Italy should have more cities to represent Roman manpower

[Dunadd]

This post is a suggestion for EB II based on playing EB 1.2.

I've tried playing EB 1.2 as Carthaginians and as Dacians on the RTW 1.5 engine, on BI and on the Alexander Total War engine.

The Romans troop types are historically accurate (i especially love that Campanian heavy cavalry can skirmish with javelins, as they did historically) but the Romans' relative weakness in terms of numbers and their passivity are very unhistorical.

istorically the Romans had massively greater manpower than most of their enemies due to their system of conscription and allied legions. They beat the Gauls not because Roman armies were superior, but because they outnumbered them by a factor of at least 5 to 1 in the Telamon campaign and at least 2 to 1 in the battle of Telamon (according to WRG Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars).

They beat the Carthaginians for a similar reason - they could field armies simultaneously in Northern Italy, Southern Italy, Spain, Sicily and Africa.

Because of this making the Romans' cities just proportional to the population of Italy massively under represents their actual military manpower, which was out of all proportion to Italy's population.

It would make the mod more historically accurate and more fun and challenging to play to increase the number of cities in Italy and under Roman control at the start of the game in order to represent this.

(I say that as someone who never plays as the Romans, but as Carthaginians or Dacians)

Then Roman forces could fight in several countries at once (as they often did) and it would be a challenge to fight against them, rather than a bit dull.

The problem may be partly the Alexander engine here, but the trouble is that only Alexander has half-decent battlefield AI. BI and RTW 1.5 have aggressive naval invasions but very poor battlefield AI (in 1.5 especially generals often just kamikaze into the middle of my army just to kill some skirmishers).

Some of the AI problems could be fixed in EBII if Medevial II AI is moddable (?) , but more cities in Italy to represent Roman military manpower might be the best solution (that or having more than one allied Roman faction as in RTW vanilla)
Dunadd is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message

[antisocialmunky]

You posted this in the EB1 forum. The problem is the AI going North and suiciding on full naked gaul stacks. The EB team has said on numerous occasion that they will be representing geography in a fair way to all factions. Rome isn't going ot get more cities.

[The General]

Besides, you can recruit several units per turn per city/castle in M2:TW.

[Cybvep]

You posted this in the EB1 forum. The problem is the AI going North and suiciding on full naked gaul stacks. The EB team has said on numerous occasion that they will be representing geography in a fair way to all factions. Rome isn't going ot get more cities.

This is EB1. In EB2 there is a different system of capping units (low replenishment rate), so with this and a little AI scripting (especially the diplomacy AI) and the problem may not be as serious as in EB1.

When it comes to geography of various factions, I think there won't be many changes in Italy (unless a new faction in this region will be present). However, population growth values and unit replenishment rate should be adjusted instead, especially that it can be balanced in different ways - we can, for example, decrease population growth globally (because Huge Cities are the plague of the later games), but Roman faction would not be as severely affected.

[Dunadd]

Maybe - but the solution that worked in the original Rome Total War was to have three Roman factions. That way they didnt all go North. The Southern faction went South. The Northern one went North and West. The Eastern one went East. In other words the Romans did exactly what they did historically.

Despite the original RTW being historically inaccurate in all kinds of ways and EB being a massive improvement on that in most ways, the original RTW represented the Romans' historical behaviour and military strength much more accurately - and having just one Roman faction (which is meant to make the game less 'Romano-centric') actually results in it being unhistorical.

If in EBII we got all the historical accuracy of EB and the lovely client ruler stuff etc along with restoring the 3 Roman factions it'd be the best of both worlds and the most historically accurate it could get.

[A Very Super Market]

Exactly? You mean they were in Iberia, North Africa, Macedonia and Gaul in the 250s?

[Dunadd]

No - i mean that during the 1st Punic war (264 to 241 BC) they were in both Sicily and north Africa and attacked Sardinia and Corsica - and fighting in the Po valley against the Northern Italian Celts not much later (Telamon was 225 BC) and probably before and during the 1st Punic war too

The mod starts in 272 BC so that means about 30 to 40 turns in (at the latest), to act historically, they'd have to be fighting Carthage across much of the western mediterranean.

They also considered sending troops to Macedonia during the 2nd punic war (218-201 BC) and intervened in wars in Greece a lot after that.

But i take part of your point - that going east in 270s to 250s BC is too early.

So say you drop the Eastern Roman faction and just have two Roman factions - one in the Northern part of central Italy, one in the Southern part. Then the Romans have effective manpower far higher than any other faction (due to their system of conscription and allied legions, not to greater population) - and they also don't only go North, they go South too, coming into conflict with both Carthage and the Po Valley Celts relatively early in the game (or as soon as they get Tarentum from Phyrrus' Epeirots).

After the 2nd punic war they did expand in every direction at once - and thats still not that far into the EB period (after 201 BC)

[Ludens]

You shouldn't take expansion patterns of EB1 as a guide as to what is going to happen in EB2. M2:TW offers more settings and a comparatively more clever strategic A.I., so A.I. expansion is going to be more sensible. Not to mention that there will be more factions that can influence the expansion of other factions.

Even so, there are not going to be multiple Roman factions, in the same way there are not going to be multiple Carthaginian factions to direct Carthaginian warfare operations.

[Dunadd]

Multiple Roman factions was one thing in vanilla Rome Total War that did work reasonably well - it ensured they went South and North at the same time and had the ability to field several big armies at once. That at least was more historically accurate than EB with a single Roman faction, even though EB is more historically accurate in pretty much every other way.

Three Roman factions, as in the original RTW, is maybe too many, but two might work well.

I'd like to believe Medieval II's AI can be modded well enough to make the Romans not just go North - remains to be seen though - and having two Roman factions might be much less work, much less complicated and give as good or better results.

[The General]

Multiple Roman factions was one thing in vanilla Rome Total War that did work reasonably well - it ensured they went South and North at the same time and had the ability to field several big armies at once. That at least was more historically accurate than EB with a single Roman faction, even though EB is more historically accurate in pretty much every other way.

I would like you to provide information proving that Rome was practically ruled by three major houses in 272BC who governed their respective areas autonomously (in name only, practically as independent allied states), and that the Senate only held direct power over Latium and only enough power to inquire as to whether a certain major faction would be so kind as to direct its insanely speedy conquest to the general direction a particular city.

If not, I'm going to go with the view supported by anyone other than you and CA that SPQR was one state.

[Dunadd]

I'm not arguing anything of the kind and never had, so don't need to provide evidence of something i've never claimed. What i said was that having more than one Roman faction did too things that were historically accurate.

1) Gave the Romans massively more armies than other factions (historically accurate due to their method of conscription and allied legions)

2) Made the Romans attempt to expand aggressively across the Western Mediterranean, attacking Corisca, Sardinia, Sicily and North Africa early in the game - just as they did in the punic wars.

I also argued that having two allied Roman factions might be an easier and more effective way to achieve that than modding AI would be.

So please don't waste your time arguing against something i never claimed.

[Moros]

Well it's not going to happen. Manpower will be represented by the replentish rates etc,... and the AI will be changed to be more fitting and realistic.

[Dunadd]

I hope that works and if it does i'll have no problem with it - I just think maybe 2 Roman factions would be less work and represent it as or more effectively. The Romans should really be able to field at least 2 or 3 times as many troops at once than most of their rivals at once (e.g Telamon campaign, Punic Wars). That, not the supposed superiority of the legions, was their main strength (generally veteran legions won battles and inexperienced legions lost them)

Is the campaign and battlefield AI in Medieval Total War moddable or only the campaign level? And how much better do you think it could be made than BI/ALEX AI?

[The General]

I'm not arguing anything of the kind and never had, so don't need to provide evidence of something i've never claimed. What i said was that having more than one Roman faction did too things that were historically accurate.

1) Gave the Romans massively more armies than other factions (historically accurate due to their method of conscription and allied legions)

2) Made the Romans attempt to expand aggressively across the Western Mediterranean, attacking Corisca, Sardinia, Sicily and North Africa early in the game - just as they did in the punic wars.

I also argued that having two allied Roman factions might be an easier and more effective way to achieve that than modding AI would be.

So please don't waste your time arguing against something i never claimed.

Now that we've established that SPQR was one state, I'd be curious why you insist on having 2-4 of those precious, precious faction slots used to make one faction (collective) expand more, thus creating a very, very ahistorical geopolitical situation in Italy, in a very much history/realism driven mod?

In EBI, SPQR can easily field several fullstacks while owning only Italy (not even Sicily, Mediolanum, Corsica or Sardinia), the problem is that the campaign AI of R:TW all too often fails to put them into good use (as those Pedites Extraordinarii/Triarii stacks do obliterate the opposition).

As has been pointed out already, however, M2:TW makes the AI moddable so it should be possible to make the factions behave more realistically (hopefully not just more aggressively, in EBI the AI factions are just suicidal as they can't resist picking a fight with the player, no matter the situation...).

[Andronikos]

Having more Roman factions would be sacrificing many historicaly accurate things for one minor.

[Raiuga]

I don't understand why so many people request that the romans be superior, from the start of the game (year 272BC), to everyone else. They justify that statement with the argument that they "ruled the world", "that they owned everyone else" or simply "they should be superior only because they are Romans". If you want so badly to see a "Historical Roman Empire", play with them, conquer the world, and be happy for that. Even if EB tries to be as most "historical" has it can be, in the end, it's only a game, and being a game, it's about making your own history.

In 272BC, I doubt the Romans were strong enough to be called "The only true contenders to become a superpower". They were a power in rising, yes, but they weren't strong enough to do what Alexander did in his lifetime (maybe not the best comparison). There were many factors that determined their rising, and many times their "power" was contested by other factions. History could have been very different, there are many "what if" in Rome path to glory, but that's would be just speculating.

Ahhh... before I end... I don't like romans to much, but at least I don't come here to the forums asking for them to be "nerfed", so no need to call me "Roman Hater". They are perfect has they are now


Just keep on playing....and be happy

Yours truly, Raiuga

[Dunadd]

Raigua wrote

I don't understand why so many people request that the romans be superior, from the start of the game (year 272BC), to everyone else. They justify that statement with the argument that they "ruled the world", "that they owned everyone else" or simply "they should be superior only because they are Romans". If you want so badly to see a "Historical Roman Empire", play with them, conquer the world, and be happy for that. Even if EB tries to be as most "historical" has it can be, in the end, it's only a game, and being a game, it's about making your own history.

In 272BC, I doubt the Romans were strong enough to be called "The only true contenders to become a superpower". They were a power in rising, yes, but they weren't strong enough to do what Alexander did in his lifetime (maybe not the best comparison). There were many factors that determined their rising, and many times their "power" was contested by other factions. History could have been very different, there are many "what if" in Rome path to glory, but that's would be just speculating.

I agree with all that and i'm not asking for them to be superior. In fact i think if anything the quality of their units is over-rated. Until the middle of the 2nd punic war their cavalry was pretty poor and ridiculously small in numbers and their leves skirmishers didnt even have shields.

What they did have was massive manpower (not due to high population but their conscription and allied legions system of recruitment) and it was their greater manpower that won them wars most of the time - not superior armies (e.g Telamon campaign the Romans had several armies each of which outnumbered the Po Valley Celts' one allied field army; against Phyrrus they never got better than a draw but could shrug off losses that he couldnt; in the Second Punic War Hannibal beat them in 3 major battles but they just raised new armies)

I'd just like to see AI controlled Romans attack aggressively overseas and fight in Sicily and the other Mediterranean islands and North Africa fairly early in the game. If the Medieval II AI can be modded to do that without much trouble fine - i was just noting that in the original RTW it was done by using more than one faction and while in theory thats historically inaccurate the actual resulting behaviour of the Romans was reasonably historically accurate.

[Atilius]

... it was their greater manpower that won them wars most of the time - not superior armies (e.g Telamon campaign the Romans had several armies each of which outnumbered the Po Valley Celts' one allied field army;...

I don't have any great objection to the general thrust of your argument, but you're mangling the facts here. The Gallic army that invaded Etruria in 222 BC numbered 50,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry (Polybios 2.23).

On the Roman side (Polybios 2.24) there was an Etruro-Sabine army of 50,000 foot and 4,000 horse and two consular armies, each of 25,400 foot and 1,600 horse. One of these two consular armies was evidently in Sardinia when the Gauls began to move. I ought to point out that that both the Shuckburgh and Paton translations are defective here: each Consul had only two legions, not four, and the 32,000 allies were split between the two consular armies (see e.g. Walbank's Commentary on Polybius). Finally, a large reserve force of 50,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry was stationed at Rome. A number of smaller forces were scattered about Italy and Sicily.

So, far from being outnumbered by every Roman army, the Gallic army was significantly larger than all of the individual Roman forces.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The problem with the Romani is both that of manpower and stats. Notwithstanding the fact that the bulk of the Roman army is at best semi-professional, in EB they get incredibly high stats (for line troops) and very good bang for the buck together with ridiculously low prices. In my view, EBII would do well to change this and make individual Romani units more numerous but with even smaller stats, especially now that a certain variance in equipment can be afforded. From reading historical sources, it seems that mail armour was still rare in the 2nd Punic War, let alone any armour at all for a hastatus in the early game period.

[Raiuga]

It changes campaign to campaign. Some I see the Romans AI very aggressive, doing just what you said. If it is a Historical expansion, I think it is very difficult to mod that. As for the manpower, having more cities in italy would mean less in other places. In EB1 Roman units are less expensive to recruit and keep. You can always give money to rome, even give cities to them, if you want them to be stronger

The problem with the Romani is both that of manpower and stats. Notwithstanding the fact that the bulk of the Roman army is at best semi-professional, in EB they get incredibly high stats (for line troops) and very good bang for the buck together with ridiculously low prices. In my view, EBII would do well to change this and make individual Romani units more numerous but with even smaller stats, especially now that a certain variance in equipment can be afforded. From reading historical sources, it seems that mail armour was still rare in the 2nd Punic War, let alone any armour at all for a hastatus in the early game period.

Agreed. Compared to other "similar units", they are extremely more cheaper and stronger.

[WImPyTjeH]

I don't have any great objection to the general thrust of your argument, but you're mangling the facts here. The Gallic army that invaded Etruria in 222 BC numbered 50,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry (Polybios 2.23).

On the Roman side (Polybios 2.24) there was an Etruro-Sabine army of 50,000 foot and 4,000 horse and two consular armies, each of 25,400 foot and 1,600 horse. One of these two consular armies was evidently in Sardinia when the Gauls began to move. I ought to point out that that both the Shuckburgh and Paton translations are defective here: each Consul had only two legions, not four, and the 32,000 allies were split between the consular two armies (see e.g. Walbank's Commentary on Polybius). Finally, a large reserve force of 50,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry was stationed at Rome. A number of smaller forces were scattered about Italy and Sicily.

So, far from being outnumbered by every Roman army, the Gallic army was significantly larger than all of the individual Roman forces.

Yeah I wanted to ask this too. Wasn't it the strenght of the legions that though outnumbered in several occasions, they could still win the battle? Wasn't Ceasar heavily outnumbered when he besieged Alesia?

[Megas Methuselah]

Wasn't Ceasar heavily outnumbered when he besieged Alesia?

The citizen legions of 222 B.C. were not the same professional full-time legions employed by Caesar.

[Meneldil]

You can already faceroll your way to global domination blinded and with your hands tied with the EB1 romans. Making things even easier would be overly stupid, knowing Roma was on the edge of being wipped of the face of earth a few times (which never ever happens in EB).

Furthermore, it's one of the few AI nations that expands somewhat historically (as is, not going for Poland and Estonia first). Sure, if they could fight with Carthage a bit more, that'd be nice, but you can't ask much to the RTW AI.

Edit : It looks like your main issue is that SPQR rarely goes for Carthage. This is solely due to RTW AI and lack of naval invasions. I've seen the roman AI fight on several fronts (and often winning thanks to its underpriced and overpowered early units), and it's certainly doable for a human player, once you get a hold in Italy proper.

[Ludens]

Yeah I wanted to ask this too. Wasn't it the strenght of the legions that though outnumbered in several occasions, they could still win the battle? Wasn't Ceasar heavily outnumbered when he besieged Alesia?

Yes, Caesar's army numbered 80.000, including auxillaries and allies. The number of Gallic warriors is generally estimated to 200.000 or more. However, I have my doubts about this: 80.000 seems to have been the upper limit for Roman armies, so how the hell did the far less sophisticated Gauls cope with the logistics of 200.000 men in one place? 200.000 men isn't an army, it's a 30 km tailback. And that's not including the ox-carts, armourers, servants, priests, etc. that would have accompanied it.

Also, keep in mind that the only records we have are those of Romans or Greeks working for Romans. From periods in history in which do have records of both sides, it appears that most chroniclers count every enemy twice, and include cooks, stable boys and servants in that number. The obsession of Romans with enumerating their victories probably would have contributed to that. Lastly, battles like Alesia and Watling Street were last-ditch efforts at throwing the Romans out. The majority of combatants would have been levies, not warriors.

[Prussian to the Iron]

@OP: FORGET IT. It's obvious that you're not getting more than 1 roman faction, and that the M2 A.I. may be able to compensate for that, and be told to go certain directions. Feel free to mod it in if you want. I'll be the first to playtest it and compare it to EBII.

@Ludens: While I agree that 200,000 is somewhat unhistorical, remember that they were in their home territory, and could probably have survived for a couple weeks before any real problems were encountered. so I would say maybe...150,000? And I agree that they would be more of a rabble than true warriors. However, you must remember Boudica(sp?) and her army, ravaging Roman Britain until Roman numbers and tactics finally beat her.

Everyone has to admit that the Romans, while very well trained, did combat many enemies (like the Greeks) with sheer numbers, combined with good tactics. But if you have a few thousand skirmishers, then that makes you seem much better than you are numerically.


I wouldn't be opposed to having maybe 2 more cities in Italy, though in natural strongholds owned by factions that held them. That would give the Romans a challenge; Let them grow, build an army, and then move in for the kill? or use 1 un-supportable army against a natural fortress packed with warriors?

[The General]

I wouldn't be opposed to having maybe 2 more cities in Italy, though in natural strongholds owned by factions that held them. That would give the Romans a challenge; Let them grow, build an army, and then move in for the kill? or use 1 un-supportable army against a natural fortress packed with warriors?

Q: Is the campaign map larger?
A: Both Rome - Total War and Medieval 2 - Total War have the same hardcoded number of provinces (199), so no new settlements can be added to the game. However, the scale of map will increase (approximately 1.3x).

Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

The provinces' shape will change though from what I recall, but I doubt they're removing provinces from other regions and adding new ones in Italy, which I think has enough already. I might be wrong of course, though. As it is though, SPQR's rich, its cities populous and its infantry dirty cheap, so the problem is the campaign AI, and as has been mentioned several times already, it can be modded in M2:TW.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I said wouldn't be opposed to it under certain circumstnces; he made several less than historical comments and suggestions.

[The General]

Hey, don't get snippy with me. I said wouldn't be opposed to it under certain circumstnces; he made several stupid comments and suggestions.

I didn't mean to sound snippy; previous post edited.

[Alsatia]

And I agree that they would be more of a rabble than true warriors. However, you must remember Boudica(sp?) and her army, ravaging Roman Britain until Roman numbers and tactics finally beat her.

Sorry for the added criticism but Boudicca (Boudicca, whichever you prefer) was not overwhelmed by numbers, she lost her last battle, outnumbering the Romans almost at 100:1. (btw, this was around 60 AD, not the Republican era)

And is it solid now that two roman factions are not going to happen. I am almost sick of "Roman rule, they were the greatest/ Romans needed more" kind of thing.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I know it wasn't republic era.

I wasn't sure on the numbers; haven't seen that special in like a year.

and thank you The General. editing my post now as well.