Request for assistance and a commentary on Rome Total War.

[Flavius Merobaudes]

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

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

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

[Quirinus]

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

[Brave]

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

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

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

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

[Quirinus]

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

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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

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

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


Welcome Sorceror!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI...

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

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

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

Anyways thats all for now,

Curio

[RLucid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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