Rome versus RTW

[Octavius Julius]

Sulla was a general on account of Marius, they guy that reformed the armies. When the Samnites, or more correctly, the Italians, rebelled against Rome in 91 BC, Sulla commanded 13 legions! That's about 62,400 men, not to mention auxilliaries and support trains.

So, I figured that if you have a stack of 20 Hastati at large unit size (this is 80 men per unit which is historically correct if you consider 1 RTW unit equal to 1 Roman century) you have only 1/3 of a legion!

Multiply that by 39 to compare it with Sulla's army.

Note: This 13 legion force was only to expel a few rebels, imgaine waging war with Carthage!

[HicRic]

I think it was more than "a few rebels" if 13 legions were needed to take them on.

I think the game would be worse off if it tried to recreate the numbers of troops used historically. I mean, the battles are pretty impressive with the numbers they have right now, if we had thousands upon thousands in every battle the FPS would be about 0.5. (PowerPoint battle, here we come!)

[Octavius Julius]

PowerPoint battle? You are saying that it would be so slow that the game would look like a slide show? Hahaha!

However, in time, there will be games that will be capable of having massive battles that emulate historic ones. If you look at computer games 10 years ago and compare them to RTW, look at the huge leap! It is only a matter of time.

[warlordmb]

PowerPoint battle? You are saying that it would be so slow that the game would look like a slide show? Hahaha!

However, in time, there will be games that will be capable of having massive battles that emulate historic ones. If you look at computer games 10 years ago and compare them to RTW, look at the huge leap! It is only a matter of time.

Yes but you would need a super efficient Command and Control Interface as well as a more than Impressive battlefield AI. They don't exist at present - in any game

I find at present that 20 units in a big ol' melee with an equal number of enemy units requires all the attention I can muster to pull of a victory without suffering undue losses.

[Octavius Julius]

For example, a Gallic 20 unit force versus my Julii 20 unit force equates to say a 850 versus 650 troop battle respectively.

I can destroy their army with losing about 150 soldiers. I know the Romans were good, and I know that they did win battles that easy, however, there were battles where the Romans were annihilated. At the Caudine Forks, a rebel army of Samnite hillmen humiliated a Roman garrison styled force.

This doesn't happen in RTW. The only way of losing a battle is with intentionally stupid tactics or by pressing the AutoCalc button.

If the enemies would fight with more determination, then the game would be alot more realistic.

I fought a Germanic "horde" in an ambush against me where I was heavily outnumbered. They retreated very easily onve I could get in around their spearmen with my cavalry.

I think that the routing happens too easily. Germanic tribes in reality were notoriously tough and determined.

I hope CA solve this "routing" problem firstly, then we can look at epic sized battles as something to really get our thinking caps on and act like real tactical generals.

[a_ver_est]

I hope CA solve this "routing" problem firstly, then we can look at epic sized battles as something to really get our thinking caps on and act like real tactical generals.

Last night an small force of gauls ( mainly war bands a few swordman and a general ) sieged corduba, I attacked with mostly iberian infantry I outnumber gauls but my guys routed after the firts contact. So I think that the problem is not the AI. I think that some units has a very poor moral stat.

About the threat cuestion, I am playing mi second campaing and I only remember having a full stack only in 2 or 3 armies ... I don't think that more and more units means that the game is funniest