Does anyone feel that it is somewhat pointless to play a Roman campaign given the huge area needed to be conquered and the ease at which you are able to produce high quality troops?
Printable View
Does anyone feel that it is somewhat pointless to play a Roman campaign given the huge area needed to be conquered and the ease at which you are able to produce high quality troops?
I think you should play in an historical way: rather than spreading across the world, take one war at time. Think to historical war. First fight carthaginians or gaul, then illyrians, then iberics, then maybe again carthaginians, then macedons, and so on... maybe doing so you will have a more realistic feeling.
Nope. I like playing out history, and taking my time.
just limit yourself with house rules....and building a bunch of expensive fleets to keep you on your toes..
Unless you start spamming Extrordianrii - which should be kept extraordinary - the Roman units are solid good, but not high quality like the mass of elites the Greeks can recruite. The start of the campaign is easy with the Romans, but the game becomes much more challenging later on when the other factions are able to recuite their elites.Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan.gill
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
And if you're trying to take on some of the tougher factions before the Polybian reforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
Definately not pointless, Romani is a great campaign and once you get going they have a really epic feel to them.
Of corse it's pointless, if you think about it everything is pointless, anyway I digress, I am currently in a Romani campaigning and I am haveing a darn good time :yes:
not at all, limit yourself to historic expansion, and role play your generals, in my current romani game it is my most enjoyable campaign to date, its 245 and i have just recently took patavium (i know that's not historically correct but i had to do it as epeiros had it and they were sending stack after stack into italy to siege bononia), think i'll bide my time and wait for the polybian reforms before taking mediolanium and pushing into illyria
IMO, no faction is pointless, especially in EB:yes:
Maion
romans are fun, but Maks are better =P
ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!!
Haven't written for awhile, but have been playing EB and visiting the forums alot...did ya miss me??:laugh4:
Anyway...I have to agree with the collective response. Playing the Romani is far from pointless! I'm into 186BC in my Romani campaign and I'm having a great time. My lands stretch in a continuous Republic from the entire Iberian peninsula to southern Transalpine Gaul to Illyria to the traditional Macedonian homelands (the Maks are now restricted to Asia Minor) to all of Greece. In the south I have coastal northern Africa from Sala to Lepki. While I'm bringing in about 60,000 mnai per quarter I'm trying to be restrained and disciplined in my economic and military approaches.
Militarily, I'm now restricting myself to occasionally hacking away at the Arverni in southern Transalpine Gaul around Gergovia -- Aulus Gallicus is awaiting his notification to return to Rome to receive his Triumphus. More importantly, in the East I'm in full "scorched earth" mode against the Ptolemaics -- have burned Tarsos and Side to the ground through raids from my naval base at Salamis(Kypros) and am fighting some fierce battles against seemingly infinite stacks of phalangitai and pezhatairoi on mutual border near Augila. Great fun..
[By the way...after taking Side I really wanted to give it to my Macedonian allies to help them direct pressure further eastward but, stupidly, I didn't have a diplomat in the area and the Yellow Death was approaching the gates of the now-smoldering city in force... :furious3: ]
Play on VH/VH. It will give you a consistent challenge until you reach the marian reforms. You will lose at least a quarter of the battles you fight and find you need to change any well worn strategies you have come to rely on. Clocked in 70+ hours of challenge on my campaign until I got CTD around 128BC. Would've played it to 14AD.
You know guys, you don´t have to conquer a lot of land just because the VC´s wants you too.
Wouldn`t think of playing anything but!
At 223 BC now of H/H Romani Campaign, NOT being responsible AND loving it! Working hard to subjugate the Mak/Epeiros alliance, winning 90% of battles (hills are your friend) , have Ambrakia, Epidamnos, Thermon and Pella, but Mak is spawning stack after stack of Spear fodder...oh, well. At least I`m putting pressure off KH, which is holding on for dear life!
On the western front, couldn`t help pouncing on a docile and seemingly (at first glance) weak Carthage. After easily invading Sicily Corsica, Sardania, I decided to go for the jugular and easily took Kart, but the lion woke up and sent 2 stacks to boot me out of Africa. Thought I could afford two fronts by making peace w/ the gaul tribes, but their infighting create a power vacuum up north which, if it helped me, unfortunately also helped the Sweboz become a major power! but I have a legion up there well versed in defensive warfare to keep the Krauts at bay of Mediolanium (again, thanks hills). Why do they all hate me so...
Great fun, though my GF might not have the same opinion. She hates EB and wants her BF back! ;)
similar situation to my campaign, 238 BCE and despite my best efforts, the averni have been obliterated, and ever year i have to fight off at least one full stack army from sweboz and another from epeiros in cisalpine gaul, then the aedui try to send an army to try and take massalia, keeps me busy to say the least, thankfully with the polybian reforms the settlements i can recruit hastati etc... have increasedQuote:
Originally Posted by zemaniak
No more pointless then say, Carthage, Ptolemaics, or Baktria. No hard campaigns really, *especially for the first two* but can still be a lot of fun.
I agree completely :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios
Personally, I enjoy playing slow and steady instead of blitzing the map. It's much more enjoyable for me to spend a couple years building up my cities and economy, while the ai expands and become more powerful. That way I've got a couple empires with powerful armies to destroy that will take years to conquer, instead of a dozen small kingdoms that I can wipe out in a few turns.
I think the Romani are the ones for the long game especially if you aim to one day get to14AD. Add some of the mods like City growth and Allied legions and play semi-historical, though don't be a slave to the timeline!
My fundamental house rule is only fight when attacked or to keep the balance of power, think spheres of influence. Try to keep all the other factions "alive", lots of big gifts and forced diplomacy help here, currently I'm at 209BC and all the other factions are still going, though the Saka are besieging the last Pahvla settlement! Difficulty is M/M which seems to help diplomacy and slows AI growth.
Perhaps because they want revenge for the 2006 World Cup.Quote:
Originally Posted by zemaniak
I'd use a large flexible wrapping army against them, completely surrounding their troops, with one or two cavalry groups engaging those who manage to flee. ;)
I may play defensively, but I never could play with house rules, which is why I could never play the Romans for very long.
yup, with my slingers obliterating their range units beforehand while they plow up hill. When their main force hit my line, my triari and cavalry contain the flankers, then my 2-3 units of PE go around and engulf them. The rout usually follows and of course my cavalry goes medieval on their ass (pun intended).Quote:
Originally Posted by Connacht
The Maks have been getting tougher as they field more and more quality troops. Makes for very entertaining battles. One of those next to Thermon felt like a Classical version of Gettysburg with I defending little round top
Eh I don't understand why people say Romani are strong. If anything they suck compared to the other factions until they get to finally recruit legionnaires.
They can only recruit their strong units STRICTLY in the Italian peninsula. Anywhere else you are stuck with silly levies and at the most, medium cavalry.
If you happen to capture Carthage and then suddenly not able to expand further to Africa or provide additional troops from Rome, then yeah prepare to be raped to death. Enjoy your Numidian skirmisher vs Sacred Band battles.
If you want a REALLY interesting Romani campaign, I'd suggest that you head straight for Crete and then Cyprus. Recruit local troops there and then sack Alexandria as hard as you can. An immediate war with the Ptolemies may be unorthodox, but crushing the Egyptians with machimoi is much more entertaining than beating the Gauls with legions.
I find Romani a good faction no matter how you play it.
it faces a good mix of different fighting styles from the start.
use local troops and mercs to create allied armies of different play style, i have a merc phalanx army guarding antioch for instance.
in RTW.exe it might seem pointless since there are 99.99999% of the time no amphibious assaults. and you only have 2 EXTREMELY SMALL borders to hold (the toe and the top of italy) but as most people said, take it one war at at a time, forget about the glory of the roman empire, concentrate on being a small state at the time being, and as you expand change your strategy to match the size of your empire. good foreign policy is the key to a pointful (hehe) SPQR campaign.
speaking of amphibious assaults... the heel of italy in my current campaign (KH) has changed hands several times. this means epiros has launched several ambitious amphibious landings. This ended around 250 BC but for RTW.exe its quite an achievement!
I'm playing as makedonia with ALEX.exe and the luso are making amphibious assaults on the carthies, must be the spirit hand of chirugion guiding them =3
I LOVE fighting the gauls with legions. It looks awesome. Really badass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cullhwch
Yeah, but it's really been done to death, you know? Using a faction's own decent midgrade troops against them is so much more satisfying. A level 4 government in Alexandria can recruit all that you need. A mixture of machimoi, hippeis, and toxotai kretekoi proves to be startlingly cost-effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Space_Ed
For a while, I always thought it was pointless playing as anyone but the Romani since they are one of the few factions that were actually able to reach their victory conditions in real life. Playing (and winning) with other factions seems almost ahistorical. For example, what if you play as one of the celtic factions? I, personally, prefer playing as a "barbarian" faction but does anyone really think that there is even the slightest chance that Gaul could have utterly defeated Rome in an all-out war? Maybe if they spent less time fighting themselves and were united under one banner then they might have put up a better fight but total victory is wishful thinking. Sometimes it's hard to get into a faction when they didn't fare so well in real life. Anyone else agree?
Yeah, I do, being a hard-core Romani fan. Well Gaul did actually defeat Rome for some time (before Camillus returned) under some chief whose name could have been Brennus (although it is disputed) after the disastrous battle of Allia. Nevertheless, by 272, none of the Celtic, Germanic or Iberian tribes could have ever defeated Rome. Civil strife ran so deep in the barbarian blood that even such men as Arminius, Vercingetorix or Dumnorix could not unite them for any meaningful amount of time. As soon as the immediate danger passed, as in the case of Arminius, the barbarian tribes degenerated back to their tribal warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by fenix3279
My feelings exactly. The Celts were lucky when they sacked Rome the first time. IIRC, the Roman army still consisted of mostly hoplites during that time. Afterwards, the Roman military had been reformed into maniples specifically designed to counter the Celts way of fighting thus ending any chance of victory in their war against Rome. Sometimes it just doesn't feel right winning with certain factions. The only factions I can see actually conquering most of the world in real life would be either the Romani or any of the successor kingdoms. Maybe even Carthage at it's height of power but they were never really interested in expansion anyway.
what about parthia? rome never destroyed parthia... id say they reached the VC's
Yeh... I feel the same... that's why I've only played that kind of factions...
Rome, Arche Seleukeia, Makedonia and Pahlava.
I like changing the lines of history. there is one faction though ive thought was a little pointless playing... Saba. they seem so remote and boring. I know very little about them though
True, Parthia was never really defeated in war but look at it from a larger scale. Let's say Rome and Parthia became mortal enemies and neither side would rest until the other had been completely destroyed. Who do you think would come out on top in that war? Horse archers are tricky but they can be countered assuming one's treasury is up to the task and Rome was quite wealthy. The war would be a long one but my money's on Rome.
I do not know what enemies Parthia had to deal with. but I assume they didn't have the shit Rome had to deal with in the Northern forests. My money's on the East. but thats only cause Rome never conquered all of europe. Had they all of Germania, Britain and Gaul under their belt it would be a different story.
It's nothing to do with blood, it's about society and politics. Rome itself would come to suffer a great deal from brutal civil wars, political fragmentation and weakening of centralized government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I don't see how that would really change much of anything, at least not to the advantage of Rome. They would still need massive resources invested to keep such frontier pacified. With great distance and lack of communications the local gorvernors would find it all too easy to ignore Rome and set themselves up as petty kings. In return Rome wouldn't get much, especially from Germania where agriculture was very limited due to lack of necessary technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
Anyway, logistical difficulties alone would make it extremely unlikely that either empire could refuse to "rest until the other had been completely destroyed". In such hypothetical situation they'd more likely exhaust themselves as in the last Romano-Persian war which set the table for the Islamic expansion out of Arabia...
My Romani challenge:
VH/H (battles in VH are impossible, M sometimes too easy). Conquer historical Roman Empire by 100 BC. VERY tough to get. Also, ROLEPLAY your way through it, don't just declare massive wars and spam monster troops. Finally, succeed in all the conquests that failed or were abandoned. By AD 14, take and keep:
Aethiopia (f--k you Candice!)
Saba
Mesopotamia
Dacia
Upper and Lower Germany (up to the Elbe)
Hibernia
Caledonia
Marcomannia (the one Marcus Aurelius fought over but Commodus never annexed for some reason)
The modern-day Crimea
Not just raids--ADD THESE TO THE EMPIRE. Permanently. By AD 14
That will keep you occupied (at least, the time limit should). Also, vassalize (and keep alive in game) Sweboz, Hayasdan, Parthia, and, for fun, the Seleucids (if you can prevent Parthia from conquering them totally, awesome). Destroy Casse, Lusotann, Carthage, Ptolemies, Aedui, Arverni, Pontus, KH, Macedon, Epiros. Once, however, they're all gone, yeah, the game becomes ultra-easy and you can just spawn enormous armies that just overwhelm all in their path. But what the heck, Roma victa.
Not Rome, and not Parthia. They would have both been destroyed by other enemies, who'd have seized the opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by fenix3279
is it not Roma Victor?
anyway, in reply to Conqueror- In this highly hypothetical situation I meant that if Rome had conquered Germania they would not have had such a problem holding the borders. thus allowing them to focus on eastward expansion. obviously this never would have happened because the peoples to the north whom they so despised were more than a match for them. the only reason Gaul fell was because of in-fighting. which was the cause of the fall of the Selucids. and many other civilizations. (see Hittites, sumerians, aztecs, ect.)
Hmmm, I thought it was Roma Victrix. Roma Victa means "Rome, conquered", which is exactly what you don't want to say, right? Roma Victor isn't correct because the city of Rome was feminine - hence Roma, not Rome. Roma Invicta means "Rome, the unconquerable" while Roam Victrix means "Rome victorious".Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
About what Conqueror said. "civil strife running deep in the blood" was a figure of speech. I don't actually believe that barbarians had racial/ethnic genetic predisposition towards tribal warfare.
Aemilius Paulus: Thank you for the clarification. It can be hard to tell on an internet forum whether someone is meaning things in a literal sense or not.
Historical discussions like this always put a smile on my face.
Was Rome really as powerful as one might be led to believe or did they just get lucky sometimes? For example, they (usually) only fought in wars that they were sure to win and even then, they chose their enemies carefully. Some of the nations Rome conquered had already at war with others for some time, so their resources and manpower might've already been scarce to begin with (like Makedonia). Others were suffering from political instability and civil war that threatened to tear the country apart and Rome siezed the opportunity (like Gaul). Rome's power was never really tested after the Punic Wars against Carthage-- A war Rome barely won.
I think it is a sign of power not having to use it. Who can claim to have achieved what rome did without being really tested?Quote:
Originally Posted by fenix3279
And the barely won war against carthage might be because it was the western-mediterranean superpower until then.
TrueQuote:
Originally Posted by Lysimachos
terror cimbricus?Quote:
Originally Posted by fenix3279
Are you speaking of Teutoberg Forest?
No, I'm not. I'm speaking of the Cimbri, a people from what is now Denmark. Those hobos defeated the Romani many times, and sometimes quite decisively, during their cruise through Europe 113-105 BC. When they decided to head for Italy, Rome was in panic. According to Livy, the Romani lost 80,000 soldiers at the subsequent battle of Arausio, auxilia not included.
The Romani were so desperate that they decided to toss their constitution overboard as they made Gaius Marius consul for 5 consecutive years.
No, Tollheit refers to the Germanic Cimbri and Teutones (spelling?) who migrated into Italy and obliberated several Roman armies. They were on the march to Rome when they suddenly turned elsewhere. One of the two tribes migrated into Gaul, I think (not sure about that, though). The other one got beaten and annihilated by Marius.
The Romans considered that the greatest threat to Rome itself they had faced since Hannibal. Especially since the only thing, that saved Rome was the sudden change of mind of the Germanic tribes.
EDIT: A little bit too slow...
Thanks for enlightening me. I have heard the expression Terror Cimbricus before and knew it had something to do with the Cimbri and Teutons but of course, I was unsure of it's significance. I incorrectly thought it was related to the Teutoberg Forest incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by machinor
Not entirely true. Rome's power was tested in the most brutal way imaginable - against herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by fenix3279
The Roman Civil wars (I'm including the final major Italian rebellion before universal Roman rights were granted to all of Italy here) really tested the ability of the whole infrastructure to survive. I doubt Rome would have lasted had they not had a Pax Augusta once Augustus came into power. Oh, and the sacking of Egypt helped.