Request for assistance and a commentary on Rome Total War.

My main issue - I've lost my videos. No start up video on Rome Total War or Barbarian Invasion and the "dead faction" and senate videos have gone too. I've tried repairing the programme from the disc but no luck. Since I'm only five cities away from winning the game (including Rome itself which may have a few unpleasant surprises lurking) I want the game in full working order.

General commentary.

It's a great game. The animation and strategy elements are superb and the Senate is a brilliant means to suggesting and rewarding progress. The combination of strategic and tactical goals means that it equates to having the best table top wargaming set ever in your computer ! The battles to take cities (now I've worked how how the towers work - d'oh!) are particularly well thought out.

A few gripes though: -

1) It takes a MASSIVE amount of time to complete the game. I've fought about 350 battles so far. Take an average of 15 minutes per battle - a few being instant retreats - and that is over seventy five hours !
2) This would be reduced if there was a "surrender without a fight" option where the enemy was completely outclassed. About a quarter of the battles I've fought have been mopping up actions against rebels where I've had to fight the battle myself just to minimise casualties. If the computer opponent is outclassed by more than 3 to 1 and can't retreat having an automatic victory would make the game less frustrating.
3) Why does the computer use its AI to provide my opponents with Praetorian and Urban cohorts and heavy chariots and then me (as governor for towns and cities without a family member) with endless light auxilia and flaming pigs ? I don't think the limitation that you need a family member to manage towns and cities is necessary. If you made all family members generally beneficial to a settlement then the need to have a family member in each settlement is proportionate. There have been a couple of bottlenecks in the game when my expansion was stymied because I lacked the family members to manage settlements properly - even without losing a single one to battle or assasination. This will also mean that where family members were limited they'd be saved for the larger cities where they could be of most use - which is logical.
4) The computer is very tactically naive. Once I have a large army consisting of about three or four archer units, four cavalry units and six legions I've found that I can beat with early legionarys a force containing almost nothing but urban cohorts about twice my size (two large enemy armies in a single battle). I know I can up the difficulty level or start out with a non - Roman faction but I'd prefer a little more cunning from the computer which can very easily be lured into exposing flanks and rears for my cavalry to exploit. I would admit however that the Romans are a bugger to beat with any non Roman force and that I haven't yet mastered Barbarian Invasion at all - I haven't tried the Romans yet but whatever non Roman faction I have gets swamped by Romans or hordes in the first three years. This is particularly hard on the Franks who are just staring out with a few hundred spearmen when at the end of turn two a horde of three thousand Huns descends on ther lands - and that's supposed to be easy.
5) The terrain effects appear almost invisible in Rome Total War. Other than possibly very steep hills although terrain effects may have some effect they appear marginal at best. In particular heavy chariots seem virtually unaffected by moving through forests.
6) (This may have been fixed by a patch)) - Artillery which is of limited use anyway is made particularly worthless because it can neither be mounted on walls (which would be historically where they would have gone) and can't be moved outside the city from inside during a sally.
7) Fatigue needs to have a larger factor, particularly where fighting. One of the reasons my tactics can be so successful is that units can fight repeatedly without tiring significantly. More severe factors for fatigue from fighting would be more realistic and create better tactical planning. In particular it would reduce the effectiveness of my flanking cavalry serially hitting the rear of each attacking opponent until they break and then going straight down the line until the enemy army routs.
8) I suppose everyone knows that one you have stone walls even an overwhelming enemy force's siege can be lifted by repeated sallys using your archers and cavalry to cause casualties. Each archer unit can inflict about 100 casualities (more than a unit) if it fires its full allocation and cavalry can pick off any retreating stragglers (particularly artillery) as the computer races to the nearest hill if you mount a sally. A force twice your strength could be reduced to a 50/50 propostion in two sallys using this tactic with minimal risk of casualties to your own forces.

Assistance and comments welcomed.

Sorceror.

For your technical issuse. I would try uninstalling then reinstalling. If you really want to keep one of your saved games you can go to your rome total war folder. Find the saves folder and your saved game will be in there. Just move it to another folder.

On your game issues I will comment on one of them. At the beginning, when you are selecting your faction you have the option to manage all settlements. It is on the left side of the screen. Doing this allows you to manage your settlements without having a governor present.

How rude of me. I almost forgot to welcome you to the org. Welcome to the org man.

Welcome to the Org, Sorcerer!

How about the videos? Are they just gone or did they turn black? I once had the problem of having black space where the video should be. The game is not the youngest anymore and you need to have Windows Media Player 9 or earlier. Later versions don't support the videos.
You can delete the updates in system configurations/software. Check the show updates option on top to see the updates. You'll probably have to delete twice as I guess you have version 11.

I'm not sure but I think you can switch to "manage all settlements by yourself" during a running campaign via game options. Or you can go to the administration scroll of each settlement and switch it manually.

Many of the game's weaknesses you wrote about are immanent flaws of computer games, that will always be there. That goes for the AI especially. A chess program does a good job because there's a finite number of possibilities and a clear standard to what is good and bad. So the chess engine can always find the best move. In RTW, there's just too much input from too many factors, the values of the variables are ever-changing and most situations aren't good or bad but can be both actually. If you could create a new AI that actually has creative thinking and can make up own plans... Well, you'd need a self-conscious AI that's aware of its own situation and that of others... hmm, better not...

I like BI because you actually have to make up a strategy for your faction, in vanilla you can just outproduce the other parties. In BI, things are more balanced and you have to consider ever single move. Trying new strategies is one of the points that let you play the game again and again.

It's version 9 and above which are needed to play the videos, not version 9 or below. If that were the case all XP SP2 (automatically installs Media Player 10) and Vista (automatically installs Media Player 11) users would be a bit stuck.

Firstly, you can try a simple solution - ensure that all files which need to be associated with Windows Media Player are associated. This will only work in Windows XP SP2 or later. Sadly its ages since I configured a copy of Windows XP SP1 or below, so I can't really help you there. My apologies ~:(

Firstly go into Control Panel.

If you are using the modern view switch it to the classic view on the side panel to the left. I don't quite remember how to get to it through the newer method. Sorry ~:(

Then select "Program Access and Defaults" or, in Windows Vista, "Default Programs" and then "Set Default Programs".

Select Windows Media Player and ensure it has all its defaults set for it.

Try playing R:TW movies again.

If that doesn't work you may want to try installing the latest version of Windows Media Player:

If you are using Windows XP (with Service Pack 2 or later), you may wish to consider downloading and installing Windows Media Player 11 from the official site here, hopefully fixing any corruptions/problems which may exist in your current installation.

If you are using Windows XP (with Service Pack 1 or earlier) you may wish to consider installing Windows Media Player 10 from here.

If you are using Vista there isn't really much you can do on this front - sadly Windows Media Player 11 comes integrated with the OS, so cannot be easily re-installed.

Good luck ~:)

Hullo Sorceror, and welcome to the Org!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sorceror

It's a great game. The animation and strategy elements are superb and the Senate is a brilliant means to suggesting and rewarding progress. The combination of strategic and tactical goals means that it equates to having the best table top wargaming set ever in your computer ! The battles to take cities (now I've worked how how the towers work - d'oh!) are particularly well thought out.

---

:yes: I definitely agree. I've never played a game quite like it, before or since. More than two years after I bought the game, I'm still playing it regularly (or, at least, as much as I can).

Quote:

---

1) It takes a MASSIVE amount of time to complete the game. I've fought about 350 battles so far. Take an average of 15 minutes per battle - a few being instant retreats - and that is over seventy five hours !

---

Very true, but IMO that is a plus to the game, not a minus. But you can opt to play a shorter campaign-- there's the 'short campaign' option, which gives you the task of destroying certain factions that were historically hostile with it. I find that a short campaign takes a lot less time-- I can finish one over two weekends if I play earnestly. Plus, you can still go on to complete the full campaign should you be inspired to do so, after you complete the short camapign objectives.

Quote:

---

3) Why does the computer use its AI to provide my opponents with Praetorian and Urban cohorts and heavy chariots and then me (as governor for towns and cities without a family member) with endless light auxilia and flaming pigs ? I don't think the limitation that you need a family member to manage towns and cities is necessary. If you made all family members generally beneficial to a settlement then the need to have a family member in each settlement is proportionate. There have been a couple of bottlenecks in the game when my expansion was stymied because I lacked the family members to manage settlements properly - even without losing a single one to battle or assasination. This will also mean that where family members were limited they'd be saved for the larger cities where they could be of most use - which is logical.

---

As Telys said, you can check the "Manage All Settlements" box in the faction selection screen. That way you don't neccesarily have to have family members in your settlements to administrate them. If you don't like micromanagement and you would still like the AI to manage for you, you can still enable the AI to do that. There's even a seperate buildings and unit recruitment AI management-- if you don't trust the AI to build suitable troops for you, just enable the buildings one only, and manage the troop recruitment yourself.

Quote:

---

4) The computer is very tactically naive. Once I have a large army consisting of about three or four archer units, four cavalry units and six legions I've found that I can beat with early legionarys a force containing almost nothing but urban cohorts about twice my size (two large enemy armies in a single battle). I know I can up the difficulty level or start out with a non - Roman faction but I'd prefer a little more cunning from the computer which can very easily be lured into exposing flanks and rears for my cavalry to exploit. I would admit however that the Romans are a bugger to beat with any non Roman force

---

Yes, unfortunately, this is one of the main drawbacks to the game, and one that makes the game considerably less challenging than they should have been. The AI are pretty inept both on the tactical map and on the strategic one. I think you can download new unit formations somewhere here though, called the "Darth formation mad" or something similar. (Actually, I've been wanting to try that too. Anyone have a link? :sweatdrop: )

Quote:

---

I haven't yet mastered Barbarian Invasion at all - I haven't tried the Romans yet but whatever non Roman faction I have gets swamped by Romans or hordes in the first three years. This is particularly hard on the Franks who are just staring out with a few hundred spearmen when at the end of turn two a horde of three thousand Huns descends on ther lands - and that's supposed to be easy.

---

The Franks do have the ability to horde themselves. For my part, the Franks hold a special place in my heart-- they're the very first faction I ever played with to the end, BI or RTW (I got both at once and played BI first). If you think the Franks are getting swamped, you should try the Western Empire. :laugh4: Everyone is gunning for you, and you have to defend yourself with inferior troops and your empire riven by religious unrest and very possibly civil war.

Quote:

---

5) The terrain effects appear almost invisible in Rome Total War. Other than possibly very steep hills although terrain effects may have some effect they appear marginal at best. In particular heavy chariots seem virtually unaffected by moving through forests.

---

I do find that even slightly higher ground does give an advantage, whether to melee or missile combat. This is especially true for the latter-- in a, say, horse archer duel where everything else is equal, the unit that takes the higher ground tend to outgun their opponents by a significant margin. Troops in general also appear to tire more quickly in deserts.

Quote:

---

6) (This may have been fixed by a patch)) - Artillery which is of limited use anyway is made particularly worthless because it can neither be mounted on walls (which would be historically where they would have gone) and can't be moved outside the city from inside during a sally.

---

Very true. I've never found artillery to be of anything better than limited use, and it slows down armies. But the ability to assault a settlement the turn you besiege it is pretty neat, so I do use them once in a while in the late game.

Quote:

---

7) Fatigue needs to have a larger factor, particularly where fighting. One of the reasons my tactics can be so successful is that units can fight repeatedly without tiring significantly. More severe factors for fatigue from fighting would be more realistic and create better tactical planning. In particular it would reduce the effectiveness of my flanking cavalry serially hitting the rear of each attacking opponent until they break and then going straight down the line until the enemy army routs.

---

That I disagree with you. I find that fatigue is a large limiting factor in my battles-- I don't use the cavalry repeat charge too often, because even cavalry tires too fast. I tend to use my cavalry to form local superiority of numbers at critical moments instead-- i.e. I prize their maneuverability more than their charge bonus.

You can edit the fatigue settings though-- I know that some players disable or greatly reduce fatigue (because they think that the already-inept tactical AI does not manage fatigue well, and are thus disadvantaged by this), I'm sure it's possible to do the opposite as well.

Quote:

---

8) I suppose everyone knows that one you have stone walls even an overwhelming enemy force's siege can be lifted by repeated sallys using your archers and cavalry to cause casualties. Each archer unit can inflict about 100 casualities (more than a unit) if it fires its full allocation and cavalry can pick off any retreating stragglers (particularly artillery) as the computer races to the nearest hill if you mount a sally. A force twice your strength could be reduced to a 50/50 propostion in two sallys using this tactic with minimal risk of casualties to your own forces.

---

I believe you are playing an earlier version of RTW-- later patches remove this exploit by limiting the number of sallies per turn to one. The latest patch, v1.5, can be found here (and here for BI), or, if you have a problem with the installer(s), try the manual patches here (RTW) and here (BI).


Hope I helped. Welcome again to the Org! ~:)

First thank you all for your kind welcomes and helpful advice.

I suspect that it might be a Windows media player problem because the screen does go black for the Senate and the starting videos (which are FANTASTIC !) just don't load. I'll cut and paste and try some of the suggestions. Is there a victory video BTW ? The issue isn't as pressing if there isn't.

I'll certainly tick the manage all settlements myself option at the start of the game in future. The family members are usually still valuable because of beneficial effects on public order and production (usually overall) and the benefit in smaller settlements of having quality units that regenerate on their own.

The sally issue was at the rate of one a turn. Your armies do start to get attrition the longer the siege lasts (and this is the advantage of those epic stone walls - attrition is FAR slower) but two sallys can devastate an opposing army. Interestingly the computer isn't always consistent about this and sometimes will lurk at the entrance ready to massacre your emerging troops. Getting hammered by archers appears to be the primary incentive for them to head for the hills.

I wonder if the designers regularly log onto these sites ? For games designers these must be the most valuable focus groups ever and they are all free.

Interestingly I think the comments expose the great thrust of demand in computer technology. It is no longer primarily demands for improved graphics or upgraded sound. Instead it is the computer's ability to "think" - to create opponents with realistic responses that provoke the greatest interest.

As a side issue the huge online games ("EverQuest", "World of Warcraft") must now be anthropologists' and psychiatrists' playgrounds. The issue of cheating to achieve victory. The phenomenon where some teams online effectively became outlaws - hunting down and killing for their goods fellow players rather than the monsters. I haven't yet played much online games but my experiences with Hearts has been interesting. In at least two thirds of games a player who has done badly in their first two hands will drop out to be replaced by the computer. Anonymity restores the right to sulk if you don't win. Ironically it is not unknown for the computer to then win the game. So the problem with "real" opponents that computers do not yet, thankfully, emulate is that they cheat and sulk.

A television show in the UK effectively ran just by playing single battles on Rome Total War with a team of three ordinary persons or celebrities against the computer. I think it probably folded when someone realised that all they were doing WAS playing Total War. I think the shelf life could have been greatly extended had the format been subtly shifted to have two teams of human players in separate rooms facing off against each other. People take games against theitr fellow humans farr more seriously.

Anyway my reception here shows that not all online gaming is corruption and ill manners. Thank you once again.

Strength and honour my friends, strength and honour.


Sorceror.

There are a number of mods that slow down a battle by lowering the lethality of weapons. Men kill each other slower, meaning fatigue can really show itself. Fighting just a little while will drop it to winded and tired.

You should be joyful that a game such as this is so long! Rarely can you find a game that you only spend a few bucks on but has such high replayability. Also, don't feel compelled to finish your faction's victory conditions, go try out a new campaign with a different faction. Heck, I never even won a game before.

You're right about forests not having any sort of effect on chariots, but there's also a hidden trait associated with losing combat effectiveness in said battles. Mounted troops lose either attack or defense, I'm not sure, when fighting in forests. Certainly you'll see that archers simply hit trees with their arrows rather than the enemy fifty meters away. So there is something to be said for forests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

It's version 9 and above which are needed to play the videos, not version 9 or below. If that were the case all XP SP2 (automatically installs Media Player 10) and Vista (automatically installs Media Player 11) users would be a bit stuck.

---

At least for me and some other people at this forum whom I got the info from, anything above version 9 doesn't work. Maybe that's something to do with my system but even after having done what Omanes said, I still got the "dark night in the senate building" video.:bow:

There is a victory video, but it's only a short sequence in a small video. Some people may find it disappointing but that doesn't really matter as the game itself is rewarding enough.

That's odd..... my Windows Media Player was v10 when I first installed the game, and has since been upgraded to a v11. I've never had any problems with the videos.

I agree with the surrendering option unless the army was led by someone with a "brave" trait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave

I agree with the surrendering option unless the army was led by someone with a "brave" trait.

---

That probably would be a useful feature, but what should happen if this is chosen is a different matter. Would the enemy have the ability to wipe out the entire force or (possibly) capture them? Could they let them go and, if they could, why would it be sensible to do so? To keep it balanced, a lot of thought would have to go into it and the varying options' pros and cons.

~:)

M2TW depicts it well, I think, with the option to ransom, release or execute enemies. This way, it's more realistic-- that all those routing troops would surrender rather than being run down.

On the other hand though Quirinus, ransoming captives was common practice during the Medieval period. AFAIK it wasn't particularly prevalent in the RTW time period.

The Romans tended to enslave defeated armies (or massacre them if they were really annoyed). The Parthians were said to have sent the Romans captured at Carrhae to their eastern border to fight off nomads. The Gallic, Britannic, and Germanic tribes tended not to take prisoners (at least from the Romans) and would just massacre any soldiers refusing to fight.

I just don't see it as a historically accurate option. Although on the other hand I'm sure it did occur just not often (or in war).


Welcome Sorceror!

I know the show you mean, Time Commanders I think it was called? I haven't seen it since I left the UK four years ago. I agree with you that people tend to take games against human players more seriously but the idea was that the opposition army would do what the historical commander actually did, and to see if modern people could deal with it. I remember that one group actually won Leuctra in the same manner as the Thebans really did, I was impressed!

But enough of that, to your observations, mostly already answered, but too much is better than not enough so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sorceror

1) It takes a MASSIVE amount of time to complete the game. I've fought about 350 battles so far. Take an average of 15 minutes per battle - a few being instant retreats - and that is over seventy five hours !

---

Well thats the point. I enjoy the fact that it takes time to finish properly, it means more game time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sorceror

3) Why does the computer use its AI to provide my opponents with Praetorian and Urban cohorts and heavy chariots and then me (as governor for towns and cities without a family member) with endless light auxilia and flaming pigs ? I don't think the limitation that you need a family member to manage towns and cities is necessary. If you made all family members generally beneficial to a settlement then the need to have a family member in each settlement is proportionate. There have been a couple of bottlenecks in the game when my expansion was stymied because I lacked the family members to manage settlements properly - even without losing a single one to battle or assasination. This will also mean that where family members were limited they'd be saved for the larger cities where they could be of most use - which is logical.

---

As mentioned you need to check the manage all settlements option before you start. It adds a whole new aspect to the game as then you have to consider economics, happiness, and your military prospects in a much greater detail than simply gathering your armies and crushing your enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sorceror

4) The computer is very tactically naive. Once I have a large army consisting of about three or four archer units, four cavalry units and six legions I've found that I can beat with early legionarys a force containing almost nothing but urban cohorts about twice my size (two large enemy armies in a single battle). I know I can up the difficulty level or start out with a non - Roman faction but I'd prefer a little more cunning from the computer which can very easily be lured into exposing flanks and rears for my cavalry to exploit.

---

AI... :wall:

...and yes the Romans are comparitively overpowered, if you want to massacre them (but have a challenge for the rest of the game) go as the Kingdom of the Parthians. Over 2 Millienia since Carrhae and the Romans still can't deal with horse archers! :laugh4:

As to the surrender thing, I don't think its such a good idea, particularly with rebels. All a rebel could expect was torture or more likely execution. Much better to die fighting (where you may die instantly and with little pain) than to be impaled or crucified. Hence they would fight even if only for a short time. Also I can't see the Gauls or Germans backing down, just because they been outmanouvered, or accepting a surrender. During Caesars Gallic Wars one of his legions under Sabinus and Cotta was surrounded whilst retreating. As there was no chance in surviving, Sabinus attempted to surrender, and was beheaded for his pains, the legion (the 13th I think) was annihilated. The only thing I could think of would be that during the civil war if one army was completely outclassed they could be offered the chance to switch sides. But that would be complicated I'm guessing.

Fatigue can be a factor if you fight for long enough/ manouever around a bit, which when your massively outnumbered you have to.
I'd also contend that terrain, particularly hills are useful.Give me a steep hill a couple of semi-decent phalanxes and some cretan archers and I'd hold it through armageddon!!!
Forests are useful too. Hide some reinforcements in there and when your first line is in full retreat, the enemy will stumble, disorganised, into your second line, which gives them a morale penalty as well as allowing your first line to rally and rejoin the fray.

Anyways thats all for now,

Curio

"2) This would be reduced if there was a "surrender without a fight" option where the enemy was completely outclassed. About a quarter of the battles I've fought have been mopping up actions against rebels where I've had to fight the battle myself just to minimise casualties. If the computer opponent is outclassed by more than 3 to 1 and can't retreat having an automatic victory would make the game less frustrating."

I'd suggest just building up a rebel hunting force of generally easy to replace but decent quality units - Hastati and Equites pre-Marius, for example, and just autoresolve. Yeah, you'll take casualties, but with an army like that, casualties are easy to replace. No need to take Triarii or Arcani or First Cohorts into a battle against rebels when all you want to do is make them go away. Now, if you want to give a weak general a chance to train up, or get a chance of a Man of the Hour, or even decorate your map with a Heroic Victory marker, this wouldn't work, but for just making those annoying rebels go away, it's fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korlon

You should be joyful that a game such as this is so long! Rarely can you find a game that you only spend a few bucks on but has such high replayability....

You're right about forests not having any sort of effect on chariots, but there's also a hidden trait associated with losing combat effectiveness in said battles. Mounted troops lose either attack or defense, I'm not sure, when fighting in forests. Certainly you'll see that archers simply hit trees with their arrows rather than the enemy fifty meters away. So there is something to be said for forests.

---

Well said!!

On 2nd point, I'm surprised. I had this battle, where I had Town Watch re-inforcements near a wood, who were in danger of attack by Britons, before my main force could get over the hill. The rub was, they were in great spot to ambush routing Briton troops, fleeing the field as my army took effect. So I didn't want to withdraw them immediately but try to learn how to use them.

It was one of those battles, which was interesting enough to repeat from save game feature.

To my surprise, grouping the TW and running them into the wood at maps edge, turned the normally timid into heroes! Before battle engaged, the Britons attacked them with Peasants, who got seen off, and then sent in a chariot unit.

To my surprise, the battle squares held in the wood, and actually routed the "feared" chariot unit. I'm sure Hastati would generally have failed out in the open.

My theory was that the wood, was preventing proper maneuver, so the desperate TW were able to hold out long enough, and inflict enough kills to see off the chariots.

But now reading this, unless it was due to a reduced attack/defense bonus (implying Wood does effect things), I'm short of an explanation for this heroic feat by the militiamen.

Perhaps the grouping, meant that when the "General" was being attacked, the 2nd unit in hiding effectively ambushed the chariots, on flank or rear, enabling them to see off the other units whilst losing about 25% of their force in total.

As they then went unmolested and were able to bag routers later on, it was amusing seeing the stats and seeing their amazingly good kill ratio!

Most of my battles are 'mopping up actions', like the one i just fought, i was outnumbered, but i had managed to bring in some of my generals from other towns to fight off the gauls light cavalry, as soon as the light cavalry flankers died, the light infantry of mine decimated their light infantry, and pretty soon the battle was just a 'mopping up action' The battles do take a while, i would be suprised if i had taken 30 hours kicking the AI's backside, its worth it in the end...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

I know the show you mean, Time Commanders I think it was called? I haven't seen it since I left the UK four years ago. I agree with you that people tend to take games against human players more seriously but the idea was that the opposition army would do what the historical commander actually did, and to see if modern people could deal with it. I remember that one group actually won Leuctra in the same manner as the Thebans really did, I was impressed!

---

I enjoyed that show, but frankly I'm wondering how they steered the Battle AI into effectiveness. There must be some kind of scripting or plan, used by historical battles, which guides it to purposeful behaviour.

In the show, I think the Human players, were rather handicapped by the social exploration aspects, with layers of command.

Frequently I suspect the battle is going in double realtime, nevermind the speed setting, and I have very little time to react to events, when things go somewhat wrong on contact.

Failing to notice all that's going on, over whole force is my main failing, and was the contestants main issue to. There's something so compelling about the action, that's it's all too easy to get sucked in, with lots of cavalry maneuvers and neglect some units left out on flank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

...and yes the Romans are comparitively overpowered, if you want to massacre them (but have a challenge for the rest of the game) go as the Kingdom of the Parthians. Over 2 Millienia since Carrhae and the Romans still can't deal with horse archers! :laugh4:

---

Lets face it Heavy Infantry sucks against mobile Light Cavalry missile units with space to maneuver. They have no way of engaging, and are just going to suffer a death of 1,000 cuts, whether it's a Phalanx or Roman Legionary units.

Not sure about Romans being over-powered on a Unit basis, after all they did win battles when out-numbered 4:1 against barbarians, and even won somewhat outnumbered versus Macedonian Phalanxes (25,000 - 20,000 plus similar cavalry and auxilary missile units. A Roman deficiency in cavalry was made up by having a small screening force of Hannibal style Elephants (source is "Warfare in the Ancient World - Carey, Allfree & Cairns). The RTW strategic AI just doesn't consolidate it's armies, nor choose it's ground well enough, to give it's forces a chance.

In the "Bashing Rome" thread someone explains the trick and how to sack Rome, as the Gauls with fairly low level units, but lots of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

I enjoyed that show, but frankly I'm wondering how they steered the Battle AI into effectiveness. There must be some kind of scripting or plan, used by historical battles, which guides it to purposeful behaviour.

---

I wondered that to. I think they scripted it to follow the historical commanders plan or overall strategy but I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

Lets face it Heavy Infantry sucks against mobile Light Cavalry missile units with space to maneuver. They have no way of engaging, and are just going to suffer a death of 1,000 cuts, whether it's a Phalanx or Roman Legionary units.

---

Its an exploit really as the AI never has enough cavalry to engage your archers effectively. One time, with a single stack, two generals one lot of cataphracts, a few archers and slingers and the rest persian cavalry or horse archers, I won 7 heroic victorys in 3 turns, each against a full stack or more of roman troops. That was when I decided to start a new campaign.

On the point of the Romans being overpowered, its not a complaint as historically they did expand, as they do in RTW. However when you bear in mind that all AI battles are auto-calced and the Romans tend to win a very large ratio of battles... :yes:

The weakness of light cavalry, horse archers and skirmishers is, their weakness when out of missiles.

Although the heavy infantry is unable to catch up, the enemy usually have to engage eventually, resulting in dramatic losses for them if the infantry survives. Heavy Infantry are actually the best at surviving missile attacks due to the higher strength of their armour and shielding, so with them, it is often better to just sit there and absorb.

Light units can chase, and, in some cases, can catch up or cause some damage of their own, but they frequently take more damage to their men in the process than a heavier unit.

~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

Its an exploit really as the AI never has enough cavalry to engage your archers effectively. One time, with a single stack, two generals one lot of cataphracts, a few archers and slingers and the rest persian cavalry or horse archers, I won 7 heroic victorys in 3 turns, each against a full stack or more of roman troops. That was when I decided to start a new campaign.

---

No exploit, historically take a look at the Battle_of_Carrhae one of those great examples of rushing into a campaign with the wrong type of forces for opponents & terrain. The Roman HI army outnumbered the missile cavalry opponents + cataphract heavy cavalry, but could not break out, and their last hope was dashed when a camel train arrived re-supplying the victors with arrows. 45,000 Romans surrounded and annihilated by about 10,000 mobile troops suited to the terrain.

This is an issue with the AI playing strength, if it doesn't learn how to tune it's force composition. Having devestated several phalanx heavy stacks once in a sequence of light infantry + cavalry missile v HI battles, it did seem not to produce any more of the slowest types, but try new ones, but that may have been coincidental due to higher quality units becoming available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

The weakness of light cavalry, horse archers and skirmishers is, their weakness when out of missiles.

Although the heavy infantry is unable to catch up, the enemy usually have to engage eventually, resulting in dramatic losses for them if the infantry survives.

---

No having inflicted morale sapping casualties on the HI, whilst taking none in return, the light forces simply withdraw and re-engage once re-supplied. If you're faster, you can rendez-vous with supply train.

Unfortunately RTW doesn't feature supply trains, or siege trains, so much of the campaign strategy is lost, and even civilised stacks can cut through enemy territory, and they even have magical access to new funds, from home, rather than just what they can capture.

The Heavy infantry is however great at holding ground, breaching and standing up to Heavy Cavalry designed for Shock combat ie melee. Philip II, Alexander and the Romans succeeded in the end because they tended to raise combined arms armies. Native Italians were specialising in HI, but those Auxiliaries and mercenaries were vital components.

Where ground is not important, and there's space to make strategic withdrawals, then Missile Cavalry will be the Dominant force. This is why the Huns on the steps were mounted archers, but converted to more infantry based forces when operating in Western Europe.


For example had 3 Spartan Hoplites attack a rag tag band of weakened stack, 15 2nd rate Generals HC, 45 Equites, 55 Veteran Hastati, 60 Illyrian Missile men, and 80 Velites. The Spartans sallied forth, I'd made a slight error in force division and expected the other stack to be the one fighting the main battle, and couldn't re-inforce with mercenaries, nor undo the move in time. So accepted the fight with pre-battle stats gave it as 2:3 against. The Spartan Hopplites were double-cheveron and had a sky high attack factor of 26 or something.

All the Spartan units got routed, and only 4 men survived due to my unwilligness to risk further casualties, with the General developing a pacifist streak refusing to spear routers. This victory despite a major cock-up in my part early on mis-handling the Equites and letting them get caught by Sarrissas after only 1 charge into rear routing Spartan unit. Frustrating battle for Fire & Maneuver, as the battle seemed to be running double-speed and due to my Generals status, all command responses were much more laggedly than I'm used to.

It's not just german spearmen phalanxes and low quality hoplites that are dead meat, it's also all those elit Phalanx units, which look great on paper.


Most of the casualties my force suffered were done by fire from walls and the gates where the game did a magical pause on my troops to have boiling oil poured on them, without hitting any of the routers. As the Equites routed, early rather than get killed.

Those were decent phalanx units, and it was only control issues which led to me taking significant losses. And not having any baggage, with additional missiles.


Armour and concentrated force is sexy, but most players posting in forum, seem to underestimate the deceptive strenghth of mobile battle strategies, except for those fans of Horse Archers, who don't worry overly about the Victory/Defeat stats.

Why the game doesn't have an "Indecisive", in cases where the field is held, at cost of significant casualties and little damage inflicted on attackers I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

No exploit, historically take a look at the Battle_of_Carrhae one of those great examples of rushing into a campaign with the wrong type of forces for opponents & terrain. The Roman HI army outnumbered the missile cavalry opponents + cataphract heavy cavalry, but could not break out, and their last hope was dashed when a camel train arrived re-supplying the victors with arrows. 45,000 Romans surrounded and annihilated by about 10,000 mobile troops suited to the terrain.

This is an issue with the AI playing strength, if it doesn't learn how to tune it's force composition. Having devestated several phalanx heavy stacks once in a sequence of light infantry + cavalry missile v HI battles, it did seem not to produce any more of the slowest types, but try new ones, but that may have been coincidental due to higher quality units becoming available.

---

Carrhae, however was a rarity at the time. The Pahlavi Surenas' use of the camel train was innovative for the time. The constant resupplying led to a huge number of arrows being fired at the romans, and despite their discipline and training there was nothing they could do against this hail of arrows. Publius Crassus led the few units of gallic cavalry to drive off the archers and was pounced on by a superior force of cataphracts I believe. Which left the Romans without a way to drive off the horse archers. AFAIK that was the first battle of Carrhae, during the night the Romans retreated to the samll fort at Carrhae itself, and then opted to withdraw to Syria, and were betrayed by a Parthian spy. Not all the Romans died though. About two legions managed to make it back to Syria, where Gaius Cassius used them to fight off a Parthian invasion, and another 10,000 were taken prisoner and sent to protect the frontiers of the Kingdom of the Parthians.

...I digress.

As far as I'm concerned it was becoming far too easy, and as such I considered it an exploit, because the stubborn Scipii just kept retraining new legions to be massacred by my impossibly small force led by my ten star expert cavalry commander, expert defender, good attacker, uber general (who started off with one star).

On your other point though, I have noticed that given enough time the Ai will adapt, (above I was just getting bored), The Seleucid Empire at first, didn't rate me and sent small force of varying quality, which failed, so they began sending large force consisting of phalanxes, which again failed. In the final stages of the war (actually the fourth in a long series of them after they betrayed our alliance against Egypt), they began to use lots of chariots (which to begin with were actually really effective against me, I soon learnt) and Elephants, which my mostly HA armies couldn't deal with. Luckily I soon managed to take Antioch by deceit, and no more Elephant came at me. Again though this could just be down to more troop types coming available.

It is possible to simulate returning to your baggage train by withdrawing when out of missiles, and reattacking next turn. It is a viable strategy, but a long one. And I like the idea of an 'indecisive' result, makes it more fair, the ostensible victor would have an untenable position and have to retreat like the loser, perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

Carrhae, however was a rarity at the time. The Pahlavi Surenas' use of the camel train was innovative for the time. The constant resupplying led to a huge number of arrows being fired at the romans, and despite their discipline and training there was nothing they could do against this hail of arrows. Publius Crassus led the few units of gallic cavalry to drive off the archers and was pounced on by a superior force of cataphracts I believe. Which left the Romans without a way to drive off the horse archers.

---

The point is that the HI though absolutely superior force in Shock close-combat, could not inflict any damage, because their missiles pila, and the javellins were out-ranged and outclassed by the bow. Marching in any direction to attack appeared pointless as the HA simply retreated to a distance and then re-engaged.

The "few units" were 4,000 Cavalry detachment trying to break out of the encirclement. The Cataphracts were essential for repulsing break out forces of the encirclement. But for the organised breakout by Roman horse they waited to attack when they were absolutely isolated from the main Roman force. Mauling the Roman Cavalry, allowed them also to be encircled and destoyed slowly by the light missile men.

Quote:

---

AFAIK that was the first battle of Carrhae, during the night the Romans retreated to the samll fort at Carrhae itself, and then opted to withdraw to Syria, and were betrayed by a Parthian spy.

---

Crassus took the bad advice of a betraying ally, who encouraged a swift attack, and took a short cut through the desert plain, rather than keep to the river against the advice of his experienced commanders, where the army would stay in touch with the supply lines. Initially the skirmishers retreated and fell back, drawing the inevitably "victorious" overwhelming army on and deeper into peril. The battle was decisive, Crassus's son was killed leading the breakout attempt, and Crassus's army was effectively destroyed entirely.

Whilst it may not be a typical battle, it's a good example of why bad strategy by over confident incompetent commanders, who thought "Legions good, I be victorious" and undertook an unauthorised campaign for their own selfish political reasons.

Quote:

---

As far as I'm concerned it was becoming far too easy, and as such I considered it an exploit, because the stubborn Scipii just kept retraining new legions to be massacred by my impossibly small force led by my ten star expert cavalry commander, expert defender, good attacker, uber general (who started off with one star).

---

Exactly... The Romans have to use money to purchase more suitable cavalry forces, and re-balance their army, so it has the right combined arms; or fallback to ground more suitable for it's forces. If the AI fails to do that, then it's a playing strength issue.

Quote:

---

On your other point though, I have noticed that given enough time the Ai will adapt, (above I was just getting bored), The Seleucid Empire at first, didn't rate me and sent small force of varying quality, which failed, so they began sending large force consisting of phalanxes, which again failed. In the final stages of the war (actually the fourth in a long series of them after they betrayed our alliance against Egypt), they began to use lots of chariots (which to begin with were actually really effective against me, I soon learnt)

---

Interesting. Against Barbs, the settlement loss rate is so fast it's hard to see that effect. When I suspected it, I may have been mopping up "old" stacks, produced earlier in the game, which were unbalanced with spammed Phalanx spearmen.

Quote:

---

withdrawing when out of missiles, and reattacking next turn. It is a viable strategy, but a long one. And I like the idea of an 'indecisive' result, makes it more fair, the ostensible victor would have an untenable position and have to retreat like the loser, perhaps?

---

Need space to fall back. Of course the AI probably wouldn't realise it needed to fall back, on phyrric victories. But would leave it's mauled army exposed to a counter-attack.

What it really would do is set expansion limits, as it becomes economically unviable