Request for assistance and a commentary on Rome Total War.

[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