Total Realism gone unrealistic...rant

[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.

[lt1956]

Anyone wonder if Gaius will be back to fix his mod? Or maybe someone else should take up the torch like Vlad or something I believe he has fixed some stuff already for the mod.

Lt

[Simetrical]

Gaius should be back eventually. Moving takes time, you know.

-Simetrical

[Stuie]

Anyone wonder if Gaius will be back to fix his mod? Or maybe someone else should take up the torch like Vlad or something I believe he has fixed some stuff already for the mod.

Lt

nowonmai over at twcenter is part of the RTR team and has proposed some stuff for a v4.2 to be released in Gaius absense. Link:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...howtopic=17786

[Turbo]

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.

Does the Generals MOD use all infantry generals? The last Generals MOD I looked at (3.2) had the Romans as infantry and most of the rest as cavalry.

[Turbo]

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.

If thats the case why not change all the generals to infantry?