Where's Yasser Arafat? [My Roman Campaign in the Levant]

After playing this campaign for like 6 months human time my Romani have eradicated the hated Ptolemaioi from Northern Africa and I'm attacking the Holy Land with 6 legions. Ptolemaioi attack furiously with their phalanx formations but A.I. while aggressive, sucks at force concentration and sends individual armies against me. I operate in a huge corps of 6 legions that stay together and surround the enemy before the main battle. You see, I've recently upgraded my video card so I can actually command a real-time battle with all those 5 legions running around on the screen. There may be a bit of a slowdown sometimes but it' minor.

Now, once you enter the battle screen and the reinforcements appear on the edges of the map the key to success is not the advance your formation too early. Give the A.I. reinforcements time to walk up to the enemy and engage. Only then I order my troops to run like hell into the melee. Very few enemies can take it.

I have another corps in Western Europe that's finishing off the Sweboz barbarian faction right now. I've left the Aedui alone on 3 tiny islands of land in today's France because they've been behaving and not breaking the alliance with me.

The year is 130 BC, 500+ battles won, I have all the latifundia in Italy but no Marian reforms yet.

My system specs:

Pentium 4 3.4 GHz
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM @ 400MHz
512 MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Windows XP Home Edition
Sound Blaster Live!

https://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k...onholyland.jpg

Battles are easy enough as it is, without grouping stacks together like that. Sounds boring.

Why don't you have Polybian, or even post-Marian troops so late in the game? Did you activate the script?

Did you activate the script?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Did you activate the script?

---

I guess so, judging by the size of Baktria. Without financial help, they'd never be able to get that big.

Yeah, but somehow I think something is off..

Could it perhaps be the fact that he still uses Camillan legions in 130 BCE?

I don't understand your map, army, question(if there is one), your title, your game, or your name.


...What is this thread about?

Titles that have nothing to do with their topics is a little bugbear of Teleklos's and mine. Why?

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Battles are easy enough as it is, without grouping stacks together like that. Sounds boring.

Why don't you have Polybian, or even post-Marian troops so late in the game? Did you activate the script?

---

I have one legion of Polybian troops. What do you know about the composition of my troops-just because you are seeing a screenshot with one stack selected? What about the other formations? Well, you are just guessing. Just because you get Polybian reforms doesn't mean you get your Camilian barracks destroyed unless you want to. You can continue training Camilian troops. The stack you're seeing is one of the first legions I created in the game and it's from the Camilian times. I play with the script ON. There are no post-Marian units because I haven't met the conditions for Marian reforms yet and I don't have a general with the right traits. I have only 68 settlements conquered at this time. The only guarantee of getting the Marians is to conquer 90 settlements-otherwise you can be at your computer for the next 10 years in real time. By the way-a statement that a one on one battle against a legion of phalanx troops vs. your Roman troops is "easy" makes me wonder if you played the game at all. I have played countless one on one battles against my opponents. I agree they can be fairly easy against naked barbarians with an armor-rating of "2". EB is not Medieval II. They don't break and run on first cavalry impact from a flank-they stand their ground. Anybody can have a "clear victory" while suffering 50% losses. My mom plays like that. The key to playing it right is preserving the experience of your forces so they're not bled white...

double post

Wait, so what is this thread about? It certainly ain't about Yasser Arafat (why give it that title?), and I don't think its about the marian reforms.

Foot

off topic but,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kολοσσός

My mom plays like that.

---

Your mum plays eb?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Wait, so what is this thread about? It certainly ain't about Yasser Arafat (why give it that title?), and I don't think its about the marian reforms.

Foot

---

if i had to guess, Arafat wanted to take over the holy land, so.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kολοσσός

By the way-a statement that a one on one battle against a legion of phalanx troops vs. your Roman troops is "easy" makes me wonder if you played the game at all. I have played countless one on one battles against my opponents. I agree they can be fairly easy against naked barbarians with an armor-rating of "2". EB is not Medieval II. They don't break and run on first cavalry impact from a flank-they stand their ground. Anybody can have a "clear victory" while suffering 50% losses. My mom plays like that. The key to playing it right is preserving the experience of your forces so they're not bled white...

---

I've got a few AARs with many one on one battles (or multiple stacks of them against my one) where I did win quite easily, largely because the AI is so stupid. Several linked in my sig. There is almost never cause for romping around with multiple stacks, unless you really want to play Siege: Total War along with Cakewalk: Total War.

I don't retrain, I disbanded my old legions whenever I got reforms, I actively try not to "preserve the experience of my forces" because it makes easy battles even easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Wait, so what is this thread about? It certainly ain't about Yasser Arafat (why give it that title?), and I don't think its about the marian reforms.

Foot

---

One can still answer the poor man's question/s.

1. Yasser Arafat is dead.
2. Yasser Arafat is buried in (Checking wiki...) Rammalah.

EDIT: If this is a troll attempt (Just read your reply to Quintus), I'd advise you to stop it. If this is a supposedly AAR, then you should post it in the appropriate section.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

One can still answer the poor man's question/s.

1. Yasser Arafat is dead.
2. Yasser Arafat is buried in (Checking wiki...) Rammalah.

EDIT: If this is a troll attempt (Just read your reply to Quintus), I'd advise you to stop it. If this is a supposedly AAR, then you should post it in the appropriate section.

---

I'll add to that:

1-In late 2004, after effectively being confined within his Ramallah compound for over two years by the Israeli army, Arafat became ill and fell into a coma. While the precise cause of death remains unknown, doctors spoke of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and cirrhosis, but no autopsy was performed. Arafat died on November 11, 2004 at the age of 75. (from wikipedia, but confirmed by al-jazeerah). kind of suspiceous way to die, but WTF...he died is the point.

just figured i'd add detail:clown: