That's it, I'm giving up. Break out the alcohol.

[ChaosLord]

Maybe Hoplites are just too weak to begin with? I'm not sure why you're suffering so badly to them. I'm playing my current campaign on hard battles/very hard campaign and haven't noticed my guys being totally useless in combat. Which should say something, since Hastati have been the backbone of my armies. I've only been fighting Carthaginians though, about to wipe out their third king and their faction entirely. But whatever bonuses they get on hard it doesn't seem to be anything that ground breaking, it might be that the Roman factions are overpowered though.

[Colovion]

I'm putting my money on the Roman factions being overpowered

I could be wrong but since they are all attacking me, and only them, I haven't fought anyone else.

[Red Harvest]

Maybe Hoplites are just too weak to begin with? I'm not sure why you're suffering so badly to them. I'm playing my current campaign on hard battles/very hard campaign and haven't noticed my guys being totally useless in combat. Which should say something, since Hastati have been the backbone of my armies. I've only been fighting Carthaginians though, about to wipe out their third king and their faction entirely. But whatever bonuses they get on hard it doesn't seem to be anything that ground breaking, it might be that the Roman factions are overpowered though.

I didn't have much trouble using Romans to whip Carthaginians on very hard/very hard either...except when I ran into 4 units of elephants in a stack, backed by a a fair bit of cav. Took me four armies to subdue them. The Carthaginian infantry is very weak early on. The phalanx units later have problems that all but the highest quality (120 man unit) hoplites seem to share. There are some balance issues that the game speed amplifies, and "very hard" amplifies them yet again. Those 120 man units look awesome though...of course I thought that about the "Scared Band" infantry until I used them in combat on very hard.

[hoof]

I posted this in an earlier thread:

Don't play on Hard if you want a fair fight. Here are some stats from some controlled tests I did:

A few experiments (all battles fought until 1 side routs, large battle, syrian flats during winter, no weather):

first number is my troops left at rout time, second is theirs, lower number always represents the loser

Hastati vs Hastati:

easy level:
(the AI never threw pila on easy, but my troops did)
61/10
65/32
60/13
66/15
62/14

medium:
35/6
13/21
13/54 (my general died early)
18/2
5/22

hard:
6/41
5/52
2/39
3/52
4/48

very hard:
(on very hard, my troops broke and ran much earlier than on hard, which is why there are more of them left at rout time)
17/64
11/57
18/58
11/66
24/61

As you can see, Hastati vs Hastati, all else being equal, the difficulty level does appear to dramatically affect killing ability.

As it stands now, you cannot expect your troops to hold their own vs equal enemy types. If that is how you like to play, that's great, but especially since Generals no longer improve unit killing/surviving ability, I don't like the fact that a unit of AI hastati might be really a unit of AI principles or heavier stats-wise on hard or very hard. I want to fight the best AI tactics, but on equal terms, unit wise. Why couldn't CA have stuck with MTW's model of leaving the stats the same, but increasing morale?

I first noticed this problem when I saw what should be equal/lesser troops walk right through hoplites defending a gateway. Now I know why.


Next I tried Cataphracts (the regular horse type).

Again the first number is my guys left, the second is the AI's, and each side starts with 54 horsemen.

Easy:
45/11
44/12
42/8
47/12
47/18

Medium:
30/20
27/18
5/29
1/18
24/11

Hard:
1/32
16/52
3/45
18/50
15/48

Very Hard:
(again, like with the Hastati, my men broke much quicker than on Medium)
22/47
19/49
20/50
19/47
17/48


I think people don't really understand how much of an edge Hard gives the AI in combat. Maybe MTW spoiled us, but I think a lot of the frustration going on is due to the artificial combat bonuses the AI troops get.

[Longasc]

I share your pain.

Hoplites are among the worst troops, really.

They are cut down by Cavalry, Archers, Roman Infantry. Especially if they are caught from the sides, but upfront, too.


This needs balancing!

Colovion brought up another example how far RTW's battle system is from historical accuracy or playability.

Storming a settlement is hard to control, but CTRL-A just works. I am such a tactical genius...

[Akka]

Not to do the little fanboy, but I'm somehow always astounded to see people who purposedly chose a difficulty level where their units takes big moral penalties and ennemies take big fighting bonuses, who are STILL surprised to see the ennemy rolling over their units

If there is one thing to complain, it's the pathetic AI during battles, that's all. All the rest of the complains I see here are only people who play on hard and wonder why the enemies are hard. This is simply giving the game a bad name on a point where it doesn't deserve it.

[The_Emperor]

Sounds like another example of the AI Cheating to win on higher difficulty levels in a strategy game. I never liked the extra bonuses that the AI got on MTW but at leats it was beatable...

Probably be best to have a Higher campaign map difficulty and a lower battle one.

[buujin]

Personally i've never noticed huge advantages u guys say the computer has on hard settings, this may sound patronizing but are u sure the armies ur fighting agaisnt don't have higher experience/weapons/armour values than your troops. I do however agree with the statement about the bad ai.

Im playing my first campaign as the juleii hard/hard and somtimes a find a full on barbarian charge hard to deal with, particularly if the troops have lots of experience or a general with a high command rating. But so far nothing has struck me as... unfair.

If u guys are disappointed with the ai or the combat advantages that the computer receives on the harder difficulty settings , then i would suggest u all try Multiplayer !. "multiplayer, whats that ??" i hear u cry.

I find in mp the units are much more balanced ( the way theyre meant to be ) and that theres no shoddy ai doing stupid or predictable things, its also far more satifying defeating a human player than a computer.

[Red Harvest]

Not to do the little fanboy, but I'm somehow always astounded to see people who purposedly chose a difficulty level where their units takes big moral penalties and ennemies take big fighting bonuses, who are STILL surprised to see the ennemy rolling over their units

You know, people keep saying this, but they seem to miss the big picture. The hoplites are the weak sisters--higher settings just make it more obvious. Medium cav is tearing up everything (except elephants) on the SAME very hard setting. Does that make it more clear? The medium cav under human command should be hopelessly outmatched on very hard, shouldn't it? They should wet themselves if spears/phalanx are within 50 yards. It is not happening. Those same medium cav are deadly to AI hoplites. The proof of the "your setting is too hard that's all" theory is destroyed by the lack of any corollary evidence to support it--and in fact refute it, because they are the opposite of what one would anticipate.

I fully expect the AI to win 1 vs. 1 same unit match ups handily on very hard, but I do expect *counter* units to at least hold their own, especially the elite versions which should win, but by smaller margins (rather than a complete walkover.)

You can wait a lifetime for good strategic AI, it won't happen. Software companies see no benefit of investing in it to bring it past mediocre. That is why we use "very hard" or "hard" battles. Medium is not challenging.

[Nelson]

The hoplites are the weak sisters--higher settings just make it more obvious.

Two reasons for poor hoplite performance IMO: the need to always be on guard and leaping horses.

The AI does not seem to put attacking hoplites into guard mode. It might be counter intuitive to do this but without guard mode the formation shatters way too easily.

Hoplites are indeed overly vulnerable to the front against cav. I have just tested a single Roman cav vs a single hoplite in guard/phalanx 6 times using large sizes 53 cav and 80 hoplites. Neither unit was upgraded in any way. The cav lost 5 out of six fights but the hoplites lost from 17 to 50 men even when they won.

The problem is the leaping cav on the initial charge. Several mounts jump into the phalanx at which time virtually the entire front rank of Greeks pulled their swords as well as many men in the other ranks. At that point there was no phalanx any more. If the infantry can hold on until the cav withdawls to recharge the hoplites will win. The subsequent charges were never as good as the first. Still, it was rare for horses to refuse the impact on the first charge. If the jumping horses would refuse to leap then hoplites would be OK. On medium difficulty at least, I can win with hoplites but I need to be more careful than I believe I should have to be if the enemy is is front of them. In MTW and STW I never had to worry about yari or pikemen if cav was to their front. Now I must babysit hoplites. That is wrong.

Hoplites not in a tight formation should be very vulnerable. However, Rome makes it too easy to disrupt them. On any difficulty.

That said, we should discuss unit performance on medium difficulty so as to eliminate stat disparity issues. We need to compare apples to apples. (And I don't mean road apples )

[Akka]

You know, people keep [...] not challenging.

I do agree that cavalry is a bit too powerful, and should have a harder time to disengage, and a slightly less powerful charge.

But I do NOT agree that the hoplites are the "weak sisters". I'm currently playing a Greek campaign on medium, and I've found that the phalanx formation is extremely strong.
Sure, hoplites get cut down if some good mélée units, like roman legions, close in to swordfight. Hoplites aren't good at swordfight. But well, their strenght lie in spike wall formation, and as long as they are in, they are formidable meatgrinders.

I've had hoplite stopping dead (in the litteral sense) chariot and cavalry charge. Hell, I've even had MILITIA hoplite stopping and butchering light cavalry front charge.
I've had the "hopping effect" that is talked at lenght, but though it somehow disorganized my front line, it seldom really disrupt it, and usually, the chargers are pushed back and the line reforms, with big losses for them, and much fewer for my men.
Granted, the worse I've eaten so far are general bodyguards charge, and I haven't encountered some heavy cavalry like the parthan cataphract.

I also know that there is the "AI effect", ie I'm able to win most battle because the enemy is stupid, which make my units appear stronger than they would be against better opponents.
And there is the effect of experience and upgrade, which usually favors the human, who is able to develop its cities better.

But still, all in all, at least in the solo campaign in medium (the default setting), I've had so far tremendous success with my hoplites, massacring everything up to principes and war chariots.