Total Realism gone unrealistic...rant

[Dead Moroz]

You are too strict, eadungas. All is correct. It's TOTAL REALISM mod. So it must have all these carpenters, labourist, masons, etc. I'm sure in next release they will have individual name for each soldier, management of salaries for different workers, food management, map scale 1:1 and requirement for iron to build any good troops.

[King Azzole]

You are too strict, eadungas. All is correct. It's TOTAL REALISM mod. So it must have all these carpenters, labourist, masons, etc. I'm sure in next release they will have individual name for each soldier, management of salaries for different workers, food management, map scale 1:1 and requirement for iron to build any good troops.

LMAO

[ICantSpellDawg]

i dont understand why the bodyguards are late 1st millenium bc praetorians as early as 250 bc

i miss having that cavalry and it is totally unrealistic

[Mus]

i dont understand why the bodyguards are late 1st millenium bc praetorians as early as 250 bc

i miss having that cavalry and it is totally unrealistic

Apparently someone sold him on the idea that Roman Generals shouldnt have cavalry bodyguards.

Its really a baseless opinion and all it does is serve to make the Roman generals less mobile than other factions.

Generals are of the Equestrian class after all. Some of the other changes are pretty dubious.

Havent had a chance to see what I think about 4.0 yet myself. By the time I noticed it the link is apparently broken.

[tommh]

Apparently someone sold him on the idea that Roman Generals shouldnt have cavalry bodyguards.

Its really a baseless opinion and all it does is serve to make the Roman generals less mobile than other factions.

Generals are of the Equestrian class after all. Some of the other changes are pretty dubious


This irks me. Your opinion, being based on as stated nil experience with the mod and a complet adsence of knowlege as to the arguments involved is the one that is baseless.

Very briefly:

Roman armies did not feild effective Heavy cavalry throughout this period. At the approx rate of 1 man in the game being approx 15 men in reality the ROman General units represent complety unrealistic masses of HC and give the ROmans a completly unrealistic force structure.

Roman Generals (acually consuls and proconsuls with the occasional legate) were not of the Equestrian class but were of the Senatorial class. They were not placed at the head of cavalry forces ( a role filled by the Equestrian prefects) and did not lead massive cavalry charges (this was the Macedonian tradition). TO have them in this role is very unrealistic.

To the extent that Roman generals had a 'official' bodyguard unit, that unit was infantry. Their are numerous examples of this. Thier is no examples from history of Roman companion style HC charges by Roman Generals from this period.

Roman commanders only rarely engaged inc combat themselves. When they did they frequently engaged on foot (for example J. Ceasar) although their a few examples of them engaging on foot (although these are almost always examples of Devotio).

A case could be made for making the Generals equites and reducing or eliminating the production of equites in the early game. This would be a reasonable approach as well but runs into the "suicide General" problem. One advantage of infantry generals is that they do not suicide charge. This also means that attempts to make the General purely a command unit will also fall.

Overall, the Generals unit has to serve too competing purposes, a actual command unit, rallying troops etc, and a effective battlefield unit. While having them be cav served the first moderatly well it made Roman play unrealistic and less fun. Having to acctually play with the historic Roman weakness in cavalry makes the game both more realist and more challenging.

[warlordmb]

I agree with TOMMH.

I've been playing with RTR v4.1 for a while now and I prefer General's infantry guards to the cav option, mostly because it goes some way to removing suicidal generals leading unsuported cavalry charges. It is not a perfect solution but it is better than anything anybody else has come up with.
I also prefer this option because I feel it is more 'realistic'. As TOMMH as stated, in the days of the First Republic Roman armies were usually commanded by Senate appointed men of the Senatorial class who were not in the business of leading charges - of any kind.
Roman armies were infantry armies and it is well documented that Roman cavalry was generally pretty crap. The best cavalry in roman armies was usually mercenary Gallic or German cavalry. Julius Caesar relied heavily upon his good german cavalry when he campaigned in Gaul.

While I agree that there are issues with RTR, it is a better product/game experience than the original vanilla that CA dumped on us. I shall continue to support the efforts of ALL modders who give of their time and much else for the benefit of gamers like myself and - IN MY OPINION - RTR v4.1 is an excellent attempt to bring a more realistic and enjoyable experience to what is basically a very good product.

Some of you may disagree. I have no problem with that. Individual preference is something I will always respect.

Each to their own!!!!

[Turbo]

Apparently someone sold him on the idea that Roman Generals shouldnt have cavalry bodyguards.

Its really a baseless opinion and all it does is serve to make the Roman generals less mobile than other factions.

Generals are of the Equestrian class after all. Some of the other changes are pretty dubious


This irks me. Your opinion, being based on as stated nil experience with the mod and a complet adsence of knowlege as to the arguments involved is the one that is baseless.

Very briefly:

Roman armies did not feild effective Heavy cavalry throughout this period. At the approx rate of 1 man in the game being approx 15 men in reality the ROman General units represent complety unrealistic masses of HC and give the ROmans a completly unrealistic force structure.

Roman Generals (acually consuls and proconsuls with the occasional legate) were not of the Equestrian class but were of the Senatorial class. They were not placed at the head of cavalry forces ( a role filled by the Equestrian prefects) and did not lead massive cavalry charges (this was the Macedonian tradition). TO have them in this role is very unrealistic.

To the extent that Roman generals had a 'official' bodyguard unit, that unit was infantry. Their are numerous examples of this. Thier is no examples from history of Roman companion style HC charges by Roman Generals from this period.

Roman commanders only rarely engaged inc combat themselves. When they did they frequently engaged on foot (for example J. Ceasar) although their a few examples of them engaging on foot (although these are almost always examples of Devotio).

A case could be made for making the Generals equites and reducing or eliminating the production of equites in the early game. This would be a reasonable approach as well but runs into the "suicide General" problem. One advantage of infantry generals is that they do not suicide charge. This also means that attempts to make the General purely a command unit will also fall.

Overall, the Generals unit has to serve too competing purposes, a actual command unit, rallying troops etc, and a effective battlefield unit. While having them be cav served the first moderatly well it made Roman play unrealistic and less fun. Having to acctually play with the historic Roman weakness in cavalry makes the game both more realist and more challenging.

I would think that having an infantry general would increase the chances of the general being killed during a rout. The AI routs a lot, so the attrition on its generals would be very heavy.

[tommh]

often the reason the AI routes is because it's general has already led a suicide charge and died! It seems from my experience to lead to somewhat higher AI general survival and it definetly helps with allied ai controlled generals. Of course, better general AI from CA is the better answer.

[tommh]

Normally I'd let Giaus answer for himself but I he's in the middle of a move so I thought I'd give it a try.

First off you have to keep this in context. RTR is striving to improve the realism in RTW, this does not mean that it will be a complete simulation of reality. Any element of the game taken in isolation without reference to it's level of abstraction will appear ludicrious.

For instance the "buildings" of total war do not of course represent single buildings anymore then the city in a province represents a single settlement. They represent a commitment to a specific aspect of a society ( temples for example) or a commitment to an infrastructure (blacksmiths - metal working, weapons creation, etc.). They are an abstraction.

By adding a lumber industry requirment (and the need for forests to support it) the realism mod has added more realism to the building of naval power. It this all of a sudden vastly more realistic then the existing system? No, but it is a modest step forward.

The Stone quarry labor system similarly deals with stone working. Quarrying stone and moving it is very labor intensive. Having to transport such heavy loads requires more labor. Again, a modest advance in realism.

As to why the "cost" of labor is pop. This is the fundamental underlying economic model of RTW. What this reflects is the fact that labor spent on shifting stone for large public projects is not labor spent on private projects that would increase quality of life and improve birth rate.

More importantly the out come is that some areas will naturally have less populated cities then others due to natural constraints.

[Dead Moroz]

Good ideas, tommh! So there is only one thing left - rename game from "Total War" to "Total Management". I hope it will be the best economic simulator.

[Boudicca]

I think I will continue to use it, until I find a better one...or Activision releases an AI - Fix. With the current AI, Rome ist not worth much more, than being an economic simulation. (allright, I am exxagerating, but this is a thing I really hope for)

[Stuie]

I am working on a mod to remove the new buildings. Not only is it a little over-the-top management-wise, but the AI apparently isn't building any ports now. I have the files ready but I am at work... so I will have to test them tonight.

[Bacchon]

tommh has a good point. The question at task here, I think, is not one of realism, per say, but of abstraction and where that abstraction is focused and what style of gameplay is desired. Abstraction vs. realism is probably a bigger issue in strategy/wargames than in any other type. Games like StarCraft and Warhammer 40,000 are both realistic in that they utilize real-world physics (namely what a high-velocity explosive shell will do to the human body) as well as realistic interaction with terrain, tactics, and in WH40k, soldier morale. However, all these things are heavily abstracted so that the focus of the game is on beating the living tar out of your opponent, which is why people play them and love them. WH40k, being a tabletop wargame, has no economic model at all, needless to say, and StarCraft's is also heavily abstracted.

On the other end of the spectrum, of course are games like Imperialism and Settlers, where the economic/industrial model is given in superb depth of realism and detail, to, as eadingas, the point of needing a guy to plant the trees that another guy cuts down for someone else to plane and so on and so forth. And then there's Imperialism, where you need forests to cut down to plane to turn into paper to educate a man who can, with the aid of a military academy, ranches, mines, a steel mill, railways, etc, become a cavalryman. While the focus and realism of these strategy games is heavily upon the economic/industrial, the actual combat of these games is where the abstraction comes in. Settlers, you have absolutely no micro-management control over your soldiers and the combat is purposefully comical. Imperialism, it is highly Heroes of Might & Magic style, with the wargames-style hex map and "This one guy represents a regiment" play. Of course, the complete lack of tactics this engenders perfectly represents the *ahem* idiotic manner of warfare of the European Age of Imperialism that the game is set in.

Somewhere in between, though heavily focused on the side of combat-realism/economic-abstracted, is Rome. Y'know, Rome Total War, not Rome Total Build Crap. The strategic engine, everything from religion to diplomacy, is entirely built to facilitate the combat end of things.

I think what is being attempted with this latest version of RTR, and by others, too, like the mod I saw (who's author's name unfortunately slips my mind at the moment) that has incorporated research "buildings", is trying to find a balance between the two ends and brings us to a point where the abstraction on both ends has been minimized, so that we have much deeper control over our realms, which has always been a treasured facet of "empire-building" games, which is a category RTW is much closer to than RTS games (unless you just play MP and custom battles).

And it's not that hard to remove the new buildings from the techtree if you would rather not have them, but like all the other multitude of improvements that RTR brings. ; )

Cheers,

Bacchon

[alman7272]

Good ideas, tommh! So there is only one thing left - rename game from "Total War" to "Total Management". I hope it will be the best economic simulator.

What's with the attitude?

[richarnd]

Well, I spoke too soon. I did remove the new buildings (quarries, carpenters, and labor parties) and any requirements other buildings had for them, but now I'm having problems getting RTR to run. I can select the campaign and pick a faction, but when I click the button to play, it goes back to the RTR splash screen.

Anyone know what I might be doing wrong?

To be specific, I removed all of the new entries in export_descr_buildings and any requirement existing buildings had for them. I also removed the new lines in export_descr_buildings_enum.

If you have advice or even an already-cleaned up set of data files, It would be appreciated.

[alman7272]

Did you remove the entries in export_buildings and any mentions of the buildings in descr_strat?

[richarnd]

Ok, whew. Got it figured out. You have to remove the buildings from the descr_strat.txt file as well. (Can't have buildings that don't exist). Works fine for me now. Not much playtesting yet, but I have been defeated by a Greek navy .

Let me know if anyone wants it posted.