Pointless playing Romani?

**Cullhwch** · 09-07-2008, 08:21

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.

**runner3434** · 09-07-2008, 09:35

I find Romani a good faction no matter how you play it.

it faces a good mix of different fighting styles from the start.

**satalexton** · 09-07-2008, 10:21

use local troops and mercs to create allied armies of different play style, i have a merc phalanx army guarding antioch for instance.

**Celtic_Punk** · 09-07-2008, 11:24

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!

**satalexton** · 09-07-2008, 12:06

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

**Space_Ed** · 09-07-2008, 13:21

Originally Posted by Cullhwch

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 LOVE fighting the gauls with legions. It looks awesome. Really badass.

**Cullhwch** · 09-07-2008, 21:56

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

I LOVE fighting the gauls with legions. It looks awesome. Really badass.

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.

**fenix3279** · 09-08-2008, 03:50

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?

**Aemilius Paulus** · 09-08-2008, 04:18

Originally Posted by fenix3279

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.

**fenix3279** · 09-08-2008, 04:37

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.