would be entirely uncontrollable IMO, and so useless.

The "Parthian Shot" is a hideous implementation as is all missiles in the game: men from the diagonally opposite side of the unit to the enemy shoot and actually just as well as men that face the enemy in front and on top of this for HAs while they move. Moreover the formation shape matters not in how many men areshooting and how well are shooting. Also HAs, muchlike all other cavalry in the game, are able for... amazing turning radiouses that defy belief IMO entirely and detract tactical depth - a unit of cavalry needs space and time to turn around or change course.

Horse archers in the older engine had 4 important functions: 1 was to offset key enemy missiles (and if possible melee units) by sneaking from the flanks; 2 was to distract the enemy in reploying (for example change a tight formation to a dispersed line formation) in order to create tactical gaps, 3 was after remaining out of harms way until the main melee was joined as after that they were tremendously more important with their remaining ammo and small charge and lowly melee as they were less tired and could rout better opponents. Last but not least they were importnant in cutting down the morale of enemy armies in pieces by sneaking in between spaces(in the older engine men get serious bonuses/penalties by the presence absence of enemy/friendly units in the area), by doing the same for one piece depleted armies by sneaking from the rear and by tactically ambushing routers or escort routers out of the map to make sure that they won't come back and still come in strong to join the finishing stages.

Also HAs needed support ie an anti light cavalry unit (that is another light cavalry) and some light (and so fast and able to join the cavalry match) spears in order to skirmish succesfully and it took skill and combination to do that. Now as you say you just "leave them to it" - we should request perhaps that in future titles the player needs to do even less so we can watch undistracted those finishing moves.

The HAs were never meant to skirmish head on and single handendly at the opening stages - they would be slaughtered by enemy missiles of course - their proper use is very different and way more complex than that as far as i know. In fact if the enemy has foot missiles, HAs get slaughtered in RTW/BI as well, so i fail to see why in MTW they were fodder and in RTW/BI are not. I took out several happy hordes in BI with the lowly Roman Archers as WRE.

In RTW, all these tactical functions are gone as:

1. We dont know how morale penalties work and if there are morale penalties for outnumbering/threatening (at least i dont) and spatially cutting off.
2. The action is way too fast to allow any kind of maneuver as the player is probably busy trying (and not always succeeding) to match up and flank with cavalry - let alone manage the HAs.
3. There is no aftergame after the main melee - enemies simply rout and never reform or come back - no need to manage fatigue as an important morale factor and no need to keep tactical reserves (bum rushing with everyone is always your best bet in RTW).
4. Fatigue is not a factor in 99.999% of the battles IMO and so the superior stamina tactoical factor is useless.
5. Any other cavalry does the chasing router job just as well.
6. Cavalry is so fast, that there is no need to prepare to cut down the routers, by moving/deploying behind the enemy - you'll reach them anyway from any point of the map.

Well if that for you is "getting it right" - that's fine - its just not for me.

The game needed skill and dedication to play but once you got there it was a thing of beauty to play and watch (i would happily provide replays to anyone that requests for the truth of this statement). The tactical depth was enormous and admitedly that was a problem for exploiting it commercially. IMO, this is what has been done in RTW: apply RTS principles and simplify controls and sacrifice depth for the sake of selling the game. Some would call that selling out.

Perhaps happily in Kingdoms, that the ex-generals, now "Heros" will have special abilities they won't be any need for tactics at all - winning levels for your Hero and his abilities might prove more useful - and if someone doesn't want to play like this, CA has provided the answer in the Kingdoms FAQ at the .com: "just don't push the (hero ability) button". Having a business policy is one thing - having a business policy without openly admiting it is another.

Many Thanks

Noir

econ21

06-06-2007, 15:20

The point i was trying to make is that if you want to show proof ...

I was illustrating - not attempting a proof. I have better things to do with my time, especially as it seems you don't actually disagree with me on the point.

In RTW there is no need for micromanagement of HAs ...

That's too strong - eventually you will trap AI horse archers, and the AI will trap yours, thanks to the inability of the skirmish function to cope with map edges.

In fact if the enemy has foot missiles, HAs get slaughtered in RTW/BI as well, so i fail to see why in MTW they were fodder and in RTW/BI are not. I took out several happy hordes in BI with the lowly Roman Archers as WRE.

Yes, you can do it but against horse archer armies you need a lot of foot archers (a historical Roman army with few missiles, like the one in my PBM story, will just die). The Cantabrian circle is one thing that aids horse archers against foot archers in RTW/M2TW; another is that they are not automatically outranged by foot archers (depends on the quality of the foot). I suspect there are other factors, but a foot archer vs horse archer duel in RTW/BI is more even than in STW/MTW.

The "Parthian Shot" is a hideous implementation ...

As I said, I agree it may be overpowered, but you may be going over the top here. At least in M2TW, I think units doing the Parthian shot are much less accurate than shooting conventionally. I'd rather see a watered down (M2TW style?) Parthian shot than just having horse archers neutralised by enemy cav. Bearing in mind TW battles are compressed over real life battles, I think it models say knight vs Mongol engagements better than no Parthian shot.

Also HAs needed support ie an anti light cavalry unit (that is another light cavalry) and some light (and so fast and able to join the cavalry match) spears in order to skirmish succesfully and it took skill and combination to do that.

We are probably talking at cross purposes here. You are talking about recreating STW/MTW gameplay, which might have been exquisite RPS gameplay for you. I'm talking about modelling historical warfare. The Mongols, Huns etc never needed other "light cavalry" or "light spears" to go with their horse archers. (Heavy cavalry, yes.) I think RTW probably has better potential to model historical army styles (barbarian, legion, horse archer, phalanx, mixed). I think it is one strength of the game that it represented these different styles rather than the MTW/STW generic armies.

1. We dont know how morale penalties work and if there are morale penalties for outnumbering/threatening (at least i dont) and spatially cutting off.

Not known is not the same as not existing. My armchair observation is that missiles and cavalry (esp. flanking) are very valuable for their morale penalties. You see it more in realism mods where kill rates are nerfed. Frontal engagement is a waste of arrows and expensive troops - get behind them and use the horse archers to distract/disrupt, and you will get your money back.

2. The action is way too fast to allow any kind of maneuver as the player is probably busy trying (and not always succeeding) to match up and flank with cavalry - let alone manage the HAs.

Again move speed and kill rates are moddable.

3. There is no aftergame after the main melee - enemies simply rout and never reform or come back - no need to manage fatigue as an important morale factor and no need to keep tactical reserves (bum rushing with everyone is always your best bet in RTW).

Again moddable. And please, don't tell a veteran of multi-hour MTW/STW battles about no aftergame. The older engine was plagued by having to fight repeated battles against second and third reinforcing waves, which were predetermined once you had killed the general and smashed the first wave.

4. Fatigue is not a factor in 99.999% of the battles IMO and so the superior stamina tactoical factor is useless.

Could be true for the player but unfortunately fatigue cripples the AI as the attacker in RTW. Better to switch it off IMO.

5. Any other cavalry does the chasing router job just as well.

Horse archers are usually fast cav and so particularly useful for pursuing other cav. I'm not convinced by the STW/MTW convention of making them slower than light cav. Good RPS, I guess - dodgy history.

6. Cavalry is so fast, that there is no need to prepare to cut down the routers, by moving/deploying behind the enemy - you'll reach them anyway from any point of the map.

If you kill rates are lowered (as in RTR etc), then getting rear shots are very important in RTW to get behind those hefty shields.

It was a hideous campaign as most of the others i played for the simple reason that the game is full of exploits on the battlefield and that is true for most factions - if not all. ....

IMO, this is what has been done in RTW: apply RTS principles and simplify controls and sacrifice depth for the sake of selling the game. Some would call that selling out.

"Hideous"? "sell out"? Sounds like another bout of RTW bashing. :shrug: I'm not sure I want to get into that argument; it's been done to death. I'm not defending the vanilla RTW game - I lost interest in playing it solo after one campaign (sorry you endured multiple hideous ones). But with modding (RTR/EB etc) it can get much closer to the MTW model than it is to a game based on "RTS principles". And it does improve on the model in a number of ways usually overlooked by the anti-RTW crowd.

Noir

06-06-2007, 16:18

I was illustrating - not attempting a proof. I have better things to do with my time, especially as it seems you don't actually disagree with me on the point.

Yes, and i actually agreed with you well before you posted the illustration, so, and following your argument, why waste your time on it at all?

That's too strong - eventually you will trap AI horse archers, and the AI will trap yours, thanks to the inability of the skirmish function to cope with map edges.
Exactly, the fact that the map edges are corners also helps to less depth and more exploits. In the older maps they were rounded in order to help avoid that.

Yes, you can do it but against horse archer armies you need a lot of foot archers (a historical Roman army with few missiles, like the one in my PBM story, will just die). The Cantabrian circle is one thing that aids horse archers against foot archers in RTW/M2TW; another is that they are not automatically outranged by foot archers (depends on the quality of the foot). I suspect there are other factors, but a foot archer vs horse archer duel in RTW/BI is more even than in STW/MTW.

Partially agreed, didn't notice the duel being more even though; i guess i shouldn't take your word for it though, since you haven't played more than one vanilla campaign?

As I said, I agree it may be overpowered, but you may be going over the top here. At least in M2TW, I think units doing the Parthian shot are much less accurate than shooting conventionally. I'd rather see a watered down (M2TW style?) Parthian shot than just having horse archers neutralised by enemy cav. Bearing in mind TW battles are compressed over real life battles, I think it models say knight vs Mongol engagements better than no Parthian shot.

Horse archers are usually fast cav and so particularly useful for pursuing other cav. I'm not convinced by the STW/MTW convention of making them slower than light cav. Good RPS, I guess - dodgy history.

Sorry, i haven't played M2 long enough to properly judge how it is implemented there. I never said that the Parthian shot is a bad idea - i said that it is a hideous implementation. Also yes since TW battles are a real life comression, the same can be said for a light cavalry/horse archer unit combination that exists as convention in STW/MTW.

In real life as you say the "HAs" and the "light cavalry" would be one and the same thing most likely. The older engine doesn't account for that but neither does really the new one - all it does is gives the HAs more self stading while they exist simultaneously with the light cavalry, that is one or the other becomes redundant? The difference IMO in the older engine there was more interesting gameplay as less things were redundant gameplay wise.

The distinction between spears and swords is also a false one in all probabilities a true unit would have used spears and swords with the spearmen in front and the swrodsmen behind, but all working as one unit.

Not known is not the same as not existing. My armchair observation is that missiles and cavalry (esp. flanking) are very valuable for their morale penalties. You see it more in realism mods where kill rates are nerfed. Frontal engagement is a waste of arrows and expensive troops - get behind them and use the horse archers to distract/disrupt, and you will get your money back.

Again move speed and kill rates are moddable.

Again moddable. And please, don't tell a veteran of multi-hour MTW/STW battles about no aftergame. The older engine was plagued by having to fight repeated battles against second and third reinforcing waves, which were predetermined once you had killed the general and smashed the first wave.

As moddable as they are (and i say this after having played RTR and EB for quite some time) they do not recreate the fine line for keeping up morale of an army, neither the fine balance between match ups and flanking meneuvers because many other parameters such as fatigue are beyond the moders' direct control, and all modders are doing are finding workarounds to "better them".

So is modding the asnwer then and should the game be sold on that basis? Because if it is why the battle engine workings are not revealed as well as the main parameters be made moddable? Let me guess: protecting CA's commercial interests and not confusing new players? So is the game as moddable as it is advertised to be?

Battle parameters are way less moddable than the game is advertised to be IMO. On top of this fatigue, ammo, morale were three different switches in the older engine, in the new engine they are only 1, in the game menu.

Yes, not known is not the same as the none existing - but then again i never said that they didn't exist i said precisely that we don't know if they do, since CA tells nothing on how the battles engine works anymore.

On top of that i talk about morale penalties that existed in the older engine to enemy units for being thretened/outnumbered by the presence of enemy units and not relative to morale penalties for being shot and by being charged by cavalry - this i observed that it existed - i also was moving move units such as peltasts and slingers from the flanks and rear to do damage.

The "aftergame" i talk about refers to 1 full stack versus 1 full stack and not in the endless reinforcements armies of MTW, that as a veteran you should know were the result of too many troops to burn due to very high profits in the campaign and maps of too large a size relative to the fatigue rates of units. In STW the fatigue rates work better as the maps are more fine-tuned to that.

That aftergame happens in MTW - not as much as it should - but more than in RTW that it never statistically does - it follows that fatigue plays a part in the game.

"Hideous"? "sell out"? Sounds like another bout of RTW bashing. I'm not sure I want to get into that argument; it's been done to death. I'm not defending the vanilla RTW game - I lost interest in playing it solo after one campaign (sorry you endured multiple hideous ones). But with modding (RTR/EB etc) it can get much closer to the MTW model than it is to a game based on "RTS principles". And it does improve on the model in a number of ways usually overlooked by the anti-RTW crowd.

Do all these "numbers of ways" that the game has been according to you improved, make the game more challening? Do they keep the tactical standard and so replayability high, asuming that you leave all the mods out? Because all i see is complains about bugs, and about how easy the game is on the campaign and in the field - hence the huge AI issue, that ironically although an issue previously it was actually more up to it. In fact some of these complains about challenge i heard them precisely from you.

Many Thanks

Noir

econ21

06-07-2007, 01:06

Well, I think we are getting rather far away from the original topic of whether Romans are overpowered or not. That's probably my fault as much as anyone's.

But a last off-topic word:

Do all these "numbers of ways" that the game has been according to you improved, make the game more challening? Do they keep the tactical standard and so replayability high, asuming that you leave all the mods out? Because all i see is complains about bugs, and about how easy the game is on the campaign and in the field - hence the huge AI issue, that ironically although an issue previously it was actually more up to it.

I am not sure exactly which game you are talking about.

If it is vanilla RTW, the answer is no. It's fatally flawed by lack of challenge - at least as Romans (Carthies were rather fun in the early game, but I am mainly drawn to the Romans). But it does not have many bugs.

RTW/BI is quite replayable and challenging, but I am biased as I like the premise (Rome under attack).

If you are talking about the latest version of the new engine, M2TW, then yes there's been a lot of talk of bugs but the big ones are now squashed. Personally I think several of the changes do make it more challenging - for example, I find the economy better balanced than MTW where it was frankly broken (sea trade network = teh win).

There is still a fundamental problem with challenge, IMO, and that is the strategic AI has not coped with the new campaign map freedom. I started an English AAR to try to refute the argument that the game lacks challenge:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83785

But as the tables in that AAR show, the surprising thing was the proportion of battles in which I had an advantage from the start. It wasn't that I was winning against the odds due to poor tactical AI; it was that the AI was poor at setting up good odds battles due to poor strategic AI. Ironically, I think it would be something CA could fairly easily fix - just by programming the AI to be more cautious in giving battle, ie only attack at 2:1 or higher; stay out of contact with armies that can attack you at 1:1 or higher.

On the other hand the reason why I have paused the campaign was because it was getting rather hard - I lost all my generals in the Middle East!

In fact some of these complains about challenge i heard them precisely from you.

Indeed. But then I am a grognard and complaining is what grognards do best. But I am an old enough grognard to have found no realistic historical wargame on a computer challenging. But it sure beats trying to play board wargames solitaire, which is what I had to do in my pre-PC youth. :wall:

i guess i shouldn't take your word for it though, since you haven't played more than one vanilla campaign?

I said completed, not played. TW has always suffered from a tipping point problem - you get so big, you can't be beat. And then it's just hard work. When I am going to win, I typically quit. One reason why I like doing PBMs is that I get to see the mid and end-games, which I often burn out on when playing solo.

Back on topic, what might be fun would be to compare Romans in RTW with those in the big realism mods, RTR and EB. e.g. just match up hastati and cohorts with Gaulish warbands and chosen warriors, or something. I have not done the necessary legwork, but I suspect you might find RTW does not overpower the legion that much compared to these "realism" benchmarks. Principes are pretty uber in RTR; Romans are probably weaker in EB but still are formiddable.

Noir

06-07-2007, 16:14

Originally posted by econ21
e.g. just match up hastati and cohorts with Gaulish warbands and chosen warriors, or something.

Hmmm... how about pit them against...:idea2: Gaesatarae then? :smash:

Many Thanks

Noir

*edit* That is Gaesatae - its really been a long time since i last played RTW...

Primus_Pilus

06-11-2007, 05:19

Guys, I think your overlooking the fact that the Romans in history WERE the super-powers. It's not so much that the units are over balanced; CA actaully did alot of research in to the tactics and unit strengths of the time to insure that they had realism.

For the original poster: You took Spartan Hoplites from 500BC and compared them to troops, the 1st Cohort, of 200 AD or so. That's 700 years of tactical advancement as well as material enhancement. The spartans had a certain tactic that they used and the Romans had, by far, surpassed them in their use of weapons and shields.

This goes for almost any other empire they faced. Rome didn't start loosing battles until close to their fall, and that's only because of the decline of the economy and the leadership. The thing the romans had to their advantage was their ability to absorb different ideas.

So, no, I'm not surprised to see a couple cohorts moe through a phalanx of Spartan Hoplites. I would be surprised to see Hastati do it, though.

Laman

06-11-2007, 05:48

Rome did loose battles, it was not an odd occurence. However they never acknowledged they had been beaten. One reason they could conquer most of their enemies was that for the Hellenistic powers, if one battle was lost, then they would sue for peace (it was not easy to replace losses for them). Rome on the other hand would raise yet another army and continue the war (like after Cannae).

Ludens

06-11-2007, 21:40

Guys, I think your overlooking the fact that the Romans in history WERE the super-powers. It's not so much that the units are over balanced; CA actaully did alot of research in to the tactics and unit strengths of the time to insure that they had realism.
(...)
This goes for almost any other empire they faced. Rome didn't start loosing battles until close to their fall, and that's only because of the decline of the economy and the leadership.
During the first Punic war the Romans suffered appaling loses and it was only their ability to recover from these that won them the war. The Second Punic War started even worse, with Hannibal Barca annihilating the Romans at Tictinus, Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae, while his fellow countrymen pushed back Roman power in Iberia and Sicily. Only when the Roman legions obtained a decent degree of field experience did they manage to turn the tide. Then did the Roman empire turn into an unstoppable behemoth that trashed the Hellenic powers. Yet as soon as these experienced soldiers became too old for active service, the Romans started losing again. The start of the Third Punic war was a catalogue of incompetence and disaster for the Romans, despite the fact that Carthage was only a shadow of it's former power. In Iberia things weren't much better, and it was the Scipio Africanus the younger who saved Roman pride on both continents. The Numidian war didn't go quite as badly, but it hardly was a walk-over, nor did the Marius and his reforms make much difference. Then the German tribes migrated into Italy and inflicted several crushing defeats on the Romans, including one where casualties may well have rivaled that of Cannae.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. The Romans did lose battles. Quite frequently actually, and more frequently the further you go back in their history or the Republic. However, this does not mean that the Romans of the late Republic or early empire were invincible either: take Carrhae and Teutoberger Forrest, for example. These weren't isolated defeats either, as the continued treat of the Germans and the Parthians/Sassanids proves. Even Julius Ceasar suffered a defeat at Gergovia, although it did not prove a permanent one.

Rome became a world power not because they did not lose battles, but because they did not lose wars.

Afkazar

06-11-2007, 23:54

Is this in a single battle or a series of battles? Is it against a particular set of players or against random unconnected players? How often those opponents have fought an all phalanx army? How experienced are they and how experienced are you? Just a few curiosity questions.
Noir

1. This was a second battle in a series. Though in the first battle my ally took heavy elephants and cav while I took the sacred bands.

2.They seems to know each other somewhat.

3.I dont know It doesnt really say how often your opponents fought all phalanx.

4.Again i dont really know how experienced they are or my ally. Im somewhat of a veteran and Ive been playing for about 9 months. Most of my victories against rome has come by using the Half cataphract-Half chariot army. I have had alot of victories against greeks. The biggest weakness with the greeks is no cav. I picked apart spartan armies using bowmen without using any regular infantry. Backshots work well...

One thing i learned about warfare is even an archer with a shank can drastically change the outcome of close combat. I Recognize the morale penalty of rear charges.

That's too strong - eventually you will trap AI horse archers, and the AI will trap yours, thanks to the inability of the skirmish function to cope with map edges.
If you can't realize when your horse archers are getting to close to the Map edge then horse archers arent for you.

Noir

06-11-2007, 23:58

Originally posted by Afkazar
One thing i learned about warfare is even an archer with a shank can drastically change the outcome of close combat. I Recognize the morale penalty of rear charges.

Agreed and Thanks for clarifying - 9 months is quite some time - definitely not new player (depending how often you were playing). I find that elephants add very little for multiplayer but that's another issue.

:bow:

Noir

econ21

06-12-2007, 01:11

Hmmm... how about pit them against...:idea2: Gaesatarae then? :smash:

Fine, you can have your Gaesatae if I can have my Camillan triarii. :rolleyes:

We would be in for a long night.

OK, after such a feeble offering of mine, I feel I must redeem it by providing some data:

3^Unit|Attack|Defence|Morale|Swing|Lethality
7^RTW hastati|7|14|6|25|1
7^RTW Gallic warband|7|10|4|25|0.73
7^RTW early cohort|9|17|10|25|1
7^RTR PE hastati|10|25|18|0|0.3
7^RTR PE Gallic warband|8|21|16|25|0.4
7^RTR PE early cohort|12|36|18|0|0.3
7^EB hastati|11|21|13|0|0.13
7^EB Gallic warband (Lugoae)|9|13|8|0|0.125
7^EB early cohort|12|23|15|0|0.13

If kill chances depend on the attack-defence differential, as in STW/MTW (and further assuming one point =10% change in kill chances), I make that:

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

Noir

06-12-2007, 01:35

Originally posted by econ21
Fine, you can have your Gaesatae if I can have my Camillan triarii.

We would be in for a long night.

We would, indeed!

Originally posted by econ21
OK, after such a feeble offering of mine, I feel I must redeem it by providing some data:

Unit Attack Defence Morale Swing Lethality

RTW hastati 7 14 6 25 1

RTW Gallic warband 7 10 4 25 0.73

RTW early cohort 9 17 10 25 1

RTR PE hastati 10 25 18 0 0.3

RTR PE Gallic warband 8 21 16 25 0.4

RTR PE early cohort 12 36 18 0 0.3

EB hastati 11 21 13 0 0.13

EB Gallic warband (Lugoae) 9 13 8 0 0.125

EB early cohort 12 23 15 0 0.13

If kill chances depend on the attack-defence differential, as in STW/MTW (and further assuming one point =10% change in kill chances), I make that:

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% more lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

:bow:

Undoubedly the balance of forces is much better in modifications. (As i posted earlier) RTR PE with Naval&Metro mob and EB are IMO the choices for RTW SP.

Many Thanks

Noir

Kobal2fr

06-16-2007, 17:14

So...You complain that vanilla post-Marian Rome is woefuelly overpowered in terms of stats... he proves that Gauls are even MORE underpowered compared to even lower-end Roman troops in the supposedly better balanced acclaimed historical mods, and by huge margins too... and you conclude that thus these mods are the choice for balanced RTW SP ?

Am I being dense here and missing an obvious but unspoken logical step ?

EDIT :
As an aside, I do agree with you that most of MTW/RTW/M2TW units are just tweaks to the basic STW archetypal units, but what you acclaim as proper balance (ie : STW's "purity" through giving everyone exactly the same troops) is not balance at all. It's, specifically, avoiding the whole balancing idea alltogether. Besides, even back in STW the different clans weren't balanced at all anyway. You can't expect me to believe that "can field cheaper ashigaru" can possibly be construed as even remotely equivalent to "can zoom through the whole tech tree because castles are 25% cheaper". Or even "can field archers at the price of spearmen". But I digress.

I also agree that RTW's tentative to recreate the great cultural differences in warfare techniques (ie phalanx, legion, warbands, HAs, chariots etc...) was on the whole a bit of a failure, mostly because the AI used a "one size fits none" tactical decision process. i.e. it couldn't play their strengths or counterbalance their weaknesses worth a damn. It was a good idea that sadly didn't work out that well in it's application.

But I disagree on the fact that it's all because of the evil new engine, the new graphics or CA selling out and dumbing it down to a more "generic" RTS crowd.

Proof being that, as of version 1.2 and a bit of tweaking on the part of Lusted's LTC "mod" (which is less of a mod and more of a fine tuning of the vanilla game) M2TW battles, using the selfsame evil new engine, are very close in feel to STW/MTW ones, without suffering from many of their most annoying properties, like the aforementionned hour-long marathon battles against Egyptian triplestacks, with the reinforcements getting sent in peacemeal, exhausted and half-broken before they even reach your battleline. Or losing a battle because ONE enemy samurai yari wasn't dead or routed off the field before the clock runs out (no kidding. Happened to me when I ran the ol' Shoggy again while I was waiting for M2TW to be properly patched up. Needless to say I got a little... miffed at the time.)

And on a more global scale, M2TW factions are much closer to each other in terms of rosters than those of RTW, most having a common core (though wildly diverse in appearances) with a few faction-specific units that are in essence upgraded versions of said common core, emphasizing this or that tactical field for said faction - or, in STW terms, "can recruit +1 honour No-Dachi". Only, you know, with different unit models as well.

Laman

06-17-2007, 07:11

...

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% more lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

Well one thing, Lugoae in EB are not really exactly the same type of troop as the vanilla Warband, the Warband is a basic military unit like Hastati, while Lugoae is a garrison unit (like vanilla Town Watch). I can't say anything about RTR, but for EB, a better unit to compare to might be Gaeroas.

guineawolf

06-17-2007, 10:03

Noir

06-17-2007, 12:45

Originally posted by Kobal2fr
... and you conclude that thus these mods are the choice for balanced RTW SP ?

Am I being dense here and missing an obvious but unspoken logical step ?

You are indeed missing the unspoken logical step - and that is that i do not wish overloading this thread with more hiijacking and almost one man argument.

I haven't concluded anything from econ21's post - i simply bowed and repeated my own previous conclusions.

Many Thanks

Noir

guineawolf

06-17-2007, 13:13

Fine, you can have your Gaesatae if I can have my Camillan triarii. :rolleyes:

We would be in for a long night.

OK, after such a feeble offering of mine, I feel I must redeem it by providing some data:

3^Unit|Attack|Defence|Morale|Swing|Lethality
7^RTW hastati|7|14|6|25|1
7^RTW Gallic warband|7|10|4|25|0.73
7^RTW early cohort|9|17|10|25|1
7^RTR PE hastati|10|25|18|0|0.3
7^RTR PE Gallic warband|8|21|16|25|0.4
7^RTR PE early cohort|12|36|18|0|0.3
7^EB hastati|11|21|13|0|0.13
7^EB Gallic warband (Lugoae)|9|13|8|0|0.125
7^EB early cohort|12|23|15|0|0.13

If kill chances depend on the attack-defence differential, as in STW/MTW (and further assuming one point =10% change in kill chances), I make that:

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% more lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

Where do i gonna check out the lethality of RTW units???
many thanks if you would kind enough to tell me....:beam:

i want to find out which unit most cheapest to recruit as my main light infantry,i oredi use militia hoplites as my regulars in my Thrace campaign,just wanna see if egyptian Nubian spearman would be second choice?town watch ?town militia?eastern infantry?:egypt:

Kobal2fr

06-17-2007, 15:19

You are indeed missing the unspoken logical step - and that is that i do not wish overloading this thread with more hiijacking and almost one man argument.

I haven't concluded anything from econ21's post - i simply bowed and repeated my own previous conclusions.

Many Thanks

Noir

Haaaah, I see. So quoting him extensively was merely an elaborate way to dismiss anything anyone might say that goes against a preconceived conclusion.

Carry on ! :balloon2:

Aradan

06-17-2007, 17:20

Lethality is the last entry in the stat_pri and stat_sec line of a unit, in the export_descr_unit.txt.

This one:
stat_pri 8,6, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0, 0.78

i got only 1 thing to say,you guys should consider about the weapon they using,swords and spear,sound like Age of Empire system,cavalry got bonus against archers,spearmen got bonus against cavalry and swordsmen got bonus against spearmen,something like that...

As guineawolf rightly points out, there are many factors that you haven't considered in the equation. Starting from unit type (swordsman, spearman, etc) and going even to the skeleton of the model... Everything plays a part in combat.

guineawolf

06-17-2007, 20:07

Lethality is the last entry in the stat_pri and stat_sec line of a unit, in the export_descr_unit.txt.

This one:
stat_pri 8,6, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0, 0.78

As guineawolf rightly points out, there are many factors that you haven't considered in the equation. Starting from unit type (swordsman, spearman, etc) and going even to the skeleton of the model... Everything plays a part in combat.

thank you,now at least i understand why my 3000 town watch with 10 star general can't kill a unit(161men) of armored hoplites in 30minutes.Even auxilia can't take them down in 10 minutes,i think i will list auxilia as defensive units,and libyan spearmen too.What a waste of my time,still the swordarms works.Militia hoplites sure can kill faster than auxilia.....the cheapest,cost effective units and coolest unit in RTW!:2thumbsup:
thanks a lot....

Noir

06-18-2007, 07:54

Originally posted by cobal2fr
Haaaah, I see. So quoting him extensively was merely an elaborate way to dismiss anything anyone might say that goes against a preconceived conclusion.

Carry on !

Not at all, it was my way (when combined with the bow) to show appreciation to someone i extensively disagree with - and end the issue there (instead of carrying on). Being spirited is a good thing - being overspirited is bad for health though: it gives you wrinkles and other nasty stuff.

econ21

06-22-2007, 14:33

Well one thing, Lugoae in EB are not really exactly the same type of troop as the vanilla Warband, the Warband is a basic military unit like Hastati, while Lugoae is a garrison unit (like vanilla Town Watch). I can't say anything about RTR, but for EB, a better unit to compare to might be Gaeroas.

Fair enough - if we take Gaeroas, the table should be revised to be:

3^Unit|Attack|Defence|Morale|Swing|Lethality
7^RTW hastati|7|14|6|25|1
7^RTW Gallic warband|7|10|4|25|0.73
7^RTW early cohort|9|17|10|25|1
7^RTR PE hastati|10|25|18|0|0.3
7^RTR PE Gallic warband|8|21|16|25|0.4
7^RTR PE early cohort|12|36|18|0|0.3
7^EB hastati|11|21|13|0|0.13
7^EB Gallic warband (Lugoae)|9|13|8|0|0.125
7^EB Gallic warband (Gaeroas)|11|13|10|0|0.13
7^EB early cohort|12|23|15|0|0.13

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -10
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -12
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -110%

It still looks remarkably like the RTW match up.

I still maintain that by the standards of RTR and EB, Romans (as in Roman infantry) are not too powerful. I suspect is the armour stat that explains their superiority.

Guineawolf - I'm not convinced weapon type is relevant here. It's invariant across the three variants for these units. (Although EB does give the warbands javelins, which is a big help).

Aradan

06-22-2007, 14:42

Spearmen have lethality at 0.73 iirc and two-handers at 0.87... To compensate for a specific model skeleton issue both have (the spears to a greater degree), that's terribly unbalancing.

Phoenix

06-22-2007, 16:28

I think that the 2-handers do pretty good even with the 0.87 lethality they get, it's the Spears that have a lethality of 0.73 that are hopelessly underpowered.

To answer the topic's question, I felt the Romans were so overpowered that I modded Legionary Cavalry, Praetorian Cavalry, and Urban Cohorts out of my game and lowered the armor rating of Lorica Segmentata units to 10, although I raised the melee/pilum attacks of Legionary Cohorts to 10/14 since I thought that after the changes they were losing to Chosen Swordsmen too easily. First time I personally modded a game, but I'm glad I did.

Shieldmaiden

06-22-2007, 19:30

I felt the Romans were so overpowered that I modded Legionary Cavalry, Praetorian Cavalry, and Urban Cohorts out of my game

Yes, I felt a bit like that.

I'm modding and limiting recruitment of a Praetorian Cohort and Praetorian Cavalry to Italy, and an Urban Cohort to Carthage, Lugdunum, and Rome. 5th Level Barracks and Stables now give a +1 Exp to a Legionary Cohort and Legionary Cavalry.

Hopefully more historical, and better balanced IMHO :book:

guineawolf

06-24-2007, 14:44

I am running vanilla RTW at 1.5. To compare the troop qualities of the Greeks and the Romans I created a custom battle with one army of only Spartan hoplites, all upgraded veterans, and another army of Roman troops, all of which were Legionary 1st Cohorts, upgraded to the max. The Spartans were defending an unwalled minor city, sort of like Sparta in the 'Siege of Sparta' historical battle. According to their unit card description, they are 'perfect soldiers'. However, in reality, they were massacred to the last man by my endless waves of Roman legionnaires, even when I set the difficulty to the highest possible level. Even though this was not really a formal, scientific, closed-system no-variable experiment, the fact that these Roman legionnaires could basically chew up and spit out the very, very, very, very best the Greek cities can offer chills me. Does anyone else recognize this problem?
with what i have figured out recently,i got such conclusion:
your Spartans:
28 attack(since against legion=infantry,decrease 4 attack)=24 attack

6 armor
18 defense skill
5 shields
=29 defense

Legion 1st cohorts:
21 attack
25 missiles

15 armor
14 defense skill
5 shields
=34 defense

but it seems Spartans just lost becoz of their low level equipments,let see if they have same level equipments:
Spartans:
still 24 attack

but with 15 armor
18 defense skill
5 shields
=38 defense

exellent morale=14 morale
very good stamina

legion 1st cohorts:
21 attack
25 missiles

15 armor
14 defense skill
5 shields
=34 defense

good morale=10 morale
good stamina

and Spartans got exellent morale and very good stamina that let Spartans fight longer compare to others,yes Spartans are perfect soldiers if they get same protection from their armor as legion does..:2thumbsup:
Urban cohorts only got 12 morale....

Yes other factions have no chance against romans. They have the best infantry, reasonable cavalry and archers. Egypt might be the second best faction. Rest are barbarians or only phalanx nations. In that perspective RTW is unbalanced:thumbsdown: . In M2TW theres no supreme faction.
They have the best equip and best train infantry......