Is there any way to make battles more strategically decisive?

I have reached a point in my Antigonid Campaign that I'm sure we're all familiar with: stack after stack (in this case Roman) of low-grade units attacking in waves. In reference to the Happy Cannae Day thread (there's a theme song in there somewhere), I have fought and won 3 or 4 Cannaes and Carrhaes combined, with a Pharsalus and a Marathon thrown in for good measure. My last battle I fought with one small (17 unit) stack of elites against three full roman stacks, almost all leves. I lost 152 kia versus more than 5000 roman dead.

When will these guys give up? Is there a way through traits or scripts to make major victories decisive and final? I try diplomacy after every major victory but no: "some of you still live".

I realize that this is not a fault of EB but of the RTW engine, but there's gotta be some way to make military results have political impacts. Any thoughts?

EB uses scripts to assist the mentally challenged AI and provide a challenge. All AI factions receive some extra command stars and monetary aid, as well as a replenishment of the population when they recruit units to avoid them recruiting them dry. The gameplay balance is not finished. If you want battles to be more decisive, you can try the unofficial money/merc modifications, a lot of people are very satisfied with those.

Out of interest: have you taken any Roman city?

If I inflict such heavy casualties (and generally I do) as to annihilate AI armies, then I find the AI often very eager to accept a no-ties ceasefire treaty. :juggle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

I have reached a point in my Antigonid Campaign that I'm sure we're all familiar with: stack after stack (in this case Roman) of low-grade units attacking in waves. In reference to the Happy Cannae Day thread (there's a theme song in there somewhere), I have fought and won 3 or 4 Cannaes and Carrhaes combined, with a Pharsalus and a Marathon thrown in for good measure. My last battle I fought with one small (17 unit) stack of elites against three full roman stacks, almost all leves. I lost 152 kia versus more than 5000 roman dead.

When will these guys give up? Is there a way through traits or scripts to make major victories decisive and final? I try diplomacy after every major victory but no: "some of you still live".

I realize that this is not a fault of EB but of the RTW engine, but there's gotta be some way to make military results have political impacts. Any thoughts?

---

faced the very same issue... like Bovi said, try money/mercenary script. i cannot imagine playing without it. the game still needs farther balancing and script does seem to handle it pretty well.

i wish it was included in official EB, otherwise all the splendid work put into it gets ruined by tedious, unrealistic game play:no:

Quote:

---

Out of interest: have you taken any Roman city?

If I inflict such heavy casualties (and generally I do) as to annihilate AI armies, then I find the AI often very eager to accept a no-ties ceasefire treaty.

---

that didnt work for me, at least not against AS. in my Bactrian campaign (without script) i managed to reduce them to only a few cities, Ptoleis pushing them hard from the other side, but they would still persistently send stack after stack of high quality mercenaries my way!:wall: make very little sense:inquisitive:
hope the issue will be addressed in future releases.

If you smack them around but don't take any cities (or offer the cities you took back) they usually take a cease-fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

If you smack them around but don't take any cities (or offer the cities you took back) they usually take a cease-fire.

---

yeah, for a turn or two, and then you face the very same problem again:wall:
the only solution that worked for me is an out most aggressive and brutal policy. destroy each army to the last soldier, restlessly push forward conquering their lands and thus reducing their treasury and recruiting pools. but even these dont help to the extend it should since AI gets population, mercenaries, money injections and on VH campaign is suicidally aggressive.:wall: ...never ending war.

The only way your ever gonna stop the AI from mindlessly attacking you is to completely destroy them, just remember that every city you capture is one less place for them to recruit from and one more province they have to trek across to reach your important territories.

You could try the 'force deplomacy' mod.

Also, when I face this kind of situation in campaigns that I'm not too serious about, I'll cheat. I usually hire an all merc army then march it into enemy territory using 'character_reset' and 'auto_win attacker' to kill ever single enemy army in sight. Once you destroy 90% of their army, they will give up and leave you alone for a decade or so. I always end my war with them (at least ignore them) until they rebuild so that I don't consider it too much cheating. But I only use this in campaigns that I would quit otherwise or I wasn't too serious about to begin with.

The force diplomacy doesnt work, they'll just attack you again the next turn.

how about this......


TRAIN 2 STACKS AND INVADE THE ROMANS!!!!


if thier cities are destroyed they can't send troops after you, plus you will get $$$ out of pillagin. If you don't want the cities you can give them to your allies, or leave a few leves in it while ur army sacks the other cities. THEN you pick up and leave, and let the cities rebel back. This will cut the "stack and after stack" issue by 80% for a few years. Eventually you WILL have to kill the Romans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarkiss

yeah, for a turn or two, and then you face the very same problem again:wall:
the only solution that worked for me is an out most aggressive and brutal policy. destroy each army to the last soldier, restlessly push forward conquering their lands and thus reducing their treasury and recruiting pools. but even these dont help to the extend it should since AI gets population, mercenaries, money injections and on VH campaign is suicidally aggressive.:wall: ...never ending war.

---

naw dude... the war DOES end.


....as soon as you destroy the faction :yes: one question though... Why is that so hard to do????????

What's this "force diplomacy" mod that was mentioned. Never heard of it, and it sounds quite useful.

Can anyone gimme some info? thx in advance.:beam:

It adds a non-conflicting script that makes the AI accept your offers, no matter what.
Details and download here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80763

It would be nice to open a discussion on the developer side on how to slow down the later development of both player and AI...
No matter what has been tried here or in other mods having a medium/large sized empire results in the ability of recovering quickly even from crushing defeats.

If you can recruit the equivalent of a professional (if not elite) army in 5 turns you will be never able to expect more than short term peace...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

It would be nice to open a discussion on the developer side on how to slow down the later development of both player and AI...
No matter what has been tried here or in other mods having a medium/large sized empire results in the ability of recovering quickly even from crushing defeats.

...

---

well..... isn't that what happens when you have a large empire??? The ability to raise large armies in a few turns. Besides, single desicive battles RARELY occur when a large empire is well managed. Battles became Decisive when the king was killed, or there the empire was already in the brink of collapse.


But.... I do agree that the late game needs to be worked out a little better, especially with Squalor, and the ever increasing populations that makes cities imposible to govern. All else, is fine in my book.

That was often the exception rather than the rule...

Historically:

- Achmeneid persia: 3 major battles to cripple decisively their army

- Seleucid Empire : A bit more comples, but Raphia and Magnesia were pretty bad hits and they never recovered from those

- Carthage: it was long but after the first punic war (in which after two major naval losses they capitulated) it took less than 10 losses (baecula, dertosa, ilipa, great plain, metaurus and zama, might be a couple more) to reduce them to little more than a city state

- Ptolemies: a long survivor but for the longest part of their history they were little more than a client state of Rome

The point is: even if you have a huge empire professional soldiers aren't going to be very abundant. You can recruit huge armies composed of levies but everybody knows what happens when levies faces veterans...

Rome was the exception mostly because they found a way to turn their levies into an effective fighting machine and had a more efficent training system.
This is especially true in our game timeframe, where Rome won more than a couple wars through attrition...

:wall: :wall: :wall: sorry I messed up my message wrong word choice and word order.

here it goes again:

well..... isn't that what happens when you have a large empire??? The ability to raise large armies in a few turns. Besides, single desicive battles RARELY caused the downfall of an empire when such an empire was well managed. Battles became Decisive when the king was killed, or the empire was already in the brink of collapse.


But.... I do agree that the late game needs to be worked out a little better, especially with Squalor, and the ever increasing populations that makes cities imposible to govern. All else, is fine in my book.

I see your point better now....

But the Seleucids where in deep internal trouble when its battles with Rome came around, and so was Macedonia before them. The Aeudi/Arverni were even wrost.

I don't know about the others though, my history doesn't go that far.

Now.... I think what your trying to get will be better addressed in EB2 since MTWII has some new features about recruitment that limit the number of elites. (at least thats what I read, I haven't played the game yet)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

- Seleucid Empire : A bit more comples, but Raphia and Magnesia were pretty bad hits and they never recovered from those

---

Well, they certainly recovered from Raphia. Immediately afterward Antiochos was busy campaigning again throughout Asia and Asia Minor. He certainly could have continued fighting after Magnesia as well, but for several reasons decided not to. I could go into more detail if you would like, but it gets complicated. In short, it was Antiochos' death that started the decline of the Seleukid empire, which was resurgent and significantly powerful again with Antiochos IV. Then again very briefly under Antiochos VII.

The biggest problem of the Seleukids was their constant dynastic feuding in the latter half of the 2nd century BC, which left openings for other states surrounding them to easily expand. The Roman victory at Magnesia could hardly be considered a crippling blow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

I could go into more detail if you would like, but it gets complicated.

---

If you don't mind, please do, I would love to hear more about Seleukia than what wiki and EB show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Well, they certainly recovered from Raphia. Immediately afterward Antiochos was busy campaigning again throughout Asia and Asia Minor. He certainly could have continued fighting after Magnesia as well, but for several reasons decided not to. I could go into more detail if you would like, but it gets complicated. In short, it was Antiochos' death that started the decline of the Seleukid empire, which was resurgent and significantly powerful again with Antiochos IV. Then again very briefly under Antiochos VII.

The biggest problem of the Seleukids was their constant dynastic feuding in the latter half of the 2nd century BC, which left openings for other states surrounding them to easily expand. The Roman victory at Magnesia could hardly be considered a crippling blow.

---

I stand corrected in this case.

However, both Raphia and Magnesia marked the end of the two respective wars at least for more than a short while (in this case all Anthiochos' life) and that's what remains pretty impossible to represent in TW (harcoded and all).

Besides, my point was that a large empire can raise large amounts of troops but after a crippling defeat they would be mostly levies, hardly an effective army...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

He certainly could have continued fighting after Magnesia as well, but for several reasons decided not to.

---

interesting. so loosing lands, money, influence for good was more reasonable option at a time than raise a new army and come back? i'd love to hear more details on that please, until i get "the Roman war o Antichos the great".
thanks

He could try to duke it out with the romans at least another time but then he had two other fronts (egypt and the parthians) open, meaning that it would have been suicidal.

THe romans beg me for ceasefire always after a few navaldefeats and one big crushing defeat on land and a few blocked ports.... usually can ask 10000 for a ceasefire.

anyways... i was going through some textsfiles and stumbled on some traits... regarding battlepoints. I have a question about it:"What does it do???

I think but correct me if wrong, that if you win you gain battlepoints, more battlepoints mean harder battles... am i right? because I also saw traits like hard_battle_trait and very_hard_battle_trait which were triggered by battlepoints and victories.

I want to know this because gaining traits such as good attacker and stuff is incredibly hard, you barely gain stars while the AI has 9 star generals all the time. but im not sure wether to mess with battlepoints since i dont know what it does.

No problem guys. Seleukid history isn't nearly as well known as it could be so this stuff isn't as available as other histories.

Due to Raphia, Antiochos had lost several thousand men, but not nearly as many as what happens in RTW games. This is what Polybios reports:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polybios 5.86

His [Antiochos'] loss amounted to nearly ten thousand infantry and three hundred cavalry killed, and four thousand taken prisoners. Three elephants were killed on the field, and two died afterwards of their wounds. On Ptolemy's side the losses were fifteen hundred infantry killed and seven hundred cavalry: sixteen of his elephants were killed, and most of the others captured.

---

So, not that bad. Still a loss, but could have been much worse. Most of those kills that Antiochos' army had taken would have been on his left wing too when it had routed - that wing was mostly local levies except for the elephants and and cavalry. Antiochos found it best to sue for peace and the treaty meant that neither state could attack the other until one of the participants in the signing died (standard Hellenic practice) - not because one or the other couldn't fight for lack of manpower.

Now, It is important to stress just how deep the Seleukid pool for recruiting is. Normal army size for this period is about 30,000 men. Raphia, Panion, and Magnesia were all larger, but at varying sizes. The bulk of the extra men could be filled with either locals or Greeks. The year after the loss at Raphia, Antiochos was campaigning in Asia Minor against his relative Achaios.

Achaios was sent by Antiochos to retake Asia Minor from Attalos of Pergamon in 223. It is safe to assume that Achaios would probably have a second royal army of about 30,000. Achaios seems to have pushed Attalos back into Pergamon relatively easy because he felt very secure in revolting and taking everything west of the Tauros Mt. with him. The only reason he didn't descend into Syria was because his troops refused. Now though, on top of the army he had when he marched into Asia Minor, he now had access to all the military settlements that were still there - an estimated strength of 10,000 at least, which he could add to his army.

For Antiochos to take back Asia Minor he would need to assemble another army of at least 30,000. The fighting lasted four years and ended in the year-long siege of Sardis, which probably involved a lot of artillery. There is no way that army could have been levy or lesser quality troops. That type of army wouldn't have lasted for so long.

After Magnesia, Antiochos had plenty of time to raise a new army. One estimate could have placed it at 50,000 - much of which would have been klerouchikoi phalangitai because of the relatively untapped military settlements (only 16,000 phalangites were at Magnesia and some of those would have been permanent soldiers). Also, his son Seleukos was still in Asia Minor in a fortress city with a sizable army of Magnesian survivors.

The losses at Magnesia were several times less than what Livy wrote. The Roman army was of a much larger size than what Livy stated and their losses much, much more than what Livy wrote. By all means, Antiochos could have continued the fighting and won (he never made the same mistake twice, btw, and Rome was full of terrible generals.). Rome was quite over extended too with fighting all over the Mediterranean. To add to this, Antiochos still had an alliance with the Galatians and Kappadokians - regions which Rome attacked in a dick move, and could have then only spurred them on to fight more against the invaders. As to why Antiochos didn't... :shrug:

In my opinion, Antiochos was probably tired. He was quite old by now and had been campaigning constantly since he ascended to the Seleukid throne. Only two people come even close to this: Alexander, who didn't live very long, and Caesar who took many months on a vacation sailing on the Nile with Kleopatra probably due to exhaustion. Antiochos was also aware of the what damage the four years of fighting with Achaios had caused to the region. In the end, he went with the Treaty of Apameia, which had its pros and cons for both sides and was a far more peaceful solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

He could try to duke it out with the romans at least another time but then he had two other fronts (egypt and the parthians) open, meaning that it would have been suicidal.

---

The Parthians had been cowed into a treaty and submission when Antiochos defeated them during his anabasis. Their expansion didn't really happen until ~170 BC, which was well after the death of Antiochos. The Ptolemies would have been a problem, but there were several city-fortresses in Antiochos control throughout the area, which would have meant a long time before Egyptian forces could have been actively fighting against Antiochos. Also, considering the sheer size of the native revolt, which continued for about five more years, and the losses at Panion, I think think that the Ptolemies could probably only send the most modest of troops.

I guess I misinterpreted the historical events, I stand corrected.

Well if a thread was going to be hijacked by another topic it was very fortunate that it was this one (that is about the wars of Antiochus the Great). I'm glad that abou has posted quite a bit in here as well. I hold you with much respect as a fellow admirer of the Seleukids abou :2thumbsup:


Now regarding Magnesia I feel it gets overrated all too often as an overwhelming victory of the Romans over the Seleukids. The casualties, as abou pointed out, are also too often exaggerated on the Seleukid side and far too diminished on the Roman side. Antiochus had led a cavalry charge comprised of, from what is described in [I]The House of Seleucus: Volume 2[I], "Iranian cavalry" against the left flank of the Roman army. Most likely this cavalry force was comprised of the Kataphractoi and Agema heavy cavalry. The charge itself broke the Roman left and sent it into a rout that was closely pursued by Antiochus and his cavalry all the way to the Roman camp. Now the casualties of the Romans given by Livy as a little over 300 are far too low to reflect this, therefore I believe he chose to almost completely ignore this part of the battle and paint the Romans in the most seemingly invincible light. :thumbsdown:


After Magnesia and the end of the Roman/Seleukid War, and the treaty of Apamea Antiochus still ruled a large and powerful empire. True he had lost Asia Minor, but then again it was never truly absorbed into the empire even after the defeat of Acheus. The distant parts of the empire, specifically Armenia, Parthia, and Bactria, did rebel when news of Antiochus' defeat reached them, but these could've been brought back fairly easily under Seleukid control if Antiochus launched a second Eastern campaign. What was important was that Antiochus still held the core parts of the empire namely Syria, Babylonia, and Persia each of which had immense recruiting potential for the royal army and possessed great wealth and the potential for more in themselves. In addition to this he had added Cilicia and Coele-Syria to his realm and their potential riches and soldiers along with them.

Rome was hesitant at the prospect of a clash with the Seleukids before and even after their victorious war with them. They dreaded the near-mythical wealth and seemingly limitless manpower of the East in general, and despite constant exaggeration over the centuries the rumor of these resources were not completely unfounded and Antiochus alone was in a position to possess them. The Romans were reluctant, perhaps terrified, of going anywhere past the Taurus Mountain range even with the goding of their Greek allies most notably the Rhodians. If Antiochus had chosen to reconquer the East yet again, and perhaps go south and finish the Ptolemies off for good it is doubtful they would have tried to stop him.


On the whole it is easy to overlook the genius that was Antiochus the Great, and perhaps easier to accept that after their clash with the Romans the Seleukid Empire was broken, but if anyone did so they would be making a grave mistake. Antiochus III is perhaps one of the most brilliant, but underestimated military leaders of the Ancient World and his Empire was the only one that had access to resources that could outmatch Rome's. It is an unfortunate truth, that so many things throughout history have been distorted by either time or biased sources.

Magnesia is a puzzle in many ways.
One of the misteries is why Anthiochius didn't employ Hannibal properly, using him as admiral instead of a general.
Between the two generals and the available resources there was enough potential to kick in a huge war.

There are some fantasy scenarios in a few games that represents Magnesia as Hannibals' revenge, pitting him against Scipio once more.
Ironically both great generals were absent from battle, one apparently mistrusted by the seleucids and the other one sick in camp.

A thread unto my own heart *looks at his screen name* :2thumbsup:

I ought to learn more about my internet namesake. The resources on the web are awfully inadequate -- holes that go by years and little in detail. Apart from this touted The Roman War of Antiochus the Great can anyone suggest me other resources? I'll soon be off to college and that is going to both be a boon and a downer, boon since I'd probably get access to a decent library, downer because I can't possibly afford those expensive academic books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

In my opinion, Antiochos was probably tired. He was quite old by now and had been campaigning constantly since he ascended to the Seleukid throne. Only two people come even close to this: Alexander, who didn't live very long, and Caesar who took many months on a vacation sailing on the Nile with Kleopatra probably due to exhaustion. Antiochos was also aware of the what damage the four years of fighting with Achaios had caused to the region. In the end, he went with the Treaty of Apameia, which had its pros and cons for both sides and was a far more peaceful solution.

---

I think that Antiochos must have had serious financial problems. War wasn't cheap even for Seleucids. AFAIK when two ancient empires fought each other the first major battle was decisive because army upkeep was so high. One had to win and plunder enemy camp to pay the army. Looser was broke and had to sue for peace.

The Romans are another matter. They didn't pay for solders equipment (until Marian reforms of course) paid much less their soldiers so money wasn't that big problem for them as for other countries.

What is more Magnesia wasn't first defeat of Antiochos. He lost one or two battles trying to stop Romans in main Greece. So after Magnesia his army had very low morale, he had no money, as Abou says was tired and probably
he was afraid that after defeat at Magnesia some more energetic governors could think it is a good time to become independent. Unfortunatelly Seleucids Empire wasn't very stable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

The losses at Magnesia were several times less than what Livy wrote. The Roman army was of a much larger size than what Livy stated and their losses much, much more than what Livy wrote. By all means, Antiochos could have continued the fighting and won (he never made the same mistake twice, btw, and Rome was full of terrible generals.). Rome was quite over extended too with fighting all over the Mediterranean. To add to this, Antiochos still had an alliance with the Galatians and Kappadokians - regions which Rome attacked in a dick move, and could have then only spurred them on to fight more against the invaders. As to why Antiochos didn't... :shrug:

---

I can easily believe that roman loses were much bigger, but what reason is there to claim that losses of Antiochos were small?

Antiochos's army had only 19000 foot troops worth mentioning (phalangitai and galatians) and possibly up to 10000 silvershields (Bar-Kohwa's opinion)
The rest was composed of light armed levees, mostly useless as it was raining (the worst weather for composite bows).

Romans on the other hand had around 20000 heavy infantry, quite probably veterans of II Punic and II Macedonian wars.

If we add to this that Antiochos left wing was broken minutes after the battle started (own chariots and Roman/Pergamene cavalry charge) we see that the situation was not very good for Antiochos.

Phalanx and galatians were surounded by romans, inf and cav, and was massacred so we can assume 70% dead here. Another massacre was done in the camp, so I think we can easily assume 25000 dead plus 5000 trampled by elephants and people in retreat. Some were also taken prisoner.

"Looser was broke and had to sue for peace. "

Didn't Carthage sue for peace even though they had a vast amount of money left, enough money to hire many more mercenaries and enough money to pay the Romans a huge tribute for peace.

Carthaginian leaders = crap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

I can easily believe that roman loses were much bigger, but what reason is there to claim that losses of Antiochos were small?

Antiochos's army had only 19000 foot troops worth mentioning (phalangitai and galatians) and possibly up to 10000 silvershields (Bar-Kohwa's opinion)
The rest was composed of light armed levees, mostly useless as it was raining (the worst weather for composite bows).

---

Hopefully my explanation will be convincing. I'm pretty sure though that Livy mentions the Argyraspidai on the extreme right.

Quote:

---

Romans on the other hand had around 20000 heavy infantry, quite probably veterans of II Punic and II Macedonian wars.

---

Recently the concession seems to be that they had more. Possibly upwards of 50,000 total minus sick and wounded. It comes from careful reading of Livy and his mentions of troops that have been stationed throughout Italy and Greece - troops which would have been brought over to Asia Minor to fight Antiochos. I have it posted in EBH if you're curious.

Quote:

---

If we add to this that Antiochos left wing was broken minutes after the battle started (own chariots and Roman/Pergamene cavalry charge) we see that the situation was not very good for Antiochos.

Phalanx and galatians were surounded by romans, inf and cav, and was massacred so we can assume 70% dead here. Another massacre was done in the camp, so I think we can easily assume 25000 dead plus 5000 trampled by elephants and people in retreat. Some were also taken prisoner.

---

Right, but not of the cavalry is going to wait around and be killed. Considering how much cavalry was on the Seleukid left I wouldn't be surprised if more than half got away. Seleukos IV was in command of that cavarly - how did he get away then?

The phalanx that had formed the square was holding back the Romans quite well. That is, until the elephants rampaged. 5,000 is a bit high though - I would have put it at less than that. Plus, once the elephants did rampage, it probably scared off the Roman soldiers and allowed the phalanx troops to break and flee.

I imagine that the 4,700 light infantry stationed to the left of the phalanx probably broke and ran after having seen the cataphracts collapse due to the chariots. Same with the other cavalry in that area like the "Tarentines". The heavy fighting described by Livy at the camp afterwards was probably due to the light troops put there to guard the camp. I don't even think there is enough frontage to put the several thousands that Livy describes anywhere on the battlefield other than at the camp - which would explain why the phalanx, so easy to break at Thermopylai when troops appeared at their rear, held almost indefinitely at Magnesia. That is the one place were casualties would be incredibly high, but I have a feeling that if Livy's number of 35,000 is anywhere accurate that might be because it includes dependents and slaves which were at the camp (a bad Hellenic practice).

Finally, after the battle Seleukos is at the Antiocheia of the region, which is due west of Magnesia, with a sizable army. Where did this army come from if not from Magnesian survivors? It was apparently large enough of an army that Rome avoided it entirely. If you have a drastically reduced phalanx and troops of other contingents then you have nothing suitable to defend the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

"Looser was broke and had to sue for peace. "

Didn't Carthage sue for peace even though they had a vast amount of money left, enough money to hire many more mercenaries and enough money to pay the Romans a huge tribute for peace.

Carthaginian leaders = crap

---

And when was that? After the first punic war Carthage didnt have money to pay their mercenaries. This started "the merciless war" which Carthage barely survived. After the second punic war Carthage lost Iberia. And no Iberia = no money. And after the third war Carthage was no more. As for tribute, it wasn't paid all sum at once but in rates.

Yes, but Carthage was apparently capable of paying the indemnity of the 2nd Punic War in a fraction of the time, but Rome refused the offer. Carthage was soon very prosperous, which of course made Cato anxious.

Cato was an asshole anyway. The sacking of Carthage was entirely unnecessary.

As to the Seleukids, they certainly weren't bankrupt. It was the indemnity which was the bigger problem.

u guys are making me want to play with the Seleucids.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Yes, but Carthage was apparently capable of paying the indemnity of the 2nd Punic War in a fraction of the time, but Rome refused the offer. Carthage was soon very prosperous, which of course made Cato anxious.

---

Well, with allmost no army and navy they had low upkeep costs.

Quote:

---

Cato was an asshole anyway. The sacking of Carthage was entirely unnecessary.

---

IMHO Cato or no Cato, Romans would destroy Carthage anyway. Carthage put the strongest resilience to the Romans. No Roman senator would sleep well knowing that someday a new Hannibal Barcas could be born.

And yes, Cato was an asshole ~;)

Quote:

---

As to the Seleukids, they certainly weren't bankrupt. It was the indemnity which was the bigger problem.

---

All right, I take Your word for it. But if I remember correctly was one of the descendents of Antiochos III (Antiochos IV?) killed while robbing some temple?

Back to the topic for just a second:

What if there was a trait, "Losing the War" that all family members of faction x get if they lose 3 or 4 large battles in a row, with massive negative affects for moral, tax income, bribability etc. For balance there'd have to be some way to reverse fortune, I suppose.

Another tack would be for a faction to have a counterpart to victory conditions, i.e. failure conditions. Let's say for example SPQR is driven out of Rome and/or Italy all together- script gives them x number of turns to get back before killing off all their family members. Something along those lines.

Quote:

---

What if there was a trait, "Losing the War" that all family members of faction x get if they lose 3 or 4 large battles in a row, with massive negative affects for moral, tax income, bribability etc. For balance there'd have to be some way to reverse fortune, I suppose.

---

If there only was a way to make the AI accept and honour peace, war weariness would be a good concept to implement, affected by battles/sieges/war length etc. There isn't :juggle2:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grudzio

All right, I take Your word for it. But if I remember correctly was one of the descendents of Antiochos III (Antiochos IV?) killed while robbing some temple?

---

It was Antioch III himself.

Back to off topic for a moment:

Is the result of the war not easier to understand if Magnesia were interpreted as the decisive defeat as what it is described by Livius and Arrian?

Maybe there were more Roman soldiers involved (but mosty all the Greek wars after 200 were fought with the normal two legion consular armies) and their losses higher. And I'm with you that the Seleucid casualties may be exaggerated.

But after the phalanx was broken by the own elephants and the Roman attack against the already scattered formation a general pursuit of the fleeing soldiers took place. Such routs normally result in a great number of casualties. So a great loss of phalangite core troops is entirely possible.

The break of the Roman left wing and the flight towards the Roman camp was different. The Roman army was not decisively scattered and the cataphracts had to remain carefully in a kind of order, otherwise the pursuit could have resulted in disaster. When they were stopped by the Greeks who guarded the Roman camp, the cavalry were not beaten or dispersed but remained as a force which later repulsed a Roman cavalry charge: for me the argument that they were still in formation. Being in formation however is a bad premise to kill fleeing soldiers.

The following peace treaty was rather bad for AS. Loss of the western provinces, restrictions of sovereignty in warfare, delivery of nearly all warships and all war elephants and reparations of about 15000 talents are not nice conditions. Maybe the death of Antiochos is directly related to the enormous sum the AS had to pay. Such a peace is not the result of nothing, although the Hellenistic states had another relation to the end of wars than the mad Romans.

The Roman army on the other hand after Magnesia soon marched against the fortresses of the Galatians and won again great victories. That would not have been possible if the army had been weakened by great losses in the war against Antiochos.

The general problem of the Hellenistic kingdoms after 200 was that they faced first the battle hardened Roman soldiers of the last years of the Punic war together with extremely experienced officers and later the growing paranoia of the Roman state who saw menaces all around which did not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

It was Antioch III himself.

---

So, at some point he was broke. And thanks for the information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

Back to off topic for a moment:

Is the result of the war not easier to understand if Magnesia were interpreted as the decisive defeat as what it is described by Livius and Arrian?

---

Easier, but not true. I could say the sun rises because some guy in a chariot rides across the sky every day... that's what certain myths tell us. Doesn't mean it's true.

Hint: you should take this as an indication of what I think about at least Livy.:beam:*

Quote:

---

Maybe there were more Roman soldiers involved (but mosty all the Greek wars after 200 were fought with the normal two legion consular armies) and their losses higher. And I'm with you that the Seleucid casualties may be exaggerated.

---

Normal Consular armies were four legions: two Roman legions and two allied legions.

Quote:

---

But after the phalanx was broken by the own elephants and the Roman attack against the already scattered formation a general pursuit of the fleeing soldiers took place. Such routs normally result in a great number of casualties. So a great loss of phalangite core troops is entirely possible.

---

Sure, but you don't chase routing infantry with heavy infantry. You also underestimate the scare factor of elephants and the lightness of the phalangite equipment; especially so once the sarissa is dropped. If you are running with just a helmet, linothorax, small shield, and a sheathed sword you can be quite adroit.

Quote:

---

The break of the Roman left wing and the flight towards the Roman camp was different. The Roman army was not decisively scattered and the cataphracts had to remain carefully in a kind of order, otherwise the pursuit could have resulted in disaster.

---

Not decisively scattered? The whole legion (possibly two) routed immediately after or slightly before the charge hit. The Principes and Triarii ran without even being touched.

Quote:

---

The Roman army on the other hand after Magnesia soon marched against the fortresses of the Galatians and won again great victories. That would not have been possible if the army had been weakened by great losses in the war against Antiochos.

---

Well, they did take a very roundabout way around that nice fortress with that garrison I mentioned in an earlier post so as to invade Galatia, which never had a very large population. Maybe Anthony could provide evidence to the contrary, but they never seemed to me to be very large.

Livy only mention 200 casualties for the Roman - preposterous! The routed legion alone would have accounted for way more than that.

Quote:

---

The general problem of the Hellenistic kingdoms after 200 was that they faced first the battle hardened Roman soldiers of the last years of the Punic war together with extremely experienced officers and later the growing paranoia of the Roman state who saw menaces all around which did not exist.

---

Many of the legions sent to fight Antiochos would have been freshly recruited. In fact, we are told so by Livy in earlier sections of many legions being newly raised for various reasons - legions that would have gone to Greece and Asia Minor. Also, I think you are totally discounting the military of Antiochos. Although not all of them were constantly deployed, we are talking about a military that Antiochos had been using for over thirty years - a fair amount of which were full-time, professional soldiers. If any army could be counted as the best trained and maintained military of the Mediterranean (if not the world) it was the Seleukid military.


* The thing with Livy is that he can tell if an event happened, but if he starts describing events, thoughts, actions, etc he is full of it. For example, he can tell you where a new army was raised, but sometimes completely makes up the reason for it (e.g. he will say an army was raised to protect Italy from invasion via Greece, but the army will be deployed on the wrong side of Italy). He can tell you a meeting took place, but will make up entirely what was said, which often contradicts events before and after. He can tell you where and when a battle took place and who was fighting against whom, but he will butcher the numbers. Livy was concerned with writing a romantic and patriotic account of Rome, not a solid, historically accurate picture of events. I know I haven't really addressed what Arrian says, but I believe he based his account off of Livy and Polybios, which only goes so far. Besides, I'm angrier at Livy... man I hate reading him; especially in Latin. Milky richness my ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grudzio

So, at some point he was broke. And thanks for the information.

---

Not necessarily. After Magnesia he continued to fund Aitolia in its fight against Rome. Between that and the indemnity he may have felt a little crunch, but nothing so constricting as bankruptcy. The reason for his looting of the temple in Susa was probably to fund a new eastern campaign against Parthia and Baktria after they revolted upon hearing the news of Magnesia.

Hmm, unfortunately I'm not able to take parts of posts and commend it (how is it done?). So I have to answer in this way:

1. Livius may be a problematic source (fortunately I never had to read him in Latin :laugh4: ), but some facts, esp. the peace treaty, restricts me to dismiss him totally in this case.

2. That information about the consular army is new to me. I thought it consisted of two legions, four legions only in special circumstances. A Roman legion always means the legion and the associated ala of allies. So a two legion army consisted normally of two legions of Romans and two alae of Italian allies, resulting in about 20000 soldiers. What are the legions of the allies composed of? Or do you mean the alae?

L. Scipio had also allies from Pergamon and Makedonia with him, so his army was of course more than 20000.

3. The pursuit of the phalangites was of course not only done by the heavy infantry. The Romans had a lot light troops nearby which did not hide behind the heavy infantry like their Greek counterparts, but bombed the elephants into rout and harrassed the phalanx. There was also cavalry left, I think.

4. The left wing of the Romans was broken (partly reformed at the camp) but the whole army was not decisively scattered. This is the difference to the situation of the Seleucid army: resistance was not to be expected any longer after the phalanx broke.

5. Of course there were many new recruits in the legions. A hastatus of 202 may have fought as a princeps or triarius in 190, but many were not the same than in the Punic war. But a lot of experienced officers came from the last great war. And as someone has said, there are no bad soldiers, only bad officers.

I'm not at all a fan of the Romans. But it is a fact that the Roman militia armies beat the regular armies of the Hellenistic states. And that is not only due to more manpower or better economics. Compared to the Second Punic War it was low scale warfare for the Romans. Unfortunately the Hellenistic states were more busy to fight inner wars than to stop the Romans. They don't have the tradition of the Romans that a war could only be ended with being the sole victor and power left. So some unlucky battles (Kynoskephalai, Magnesia, Pydna) were enough. A great difference to Mithridates VI. btw.

6. You said some interesting things about the equipment of the phalangites. So you don't assist the opinion that the phalangites of the 3rd/ 2nd c. were more heavily armoured than their predecessors? Some argue that the phalanx was more clumsy than before. At Gaugamela the Pezhetairoi were able to wheel around partly and face a threat to their rear. The later phalanxes seem to be more fixed to one direction, being unable at Kynoskephalai to deal with the rear attack of some maniples. It is of course very problematic to make hypotheses based on single events.

You copy the text in question, paste it where you want, mark it and click the quote-button in the toolbar, it's right next to the picture button. If you want to have the name of the poster, change the beginning tag to [quote=postername].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Not necessarily. After Magnesia he continued to fund Aitolia in its fight against Rome. Between that and the indemnity he may have felt a little crunch, but nothing so constricting as bankruptcy.

---

Ok. I change "was broke" to "had financial problems". I will try to be more precise in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

The reason for his looting of the temple in Susa was probably to fund a new eastern campaign against Parthia and Baktria after they revolted upon hearing the news of Magnesia.

---

Sad thing that such a great king had such an ending - died while looting a temple.

Has anyone tried playing with two turn build times for units? I'm trying that right now along with very expensive merc units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bovi

If you want battles to be more decisive, you can try the unofficial money/merc modifications, a lot of people are very satisfied with those.

---

Does anyone have a link to these?

You'll find plenty of 'em in the EB unofficial mods subforum. After all, they are... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larsbecks

Has anyone tried playing with two turn build times for units? I'm trying that right now along with very expensive merc units.

---

You know, on older versions of EB that sort of thing (multi-turn recruitment in general) actually existed for elites. Only the Elephants & ships retained it, AFAIK. Can't say I miss it with other units very much... :juggle:

if your sick of war, try use force deplomacy and make them protectorate. I used it in my pontus campeign against the seleucids and we had a peace for about 2 years. If your powerful the peace should last longer.

to Bovi

:help: Where can I find this mod as you write?

"If you want battles to be more decisive, you can try the unofficial money/merc modifications, a lot of people are very satisfied with those."

Could you send me the prolink to this mod?

Take a look at the unofficial mods subforum. You won't have to search very long.

Edit: What's a prolink?

I suspect a "Prolink" should be read as "hyperlink" - "proxy" seems somewhat unlikely.

Apart from that: funny thing, reading. Really is.

I wqs going to chip in this thread but I would be way out of my depth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

What are the legions of the allies composed of? Or do you mean the alae?

---

You wouldn't think it, but mostly they are equipped the same as the native Roman legions. A certain percentage though are equipped as Extraordinarii. Can't remember off hand, but I'm sure if one of the Roman guys showed up they could tell you.

Quote:

---

3. The pursuit of the phalangites was of course not only done by the heavy infantry. The Romans had a lot light troops nearby which did not hide behind the heavy infantry like their Greek counterparts, but bombed the elephants into rout and harrassed the phalanx. There was also cavalry left, I think.

---

That's great except that there would only be a fraction of Velites compared to the phalanx and the cavalry would be frightened by the elephants. Plus, I think you're overestimating the frequency of a victorious army to slaughter a fleeing enemy. It really didn't happen all that much in large, massive battles. And by all indications of the Roman army actions afterward and further reading of the ancient authors it didn't really seem like there was this great slaughter that Livy wrote about.

But man, I feel like the Professor in that episode of Futurama: "Professor. Lava. Hot!"

Seleukos. Fortress. Garrison!:beam:

Quote:

---

I'm not at all a fan of the Romans. But it is a fact that the Roman militia armies beat the regular armies of the Hellenistic states.

---

A fact yes, but it wouldn't exactly be fair to say that without detailed study of those battles.

Quote:

---

6. You said some interesting things about the equipment of the phalangites. So you don't assist the opinion that the phalangites of the 3rd/ 2nd c. were more heavily armoured than their predecessors? Some argue that the phalanx was more clumsy than before. At Gaugamela the Pezhetairoi were able to wheel around partly and face a threat to their rear. The later phalanxes seem to be more fixed to one direction, being unable at Kynoskephalai to deal with the rear attack of some maniples. It is of course very problematic to make hypotheses based on single events.

---

I was actually talking about this a while ago with Paullus and Krusader and we're both agreed that if anything the phalanx increased in skill (at least for a short time in the Makedonian and Ptolemaic army although that is complicated). Even as late as the Jewish rebellions the Seleukid phalanx is performing complex maneuvers that we didn't see during Alexander. As far as equipment goes that is hard to say. I would let one of our equipment experts talk about that.

Perhaps this thread has been derailed from its intended topic?

There's a lot of historical analysis of the tiny minutiae of the battles of the Seleukid empire, but little discussion about how battles could be made more decisive in the game. If indeed this would be a valid thing to do. Etc.

I've found that if you attack the enemy before they attack you, take just one or two cities and kill the majority of their army in the region, they will come to you wanting a ceise-fire. If you accept (even though you will usually have to give up on taking one of their cities, mid-siege), their 'hate-gadge' will reset to zero. Then when you start the war again, you can do the same and fight your wars in stages. Of course, this doesn't work if they attacked you or they have no other enemies. Battles seem more desicive this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shigawire

Perhaps this thread has been derailed from its intended topic?

There's a lot of historical analysis of the tiny minutiae of the battles of the Seleukid empire, but little discussion about how battles could be made more decisive in the game. If indeed this would be a valid thing to do. Etc.

---

I think it's about money. The AI factions approach unlimited money for practical purposes, i.e their unit building is limited by how many barracks they have not by what they can pay for. Once you get into a real war with them, they can and frequently will build one unit per city per turn in the war zone. Oh, and they'll hire mercs too. If you conquer Rome over ten years, you'll fight more troops than their entire starting population whilst thinking "this is silly" every half an hour.

So the sensible thing to do is to conquer them quickly, giving them the minimum time to build units. You want to go from not fighting Rome at all to a massive invasion and conquest of Rome at breakneck speed. Then ideally you take several years to thoroughly consolidate your new lands, freeing up your field/siege armies from population control. Then do it all to again to somebody else several years later. So you advance across the map in spurts, not a steady trickle.

Of course this is not always possible in practice, but the closer you can get the better. You can sometimes get clever about it. E.g. the AI basically won't make peace when it has a land frontier; so if your land frontier is one province that's hard to hold, sell it to the Ptolemies then send your best diplomat up to a lowly Roman captain asking for a ceasefire. At least find defensible chokepoints on the map and conquer up to those, giving you a chance to consolidate behind them.

So, I don't think you can make individual battles more decisive, RTW diplomacy and EB finances/recruiting don't work that way. But there is some hope of making your wars more decisive. Try to only start wars you can finish. Try to avoid others starting wars by not putting weak armies/garrisons near their strong ones (the AI can't resist).

Good points Morte. Your analysis seems sound.

Yes well done Morte66!

What I do is every 5-10 years ingame I decide to go on a campaign to conquer a particular area. For example, I'm currently playing as Seleukeia and so far I have launched 3 seperate and decisive (As in either destroying a faction or crippling it) campaigns against the Ptolemaio(who put up quite a good fight), Pontus(who had conquered almost all of Asia Minor when I invaded them), and Baktria.

The end result is that I destroyed 1 faction, and crippled the other two beyond recovery. Expanding in spurts (As Morte pointed out) has allowed me to substantially expand my empire, as well as giving me ample time to consolidate my conquests. I've managed to not only keep my original provinces and gain more, but that by taking my time and properly "assimilating" new territories I've experienced very few revolts or economical strain and have managed to build a lot of the 'high tier' buildings in my core cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morte66

I think it's about money. The AI factions approach unlimited money for practical purposes, i.e their unit building is limited by how many barracks they have not by what they can pay for. Once you get into a real war with them, they can and frequently will build one unit per city per turn in the war zone. Oh, and they'll hire mercs too. If you conquer Rome over ten years, you'll fight more troops than their entire starting population whilst thinking "this is silly" every half an hour.

So the sensible thing to do is to conquer them quickly, giving them the minimum time to build units. You want to go from not fighting Rome at all to a massive invasion and conquest of Rome at breakneck speed. Then ideally you take several years to thoroughly consolidate your new lands, freeing up your field/siege armies from population control. Then do it all to again to somebody else several years later. So you advance across the map in spurts, not a steady trickle.

Of course this is not always possible in practice, but the closer you can get the better. You can sometimes get clever about it. E.g. the AI basically won't make peace when it has a land frontier; so if your land frontier is one province that's hard to hold, sell it to the Ptolemies then send your best diplomat up to a lowly Roman captain asking for a ceasefire. At least find defensible chokepoints on the map and conquer up to those, giving you a chance to consolidate behind them.

So, I don't think you can make individual battles more decisive, RTW diplomacy and EB finances/recruiting don't work that way. But there is some hope of making your wars more decisive. Try to only start wars you can finish. Try to avoid others starting wars by not putting weak armies/garrisons near their strong ones (the AI can't resist).

---

I would like to add...

doing this will also keep you from being SWARMED! (a common complaint among players)