Yes, by all means, restart. I'm sorry, I dohave a tendency to run on a bit.:embarassed: I think you'll enjoy the Julii; they get to fight all those Celts!(Including my Gallic ancestors.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
RG
Printable View
Yes, by all means, restart. I'm sorry, I dohave a tendency to run on a bit.:embarassed: I think you'll enjoy the Julii; they get to fight all those Celts!(Including my Gallic ancestors.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
RG
...and if you're unlucky enough they will throw their chariot archers into the battle too. Together with Cappadocian cavalry and the bronze shield pikemen their armies are strong, but not invincible though. Not for experienced players like us. :wink: But in my latest Roman campaign (Scipii though, yes yes I know: wrong thread) they grew quite powerfull and recruited top-notch units. I almost preferred to fight the Egyptians again...Quote:
Originally Posted by Garvanko
Julii it is then. I'm annoyed about having to restart, and worked for nothing, but I doubt it is as annoyed as I would have been having all those CTD's.
Not to worry Craterus. After all, its only a game...or is it? ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
Thanks, Tricky Lady! I'll be sure to include some of those type units during my training sessions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky Lady
Rotorgun
My campaign is coming along fine. With the only exception that Pontus has grown very large and has quite balanced armies walking around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotorgun
But that's not a problem because it only makes the game more interesting.
land on 5 different places on the turkish mainland, sieg 5 cities and the choas is complete...this way i handled a immense egypt which armies usually outnumbered my 1 to 10 in 25 turns i murdered 100000 eggies...and thats quite near the reall numbers
Does anyone know how the AI calculates the types of units a revolting city recieves after kicking the human player's army out?
An instance in my current game happened which caused me some consternation. I had a large (although somewhat battered) force of Brutii Urban Cohorts, backed up by Preatorian Cavalry, Archer Auxilia, and Heavy Onagers, kicked out of Batavodorum within one turn of occupation. The AI gave the city back to the British, along with a sizable force of highly experienced, and well armored Heavy Chariots, Chosen Swordsmen, and Mercenary Warband Infantry.
Does the AI usually give the previous city owners such elite type units? Is this based on the types of buildings in the city, or is it factored on the type of force that previously occupied it? It seems rather odd to award such an effective fighting force to a town that was only recently defeated during a particularly bloody siege.
'...through the perculiar virtues of their constitution and their ability to keep their heads, [the Romans]...within a few years had made themselves masters of the whole world' - Polybius
Rotogun:knight:
Earlier threads note its the buildings.
This can lead to interesting tactical choices.
If your're keeping the city:
Knock almost everything down to minimize threat or accept some risk with faster "turn-around" for the city.
Knock down the wall only, then move out, let it rebel and exterminate. Some advise doing this in a lather-rise-repeat fashion until the pop is too low to matter. (Side note: while a good gaming tactic, I find this abhorent).
If you don't want/need the city:
Knock down the money and happiness buildings but leave the advanced training grounds intact, then give it to a rival faction and let them bleed.
Knock down all the buildings and leave the inheritors with a long rebuild task.
I definately agree that it is an outrageous act to exterminate a population without cause, even if it is only a game. I only do so with the greatest reluctance when there is a good reason. In the case of this village, I took it back after giving them every chance to surrender. They sallied forth on the last turn of the siege, were defeated, and then led to the execution field (after a Roman tribunal, of course) ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Thanks for the insights Seamus. You are a very helpful sort of chap!
Rotorgun :knight:
The Lather-rise-repeat fashion is a very stupid tactic I think, because you could make lots of soldiers from the people you exterminated. If there is a big chance that the city will rebel you should only enslave their population once. That would drain enough people from the city to ensure it's safe.
And don't just give a city to your rival, try to sell it. The AI will often buy a just captured city for a good price where they get thrown out of the next turn.
you cant destroy wallsQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Well...I've decided to take the plunge and attempt your "wild option" approach. I managed to smooth things over for a little while with Pontus. I opted to give them Sardis, after I finished plundering it to the virtual stone age of course. For this they agreed to continue their attack against Egypt and we exchanged map information. Do they always drive such a hard bargain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The Senate, which is at war with Egypt, along with the other Romans actually ordered me to blockade the port at Cyprus. I went one step further and invaded the island with the two armies I pulled out of Ionia. With my control of the Mare Aegaeum, including Creta, I should have little trouble supporting my attack on Aegyptus proper. This is a small step true...but with such steps an empire is formed. The real problem will come latter when Pontus figures out that I am not an ally after all, but in actuality a rival for the riches of the Pharoahs.
The bellum civilii will just have to wait.
Has anyone ever been attacked by an ally, tried to negotiate a ceasefire, even offering them a key city, only to be turned down and then had that same faction agree to become a protectorate? All during the same negotiation? That is what happened with Pontus in the campaign....very odd.
I am now at war with Eygypt. My strategy has been to make a two pronged invasion, one in Cyrenaica to curb the Scipii ambitions, the other in Judea, to stop Pontus. Both Cyrene and Jeruselam are mine now. There was a bloody fight with Egypt for Siwa also, but it is indeed under Brutii control as well. From here I hope to put the squeeze play on Alexandria, Memphis, and Thebes in that order. I will have to take a few years rebuilding my attack forces as they were quite whittled down after many desperate fights.
:duel:
Man, the Egyptians are tough! I didn't exactly care for the Cappadocian Cavalry of Pontus either, as I had to engage them in a few battles before the peace. Any suggestions on how to best take out the three Egyptian cities?
[QUOTE=rotorgun]Has anyone ever been attacked by an ally, tried to negotiate a ceasefire, even offering them a key city, only to be turned down and then had that same faction agree to become a protectorate? All during the same negotiation? That is what happened with Pontus in the campaign....very odd.[?QUOTE]
And yet other nations will fight you tooth and nail from their last village -- capable of producing only peasants -- rather than accept 10k denar and protectorate status...
Wait a few more years and simulcast them -- moving by sea if you have to. You'll still have some bloody fighting, but hammering them all three at once gives you the edge. Use your deeper pockets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotorgun
I always attack Egypt by sea, landing next to Alexandria and moving to take Memphis first, before all others. It's the fastest growing, it's the most advanced, and it's got the pyramids which will solve all your Egyptian problems in the future. It also tends to catch the enemy off balance. I usually fight Egypt on limited means (One, at most 2 fullstacks) so I can't do a simultaneous attack. Nevertheless, I strike for Alexandria and Memphis by sea while another army takes down the Levant. Those are their key cities. To hell with Siwa.
I appreciate the advice. I have already taken Siwa, and Cyrene to give the Scipii pause. It must have produced quite a reaction as they have sent two armies into Egypt to try to get into the act. I'm going to try to tempt them into coming to my aid as reinforcements when I besiege Memphis. :charge:Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
I agree quite completely with you concerning the tactical reasons for taking Memphis first; the enemies supply lines being cut in the middle is a good reason for such an approach. But why is taking the Pyramids such a blow to the Egyptians? Does this cause them serious unrest in their remaining cities?
Still, to whom is your greatest responsibility? To the conquered enemy, or to the soldiers who pay the price for your mercy should the enemy rebel?Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
I tend to do a lot of exterminating, if the city is especially large. I am sorely disappointed that you cannot tear down the walls of the city or destroy the agricultural improvements as this kind of thing was something that conquered people were subjected to, even if it does seem a little distasteful to our modern sensibilities.
Hope you're playing BI as a horder -- you've got the attitude right. Who cares that they are human beings, they're not us so scrag 'em. It is much more game efficient that way, of course.
No, I am not a "bleeding heart" liberal, nor an ultra right wing conservative. I do have a sense of the history this game preserves, so I try to use a "Roman" approach when dealing with the enemy. Rome was almost always sure to offer generous terms to her subjected enemies initially. She also exhibited great patience in allowing rebellious populations a chance to reconcile. It was only after such measures were taken that extermination was resorted to. Witness how many wars were fought with Carthage before the city was finally destroyed. Jeruselam was in a state of rebellion for nearly a century before being sacked in 70 AD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trithemius
I think that Rome used a fairly modern approach in this regard. They were far too pactical a people to see such wanton destruction as anything but inevitably wasteful in men, resources, teasure, and time for whatever political clout it could bring them. I think that your enemies will only get tougher if they are backed against the wall. Do you think that the AI acts in such a way? Your actions pose an interesting argument indeed.
Rotorgun: It would appear that capturing the Pyramids does some nasty things to egyptian cities remaining, especially if they're large, and you throw in a spy or two to help things along. Egypt's cities are quite unrest-prone. It varies from campaign to campaign though. I always find it useful to capture memphis for the chance that some cities will turn white (they usually do once I capture a few more cities and their big remaining ones become incapable of being garrisoned sufficiently).
Hey now, I never said "bleeding heart", I was simply asking about to whom you felt your duty of care was primarily towards. I feel that most rulers are motivated by prudence, and if prudence dictates actions that others deem atrocities then that is simply the way of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
I put it to you that Roman tolerance was the adoption of expedient political options, not the support for a particular moral position. Their tolerance, when it occurred, was enforced by circumstance, not respect.
This doesn't make their actions any more "right" to us, of course, but I would argue that your examples of partial mercy (that is saying that it is alright to react with bloody atrocity after a certain amount of clemency) is less laudable than they might first appear. I would suggest that is an act of moral hypocrisy; to say that atrocity is wrong, except under certain circumstances or with "sufficient provocation". However, as mentioned, I don't believe that the Romans hesitated due to such a dilemma, but rather due to other factors.
I see extermination to be the application of the Machiavellian principle of never doing an enemy a small injury. You don't go to war with people piecemeal, if you have undertaken a course of violence and conquest then, ultimately, you are commiting yourself to their destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
I am also extremely leery of classifying the Romans as modern, since concepts of "modernity" for the vast majority of people of European cultural origin draws upon Christianity pretty heavily.
I would be pleased if the AI in the game responded to brutality in kind, as this would make an awful lot of sense. Will that stop me acting in such a way? No, almost certainly not, I would still rather settle a town "good and loyal settler-citizens" over time than to leave it a weak point in the frontier; I would happily tear down the government buildings and replace them with my own, if I was able to. It's only fair and reasonable that my opponents respond in kind, but I never offered them clemency and certainly did not expect it from them. Thus is the nature of warfare intended to create a homogenous cultural and political entity. Refusal to join peacefully, or for economic incentives (ahem, bribes ~;)) means that the rights of the opponent are forfeit. They become part of the Empire; all of them now, or a lot fewer of them, later.
I should note: in Medieval Total War I played rather differently; I just like tp get into "character" as a self-righteous imperialist. ~;)
I bet they are really handy if the Egyptians have expanded far and settled in well (building Egyptian culture government buildings in a lot of other settlements), as well as being useful in their "intended" use of keeping high-growth Nile provinces cheerful. Early conquest is a must if you are ruling from afar like the Brutii pretty much have to.Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
[QUOTE]Not to worry about the "bleeding heart" comment. I was only clarifying my position, and yes, I didn't exactly answer the question about my sense of duty to the troops. Of course, they would be my first priority. I guess that's why I tend to conduct full length sieges, inviting the enemy to sally forth only after being weakened by the effects of the siege. This is my way of avoiding as many initial casualties in the taking of a settlement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trithemius
Interesting points. However, I am thinking more along the lines of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki examples. The act of atrocity must serve the purpose of crushing the will of an enemy to resist, thereby ending the conflict sooner and reducing casualties to one's side in the process. This was the "justification" for the two examples I cite. As for moral hypocrisy, the whole notion of justification of violence is only designed to make us feel better about going to war with each other. So I would agree with you that that there were other factors at stake for Rome than moral issues. I only wonder that a people who took such pains to respect their gods would not have some type of moral stance.Quote:
I put it to you that Roman tolerance was the adoption of expedient political options, not the support for a particular moral position. Their tolerance, when it occurred, was enforced by circumstance, not respect.
This doesn't make their actions any more "right" to us, of course, but I would argue that your examples of partial mercy (that is saying that it is alright to react with bloody atrocity after a certain amount of clemency) is less laudable than they might first appear. I would suggest that is an act of moral hypocrisy; to say that atrocity is wrong, except under certain circumstances or with "sufficient provocation". However, as mentioned, I don't believe that the Romans hesitated due to such a dilemma, but rather due to other factors.
I agree. A piecemeal approach only prolongs the violence.Quote:
I see extermination to be the application of the Machiavellian principle of never doing an enemy a small injury. You don't go to war with people piecemeal, if you have undertaken a course of violence and conquest then, ultimately, you are commiting yourself to their destruction.
I disagree here, or I should say that many of our notions of modernity we owe to them. The Roman system is one of the foundations of western culture. Many of their political, social, and military concepts are woven into the very fabric of our our "modern" world. I would argue that the founding fathers of the United States paid far greater attention to the Roman system of government than in any Christian principals when looking for a model for their "experiment" in democracy. Europe too owes a great deal to the Romans for their example.Quote:
I am also extremely leery of classifying the Romans as modern, since concepts of "modernity" for the vast majority of people of European cultural origin draws upon Christianity pretty heavily.
Your statement about refusal implies that you would also wish to avoid fighting when you can. This is admirable, and worthy of a great commander.:bow:Quote:
Thus is the nature of warfare intended to create a homogenous cultural and political entity. Refusal to join peacefully, or for economic incentives (ahem, bribes ~;)) means that the rights of the opponent are forfeit. They become part of the Empire; all of them now, or a lot fewer of them, later.
Thanks for the great discussion. I also say thanks for the advice about the Egyptians. I hadn't thought about the distance factor until you had mentioned it in you last post.
Like to sap a bit, then storm undefended walls with foot to take the towers, then advance through the streets. It can take a while, but it's kinda fun to take a city with epic walls without artillery and as few casualties as possible. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
I think the Romans certainly had a moral system, it's hard for any society to not have one, but I think that assuming it is just like ours is the big problem. This sort of problem is pretty common in history, understanding the past - and especially how people thought back then - can be awfully complex if we only have limited evidence to go on.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
There is a really interesting documentary that talks quite a bit about the bombing campaigns against Japan in the Second World War. It's called "The Fog of War" and it won an Academy award a few years back so you might have heard of it. It's basically a long interview with Robert S. Macnamara who, amongst other things, was one of the people reccommended unrestricted firebombing of civilian targets. Pretty interesting stuff if you're interested in the morality of war, and similar topics.
I'm very unsure about this myself, certainly what people perceived as Roman (and Hellenistic) ideals influenced such people, but I think that there was a lot of "filtering" before it got to the Founding Fathers. Neo-classical buildings where constructed to look stark and white, because that is how the Parthenon, etc, looked - but the builders in the 18th and 19th centuries did not have the archaeology to know that the Greeks had orginally painted and/or gilded a lot of this buildings so they were quite gaudy. I expect that Plato's Res Publica had more influence on them than the historical Roman Republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Cheers! Bribery is a handy way of keeping that treasury low too! ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
No problem! :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Thanks for the great advice. I just captured Memphis during today's session and boy howdy did the unrest factor go up in the remaining Egyptian cities. I'll keep a watch for the development of rebellion which I can exploit. I also set my Pontic protectorate against Egypt also. Perhaps they will win me Palmyra, which is adjacent to their lands. I now have 53 provinces with the inclusion of my protectorate's in the equation. If I can attain the Nile Delta, Thebais, and Sinai in the Middle East, as well as capturing Tribus Silurii and Hibernia in the Isles, I will be in good shape to make a blitzkrieg attack on Rome for the win. I will launch similtaneous attacks on the Julli and Scipii to distract them from my main assault.Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
I appreciate all the help.~:cheers:
rotorgun: you do not keep a watch for development of rebellions. You help them along. Throw 5-6 spies into each city if you have the time and watch the population start fighting with town militia and setting carts and wheelbarrows on fire.
Careful folks, if this discussion gets more philosophical it will get moved to the Monastery and if you drop the "t" of cart it will get moved to the Backroom discussion of the French riots.~D
Pezetairoi,
Do you recommend using some assasins to help sabotage their buildings to help the spies? Why do spies increase the likleyhood of unrest in a settlement? I have never considered the use of spies to cause rebellion until this discussion. That's what I enjoy about this forum, the outstanding advice I've been able to recieve from the membership. Great job everyone!
Sortie les canon...sil vous plais!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I am not a fan of assassins. They fail far too often, and the really good ones that are left after a hundred turns or two are too few and far between to actually do much damage. I don't recommend using sabotage since damaged buildings can just be rebuilt in the next turn. Better agents. Lots of them.
My strategy to Brutii is to ally with Macedon and only counquer the greek cites. If you do so, you will be able to send a army to carthage and one to the gauls to cut of the scriipi and julii expansion.
This was my essential strategy early on in my campaign. I modified it later after I conquered the Greek cities. I allied with Macedon until this was accomplished, then crushed them also. Thrace was next, then I invaded Gual to stymie the Julii. I have conqured Syracuse in Sicily to give me a base to expand against the Scipii. My goal with them is to isolate them in North Africa. Once all is accomplished, and I have over 55 provinces or more, I'll attack Rome, Capua, and Sicily simultaneously while defending against the Julii in Italy and the Scipii in North Africa. A quick strike will against the Senate should give my the win.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Macedon
Hey! We've calmed down now. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
rotorgun: I also encourage using spies to create revolts - unless the revolt would make a bigger army. I'm curious but do damaged buildings produce troops when a settlement revolts? That is to say, I know you can ensure that town only produces rebel peasants by knocking down all the other structures, but if those structures are just damaged (even 100% damaged) can they be used to create new rebel troops? If so, you can use assassins to knock down the unit buildings and then the temples and happiness buildings, while using your spies to incite revolts.
Teams of assassins work. If a spy has infiltrated the settlement then you can target properly and even moderately experienced assassins can get 95% success on sabotage.Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
Well, it sounds like an good strategy. I often send three armies already at the begining. I like to build up my armies of quantity more than quality. My armies bases on pesants, town watch, hastati, velites and mercenaries. :duel:Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
As far as I know, if a building is damaged, even partially, it cannot produce the types of troops or benifits it is designed for. This is what I aimed for by the use of multiple assasins sabotaging particular structures before I besieged the settlement. While under siege the structures cannot be repaired, so I would momentarily lift the siege, sabotage the same, if not already 100% destroyed, or a different building and then besiege the town again during the same turn. Trithemius, you're correct about the use of spies to increase the accuracy of the attacks while encouraging unrest. I did notice that my success rate went up dramatically when a spy was also present.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trithemius
:hide:
I believe that the cultural difference of your enemy target influences the sucess rate of your agents as well, in addition to their subterfuge ability. I noticed this when using them against the Middle Eastern factions (no offence intended any Islamic players out there). I may be wrong, but it is something to ponder. Maybe someone can shed further light on this anomaly.
well, never thought of using assassins on cities that already had spies in them. Brain circuitry problems, eh :-P
I tried this and I believe you're right, it also happened to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotorgun
so you're saying roman assassins used against parthia would be significantly worse off than if I used them against Macedon, that it?
In my case it was and also in Rotorgun's so it will be wierd if it isn't the same in your game.
Without knowing enough about the Eastern Cultures of the time, I could only assume that it was to do with easier access to the general/leader in question.
EDIT: That, of course, is quite an in-depth sort of thing to put in the game, because any differences would have been very small, if there was any difference.
All important persons had guards back then. The idea that in some cultures, important people were able to walk the streets without too much trouble.
I had newer been Imperator. How is it to be one? Will your fraction automaticly transform to SPQR? And vill it be a senate?
I am in the middle of the strangest Brutii game (H/H) that I have ever seen. I just had to post this after my most recent turn.
The situation was this: I hold Caralis (beat the Julii there), my two towns in Italy, Apollonia, Salona, and Kydonia. I am building an army near Apollonia and two by Kydonia with the intention of simultaneously attacking Rhodes, Thermon, and Sparta all in the first turn of war with the Greeks. I am at war with Carthage, but nobody else.
I look on the map and see that Segestica is held by rebels and I figure I can just walk an army up and take it. I grab it. Next turn, it is beseiged by a Gaul army. This doesn't surprise me too much, since the Julii have an army that has spent the whole game sitting forelornly outside Caralis and, rather than invading Gaul, have simply built forts all over their lands. I defeat the Gauls.
Next turn, Segestica is beseiged again. By Dacia. I defeat the Dacians. Next turn, besieged again- this time by Thrace. I defeat the Thracians. I am now at war with Carthage, Gaul, Dacia, and Thrace, as well as planning to attack Greece. More foes than I wanted, but okay. A few turns go by.
I go up to look at Segestica and see:
To the northwest, about a turn away, a full stack Gaul army led by their heir
To the east, about a turn away, a full stack Dacian army led by their heir
To the southeast, about a turn away, a full stack Thracian army, led by- you guessed it- their heir
To the south, about a turn away, a full stack Greek army led by their heir
When I pull my jaw off the floor, I say to myself, "Wow, only missing Carthage." I then look off the coast and discover a Carthaginian fleet packed with units including elephants and- wait for it- their faction heir.
I've never seen so many command stars in all my life.
I did the only sensible thing: destroyed every building I could, raised the taxes to very high, and headed my army for Salona. After the earlier battles, I was down to about four town watch units, my general, and a bunch of remnants of merc units.
The end result: Dacia took the town, Carthage's fleet headed for home. The moment Dacia took the town, Thracian and Gallic diplomats near other cities offered me a ceasefire. The Greek army attacked and mangled me on the field of battle, setting off the war I'd been planning with them anyway.
Wierd, huh? Anybody else ever been attacked by five faction heirs at once?
My thinking on this was drifting in this direction too. I think that it's a matter of three factors which make up a character's ability to resist assasination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
1. Character- traits and abilities.
2. Retinues- ancillaries who help keep the family member safe.
3. Cultural differences- an assasin from Germania would probably tend to stand out in a place such as Jeruselam...no?
Whatever the case, isn't it outstanding that this game operates on such a detalied level? I like how many of the aspects of international politics and grand strategy are included in RTW.
No, you'll just get a message you've won with a video sequence and you will be asked if you want to play further or the stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Macedon
Ok! Anyway I have just two popularity points in the senate so I think I will be outlawed soon. They hate me for declare peace with the Gauls and because I never care abouat senate missons. I am in the year 250 AD and have conquer The greeks and the Trache, I am in war with Dacia and Macedon.
kickius buttius has earned the funniest campaign post of the year, methinks. Mein gott. That's the saddest thing that could have happened to anyone. Tip: you should bribe that forlorn Julii army sitting outside your Sardinian village, if you can.
Just did last night. That Julii army is on the way to help my frantic efforts on the mainland. I've been able to conquer most of the Greek cities, which has won me some breathing room, but The Julii have done so little that Gaul and the Britons have between them eliminated Germania and, recently, Dacia. Macedonia is long gone and Thrace is down to one city (I think Byzantium).
Nice ending to the Segistica situation, though: The town rebelled against the Dacians and then somehow reverted to my control. I'd heard sometimes that can happen if a town rebels against the Rebel faction, but I had never seen it before. The truly nice thing was that it came under my control with a whole host of gold chevroned peasants.
I agree with Pezhetairoi; your previous post was a belly laugh. I'm sure it wasn't for you when you were going through it. You are to be commended for your ability to deal with such a desperate situation of being attacked by five large armies, all led by faction heirs, and managing to come out on top. As for the town of Segistica reverting to your control, it's probably because your faction was the last to control it, so it was your people doing the rebelling. A nice bonus to recieve the peasants. That's probably why so many factions wanted this town- good facilities. I faced such a force of rebelling Britons in Deva during my campaign. It was interesting to watch them taking on my legionary cohorts and actually defeating them in a stand up fight! had to pulverize them and exterminate the population to regain order. Good luck during the rest of your campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickius Buttius
Strength and honor!
I have choosen Byzatium as my capitol. There, i have buildit up to a huge city with urban baracks! Strange is that i can recuit urban cohort, altrougth
they havent been any marian reforms yet!
You can recruit Praetorian Cohort. Not Urbans.
Can you build Praetorian Cohorts before the Marius Reforms than?
:rtwyes:
You can get praetorian cohorts before marian reforms. But in vanilla that is not supposed to happen. (Wuss. :D) Edit it out.
Ok, here we go....
I have finally eliminated the dreaded Egyptians! I had a little help (very little) from my Pontic protectorate (now ex, but more on that later), but essentially followed the advice of Pezhetairoi to take Memphis first. They were a snap once the Pyramids were in my control. I also owe some credit to Seamus Fermanagh for the idea of simulcasting them. The combination of these approaches was the culmination of divide and conquer. Hats off to these clever chaps!
I thought, in my imperial glee, that I would now be able to begin my blitzkrieg attack on Rome for the win. Thinking I now had more than the required 50 provinces. With the British Isles completly occupied, all of Germania, Greece, Thrace, Dacia, Illyria, Egypt, and half of Gaul under my banner; Syracuse Tarentum, Croton, and Pergamum building large armies for my bid for Italy seemed like a recipe for sucess. Imagine my suprise when Pontus began using many spies and assasins in an attempt to cause rebellion in Petra and Jeruselam. When I assasinated a few of thier agents it must have cancelled the protectorship! Of course this means I am now ten provinces to the poorer, posessing only fortyfive.
To add insult to injury, the Senate ordered me to capture Bostra after it rebelled through Pontus' mismanagement. In order to accomplish the mission, I had to remake an alliance with the cutthroats, as they were also trying to lay siege to the city. When I had the right amount of siege equipment built, Pontus attacked with my forces as reinforcements. Like a fool, I went through most of the work in getting to the city square (well...they did take on the lion's share of enemy forces) only to see the AI award them the city! On the very next turn, the Senate ordered me out of Nabatea so as not to alarm our so called ally of Rome!
So what is the consensus? Should I attack Pontus, or enlist thier aid against the other Roman factions? Personally, I am for crushing the Cappadocian, camel riding, Zoarastrianistic dogs myself.
:charge:
I don't see how you can allow such insolence to go unpunished.
Congrats on beating Egypt. They are always a pain.
Or you could go for the interesting approach and leave them. There are five provinces on Italy anyway.
After considering both of the previous proposals, I shall first start a good war with Pontus, in which I shall attempt to involve my brother Romans in as well. When they are good and committed, I shall attack Sicily, Campania, Ariminium, and Latium simultaneously. My main assault will be against Latium with my two best armies. Once I capture Rome it should be decided, as long as I have the fifty provinces required.
One question remains:
Do I have to move my faction heir to Rome to be declared Imperator to win, or is just capturing the city enough?
:duel:
Just take the city; you can even do it with a mere captain and still win if you have the requisite 50 provinces.
Yep. I did it with a captain and after I took Rome with it, I could promote him to general!
Was that just luck or is it normal that your captain can be promoted after he took Rome?
Just luck, I think. I'm pretty sure that when my captain took Rome in my Julii game that he wasn't promoted. But my memory is getting a little hazy on that.
Rotor':
Good show on Egypt (and you're welcome). Those walking anachronisms deserve a damned good thrashing, and perhaps the insertion of a large garden gnome...but I digress.
Unless you are going for a complete map campaign, you may just want to brush Pontus off as needed. The only way to truly pay them back in kind would be to have them lead the assault on Italy into the fresh defenses and fine full stacks of the homeland. As that would be difficult to arrange, you might just want to have a few rich battles on Italian soil and then stage your own triumph in Roma.
I'm getting worried about something and I need to ask you all a question. What triggers the Senate to declare the civil war? Is it possible to fail to reach the triggers and have the amount of time allowed for a game runout?
I'm playing a Brutii game that had a series of disasters right at the start (see earlier in this thread), but I stuck with it and was able to recover. As a consequence of the early issues, I've moved quite a bit more slowly than my usual gameplay. I now own twenty-two provinces. The Senate appears to still love me (icons one from the top) and the public is okay with me (popularity about half way up the scale). The date is 188 and I'm worried because no civil war yet.
I'm also wondering if you must eliminate a specific faction (the same one or ones you would have to defeat to win the short campaign). Due to the early troubles with the game, once I took all the Greek cities in Greece, I was forced to concentrate on Europe. I left the Greek cities in Turkey alone. The Greeks are thus the owners of three cities in Turkey. Do I need to take those?
I'd prefer not to, since all my armies are busy fighting in Gaul, with the exception of the full stack army and diplomat patiently sitting outside each Julii and Scipii city, waiting for the civil war.
No, if you get 30 provinces and the people of Rome love you, you will get a message that the people of Rome are behind you and you can unleash the civil war by attacking an other Roman Faction.
So my advice is to conquer Gaul and Spain so you reach thirty and then take some cities until you get the message. Then lay siege to the Julii and Scipii cities and you've got your Civil War.
Okay, one more question. Having bribed many Julii armies over the years, it occurred to me that I might be able to bribe a city. Iuvavum was chock full of troops and no family member, so I gave it a shot. The bribe worked and I got the city plus the entire army.
The next turn, the senate assigned me the mission of "return Iuvavum to the Julii." If I failt o do so in ten turns the message said I would "incur the displeasure of the Senate." Is this something I should worry about or just idle talk?
Will it help me cause the civil war to begin?
It will only decrease your standing in the Senate list.
It depends if you want the city. After all, you still get to keep the military force. But if you need the city, don't worry about it, just hold onto it.
I'm going to hold onto it out of spite. Thanks for the help.
Actually, if you walk out of the city, it will probably rebel. Then the old order will be rescinded and the Senate will tell you to retake it. :bow: Silly old men.
But if you're looking to trigger the civil war, yes, by all means keep it, as long as they didn't threaten to investigate you. That's very bad.
Thanks for the encouragment. I could do as you say and brush Pontus off and take on the other Romans. I was figuring on hedging my bets a little by getting a few more provinces under my belt. I feel that it would give me some insurance against the Romans attempting to take some of the provinces I currently control. I face a formidable foe in the Julii, as they control all of Hispania, most of Gual, and several key provinces in Northern Italy. The Scipii are in charge of, you guessed it, North Africa, and two of the Sicilian cities. I am not overly concerned with them. I feel the greater threat to be the Julii.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
It is now about 50 BC, about the right time for the civil war historically. I am expecting Gauis Julius Caesar to make an apperance any time. (Does the AI include such historical characters?) It would be interesting to take him on during the bellum civius.
Going to war against Pontus would gain me some more land and wealth from the inevitable plunder. If I can involve the other Roman factions, I can weaken them while strengthening my own position. Do you agree? I will consider, carefully, your counsel to ignore Pontus. I could make for a more exciting game.
Have a good day all! Good fortune and good hunting!
When I said "brush off" Pontus, I did not mean leave them sacrosanct. The best means of "withdrawal" is to slam 'em hard for two turns (emph on smashing field armies) and then let your assault troops head West. The border patrol armies you leave behind can slow-siege a few more provinces while keeping Pontus off balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
The Scips will probably not threaten you on land, but may hinder sea movement a lot if they have their battleships built in numbers. Be careful when fleeting and build lots of coast obs towers so you can see what you're sailing into.
The Jollies probably are the worst threat, but they don't have the econ behind them that you will with half+ of the East under control. Pick an area you like and set it up as bait. When they attack, hopefully with a couple of large "cutting edge" armies, close the sack and crush their most spendy troops. This should leave you facing weaker stuff from then on, as the AI doesn't cope well with counter-punching.
I see now what you intended...very cunning! I will probably hit the Pontic lands in Anatolia, as they have denuded that front to fight the Armenians and guard against my Egyptian legions; these are quite built up after my war with the Pharoes. I plan to go on the defensive in the middle east while engaging them to the north from Rhodes and Byzantium. I should be able to take Pergamum, Hilcarnasus, and Sardis before they can manage an effective response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The Scipii have yet to build a sizable fleet. I plan on blockading them with my considerable naval assets from Greece and Egypt to forestall any attempts to relieve their beleaguered Sicilian cities, as well as their capitol of Capua. I aim to neutralize them sir. Blood may flow in the Mare Nostrum, but they will lose many good troops at sea if they push the issue.
The Julii are the wildcard in the game. They are the only Roman faction strong enough to attack me while helping defend Latium as well. The senate will undoubtedly give them financial support to ensure their aid. I must take Rome quickly to deprive them of this windfall. Do you think that two elite full stacks will be sufficient for the task? SPQR currently has two full armies in Latium with about a half stack garrisoning Rome. From what I can see of their forces, they will be no pushovers....many Urban and Preatorian types to be seen.
Yeah, two stacks oughta do it. I'd actually set up 1 Full, 1 2/3, and 1 1/2-stack. Make your Full a "defensive" force and pull a Von Moltke. If you position them where he simply can't resist hitting you, you can make him come to you -- preferably up hill (over a bridge?) then your Full stack will maim both of his. The 2/3rder would be lotsa mobile guys in order to short punch a Jollie relief force or smash the remnants of the Senate field force. The half stack is some grunt infantry and a siege train (Onagers if you're using them, best family siege engineer for a surety). Rome's walls will be tough. Fill out the siege army with the best of the full stack's remnants after the field wins.
Sounds like you've got the Scips marginalized and a good spoiler campaign planned for the Bridge-boys.
The Senate seems unable to resist attacking you if you park on the bridge just outside Rome. Those uber-troops can be decimated without much effort if you put a 2/3 stack there.
Or you can get lucky. In my game, where the civil war hasn't begun yet, the Senate sent its entire army out of the city with just a regular family member in charge (not the faction leader or heir). One 45,000-denarii-bribe later, Rome is garrisoned by just the faction leader and faction heir. Can't wait for the civil war...
Great suggestions by all. I will debreif the outcome at a later date. I was hoping to finish the campaign this weekend, but have to attend my monthly training with the National Guard. (Talk about your Town Malitia!) I appreciate the advice given. See ya'll after awhile.
~:cheers: Rotorgun
Just found out a great strategy to begin.
First sieze Patavium and Mediolanum (Segesta if you can but that will be very hard). After that head for Massilia. If you've done this you succesfully blocked the Julii from expanding.
Now let the Scipii take Sicily and head straight for Carthage, but be sure to bring 2 stacks (full is best). If you've done that, you've blocked the Julii and the Scipii which gives you lots of space to expand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
:helloo: :focus: :focus:
Where is the promised follow-up....
:jumping: :jumping: :charge:
I want to hear what happe...:tomato2:
Well maybe I can wait a little longer.
:creep: :tomato:
All right already I get the poi :tomato: :fainting:
Okay, I'll wait a bit...
but not this ~:santa: long.
Or its:viking: time!
How do you continue to play after acquiring fifty province, including Rome? When the fiftieth provence fell, I received a cut screen victory and the only option available was to return to the main menu. I would like to finish conquering the entire map and have read in other posts that people have done this. what would I need to modify?
Thank you!
I am annoyed that the Julii still have on provence and the Scipii have three. The rest of the map is Egypt (save for the British isles), and that needs to be remedied.