Realism vs gameplay balancing?

[GeWee]

In vanilla RTW all factions' units are balanced so the different armies more or less stand an equal chance against each other in multiplayer.
My question is, how will you deal with factions that historically were stronger than others (romans for example)? Will you nerf their units to make all factions stand a reasonable chance against each other or will you go for realism in this case as well? I'm hoping the latter but you never know.. :p

[khelvan]

Unit stats will be balanced in a historically appropriate manner. Units will also be balanced economically, as much as we can do so without completely breaking the AI.

[lt1956]

I'm afraid this type of mod has to stay realistic, there are too many mods that are for Gameplay, like mine. But NO ONE has yet made a mod to show what it was like in those times at that time. EB may just be able to pull this off, if they do it will be a wonderful game to play for historical fun reasons.

Lt

[Wikingus]

I'm all for total realism. Rome didn't become what it was because the armies were balanced. That would be just silly.

[Shigawire]

Rome came to be the dominators by the manner in which they constantly assimilated other people's tactics and weapons for themselves. The Roman Gladius was inspired from the Iberian tribes. The same with the Scutum. Chainmail was invented by the Celts, and the Romans assimilated that as well. The excellent Phoenician shipdesign of the Carthaginians were also assimilated.
Their method of operations and doctrines allowed for total flexibility. Everything from their checker-board formations to the autonomous nature of the maniples, and later cohorts.

They weren't necessarily very good at close-combat either. Remember that by the 1st and 2nd Punic war, the Roman legionaires were if anything.. average at best. Of course, by the Marian reforms, their quality changed drastically.
It was everything together that worked to their advantage. As Socrates said, a disorganized rabble is no more an army than a heap of building-materials is a house.

[PROMETHEUS]

They weren't necessarily very good at close-combat either. Remember that by the 1st and 2nd Punic war, the Roman legionaires were if anything.. average at best

Completely wrong , the Italian troops of the punic wars where highly disciplined strong and unmatched warriors at close combat , what they lacked instead was knowledge of tactics wich they begun to learn after the met with Pirrus strategist , and good equipment that they improved with the spanish iron blades....they had an army that had to be revulutionated not becouse wasn't strong , but becouse was tought for provincial wars that would be disbanded after it , constant campaigning and expansion of the rome territory required them to adopt different tactics for different lands and people...

[khelvan]

Prometheus, take a step back and look at this objectively. It is not denigrating your city of origin to say that individual warriors were not the best in the world. If we listen to ancient sources (other than the extremely nationalistic Livy) we would see that it was the organization of the legion during the period discussed that was the Romans' strength, not the individual prowess of their warriors.

[Shigawire]

They weren't particularly impressive in hand-to-hand combat at Cannae. Though those were rather green. Their tactic wasn't as thoughtless as some would like it to be. When you consider the context of their experience at Trebbia. I'm sure they were going for a total penetration of the front line. One would've expected their army to burst through hannibal's thin frontline as they did at Trebbia.
If the Romans were as impressive in close-combat as is suggested, then they should've caused a lot more casualties in the Carthagininan army than they did, despite of Hannibal's superior tactics. They were surrounded, and the outer concentric ring of men would be fighting to the death. In the end, 70`000 romans had died, while Hannibal lost 4000 celts, 1500 iberians and africans, 200 cavalry. It is very likely that irrespective of Hannibal's tactics, his mercenaries were generally better skilled in close combat.

[c00lizz]

You have to take in context that at Cannae the Infantry had lost it's forward momentum. Once the encircling was complete the back ranks stopped pushing forward and the momentum was lost. Without this push the soldiers at the front ranks were forced on the back foot and could not use their shield short stabbing sword effeciently enough. Hannibal's celtic lines were failing until he commited his Africans and his spanish horse came around.

And as I recall, Polybios described two of the legions that fought in Cannae as "Finishing their training whille on the march."

[Shigawire]

Aye, the most significant reason they lost was that they were mere levies.

[c00lizz]

Granted but one shouldn't downplay Hannibals strategic brilliance despite the opposition.

[PROMETHEUS]

Prometheus, take a step back and look at this objectively. It is not denigrating your city of origin to say that individual warriors were not the best in the world. If we listen to ancient sources (other than the extremely nationalistic Livy) we would see that it was the organization of the legion during the period discussed that was the Romans' strength, not the individual prowess of their warriors.

The thing is that I am super partes and objective usually ,even couse I should be more close to german or Celts (for not speacking of Slavish)Origins since I track my origins back in Venice....
not even the spartans where the best in the world taken singularly as wouldn't be the celts or germans, but the Romans come from a costant at war society that imposed a constant levy on the members of the tribes and the different cetuses , Italian troops where very strong and exceptional fighters as is proved that the main body of the Hannibal army was made of Italian allies that rebelled to Rome and were the only troops that instead of surrender to the romans followed Hannibal out of their homeland to continue to fight at Zama as well ...Pirrus itself stated that even with his superior tacticisms and use of fear makers such as the elephants he was always loosing so many men that he had to go back to Epirus , from here comes the sentence of Pirrus victories...

And about Cannae is a matter of Tactical superiority not for the superior training or excellency at swordfighting of the Kart alliance wich was inferior in many aspects...

The Roman legions were perhaps the finest military units of their day. Their methods of fighting, their training and their equipment were highly sophisticated and very effective.
But an army on its own, no matter how devastating, will not win battles. It stands or falls with its commander. The long line of brilliant Roman military leaders should largely arise from the lessons learnt against Hannibal.

Having famously crossed the Alps with his elephants, Hannibal descended into Italy and wrought havoc against the Roman forces.
Major battles took place at Trebia and at Lake Trasimene, in both of which Hannibal remained victorious.
A lot is made of the psychological impact his elephants had on terrified Roman troops.
But by the battle of Cannae all Hannibal's elephants had died.

Rome put a massive infantry force into the field against him. Force was to be conquered by greater force. Such was the Roman way. The Roman commanders L.Aemilius Paullus and C.Terrentius Varro led a force of 50'000 men or more against Hannibal, who could had 40'000 or less to face them. More so, Hannibal's troops were most likely not of the same quality as Roman legionaries. They were a colourful mix of Italians, Gauls, Spaniards, Numidians and Carthaginians.

In theory the Roman sledgehammer should have crushed the Carthaginian menace, but for the way it was to be wielded. Near the town of Cannae next to the River Aufius (Ofanto) the armies met.

1. The Armies meet
Hannibal first masked his moves as he drew up his army, by placing his light slingers and spearmen at the front.
Behind them, he positioned his Celtic and Spanish swordsmen in a crescent in the center. On his left wing he stationed his Celtic and Spanish heavy cavalry, on the right he stationed his light Numidian cavalry.
Preparing for battle, he now ordered his light troops at the front to fall back and act as reserves.
The Romans meanwhile acted as usual. The velites were positioned at the front to cover their position. Behind them, in the centre the main body of the legion took its position, with allied Italian infantry on either side of it.
On the Roman right wing stood the Roman cavalry, on the left wing was the allied cavalry.

2. The Armies engage
The Romans drove in hard, using their superior infantry to best advantage. They had their velites fall back and ploughed into their foe with their heavy infantry.
The crescent of Celtic and Spanish swordsmen buckled and retreated. To the Romans this appeared to be due to their powerful drive into the opponents lines. In fact the troops had been told to retreat.
Note: the Carthaginian light troops pulled back at the beginning had by now taken position at the rear of the crescent as well to each side of the crescent.
Simultaneously with the advance of their infantry the Roman cavalry on the right wing now engaged the Spanish and Celtic heavy cavalry on the Carthaginian left.
3. The Trap
The Roman infantry kept on driving into the Carthaginian lines. Forcing them back, they still felt confident that they were winning. But as they shunted forward and the opponent withdrew, the light infantry on the Carthaginian side, though itself staying stationary as it wasn't withdrawing, began to emerge on the Roman flanks.
Worse still, on the wings, Hannibal's Celtic and Spanish heavy cavalry was driving the Roman cavalry back. Combined with the advance of the Roman infantry this meant that there emerged a gaping breach in the Roman line. A large body of cavalry now separated from the Carthaginian left wing and charged across the field of battle to the right wing, where it fell into the rear of the cavalry of the Roman allies.
4. The Trap closes
Had the Carthaginian cavalry effectively defeated the Roman cavalry, the Carthaginian infantry was doing the same with the Roman legions. The Roman infantry had continued to drive forward, and had driven itself into an alley formed by the light Carthaginian infantry stationed at the sides.
Shielded by these Carthaginian troops, their comrades who had stayed at the rear could now swing around and come in behind the Roman army. The Roman doomed legions were encircled and being attacked from all sides.
In effect the Roman infantry had been defeated by the opposing infantry, although the returning Carthaginian cavalry helped further accelerate their victory.


In effect, the Roman army had defeated itself.
It had solely relied on the superiority of its legionaries, having lined them up and told them to advance. No use had been made of the superior numbers, other than to simply add more ranks onto the back of the advancing columns. As the Carthaginian units manoeuvered, nothing was done to counter their actions. One simply did what one had always done - advance.
Such ignorance was most likely born from the fact that the battles with Hannibal were the largest contests Rome had ever fought by that time. Despite their earlier dealings with king Pyrrhus, they most likely had not gathered enough experience yet in such matters to be able to cope with such huge a challenge. And the superiority of their legions perhaps made them rely to heavily on their soldiers alone.
In short, Roman tactics were non-existent at Cannae. The Roman force acted with brute force, charging at its dangerously clever opponent like a bull.

Defeat in this battle was a blow from which Rome should be reeling for some time to come. More than ever Rome needed brilliant generals, capable men of intelligence and imagination. Rome needed a Scipio Africanus - and he was soon to emerge to deliver her from the Carthaginian menace.
The trapped Romans were hemmed in and almost completely slaughtered. Polybius claims that 50,000-60,000 Romans died—20,000 were captured, and 16,000 escaped . For their part the Carthaginians lost 6,000 men, the Celts and Iberians accounting for about 5,000 of these.
Hannibal's victory at the Battle of Cannae is often viewed as the classical example of a smaller army thoroughly defeating a larger opponent, purely through the use of superior tactics on open terrain.

[Shigawire]

Granted but one shouldn't downplay Hannibals strategic brilliance despite the opposition.

Absolutely not. Hannibal's brilliance at Cannae is a shining beacon of inspiring military feat..

The same applies to the opposite, as one should be careful in calling the Roman plan foolish. Foolhardy, simplistic and stubborn maybe, but when viewed in light of the Romans breaking through Hannibal's line at Trebbia, it's a sound plan.


Prometheus, the Romans had more than 50`000 infantry. They had 86`000 total. Unfortunately they had the 10`000 Triarii watching the camp. Foolish mistake. If they had kept their Triarii on the battlefield, they might've defended against the cavalry-charges from the rear. And so, at the battlefield, the Romans wielded 70`000 infantry and 6`000 cavalry.

Polybius writes that:

Of the infantry about ten thousand were captured fighting but not in the actual battle, while only perhaps three thousand escaped from the field to neighbouring towns. All the rest, numbering about seventy thousand, died bravely.

[PROMETHEUS]

Absolutely not to what?

I explained enough clearly seems to me that the victory at cannae went to Hannibal due to his superior tactics not to any superiority of his troops wich were actually inferior to the roman troops ..... this is history is not that I am changing facts ...

Prometheus, the Romans had more than 50`000 infantry. They had 86`000 total. Unfortunately they had the 10`000 Triarii watching the camp. Foolish mistake. If they had kept their Triarii on the battlefield, they might've defended against the cavalry-charges from the rear. And so, at the battlefield, the Romans wielded 70`000 infantry and 6`000 cavalry.

You didnt read well may be....

I requote myself...

50,000-60,000 Romans died—20,000 were captured, and 16,000 escaped . For their part the Carthaginians lost 6,000 men, the Celts and Iberians accounting for about 5,000 of these.

this according to different sources not only one.....

And if u want to quote Polybius here is a passage liber III

117. Such was the end of the battle of Cannae, in which both sides fought with the most conspicuous gallantry, the conquered no less than the conquerors. This is proved by the fact that, out of six thousand horse, only seventy escaped with Caius Terentius to Venusia, and about three hundred of the allied cavalry to various towns in the neighborhood. Of the infantry ten thousand were taken prisoners in fair fight, but were not actually engaged in the battle: of those who were actually engaged only about three thousand perhaps escaped to the towns of the surrounding district; all the rest died nobly, to the number of seventy thousand, the Carthaginians being on this occasion, as on previous ones, mainly indebted for their victory to their superiority in cavalry: a lesson to posterity that in actual war it is better to have half the number of infantry, and the superiority in cavalry, than to engage your enemy with an equality in both. On the side of Hannibal there fell four thousand Celts, fifteen hundred Iberians and Libyans, and about two hundred horse.

[Shigawire]

I was replying to C00lizz. Look at the post.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Completely wrong , the Italian troops of the punic wars where highly disciplined strong and unmatched warriors at close combat , what they lacked instead was knowledge of tactics wich they begun to learn after the met with Pirrus strategist

ROTFL You got to be kidding me!!!

UNMATCHED??!!!!

Sure. 80000 Roman UNMATCHED soldiers were crushed by 35000 RAGUED Carthaginian/Lybian/Iberian at Cannae...

How is that for UNMATCHED??!!!

[PSYCHO V]

Not to mention those rough Celtiberians handing the Romans their butts !

[PROMETHEUS]

ROTFL You got to be kidding me!!!

UNMATCHED??!!!!

Sure. 80000 Roman UNMATCHED soldiers were crushed by 35000 RAGUED Carthaginian/Lybian/Iberian at Cannae...

How is that for UNMATCHED??!!!

Not to mention those rough Celtiberians handing the Romans their butts !

Ok if you limit your visions just to look at history as a football match , wich is wrong ...
this was a matter of superior tactics , if you study the history of the period better you will understand what I wrote that is a fact not an invention ...

[Big_John]

huh? why so much antipathy against rome? now i'm no historian, but isn't the most likely answer always a compromise? one can say that the romans would have won at cannae had they been facing lesser soldiers. had either the celts or iberians been poorer than they were on that day, varro would have pushed through and beaten hannibal fairly easily.. had the libyan infantry been less skilled/disciplined, the encirclement may never have formed.. not to mention the discipline shown by the libyan cavalry.. etc.

but of course one has to acknowledge that hannibal's brilliance was absolutely crucial to the victory.. to all of his three major ones, in fact. those roman legions were a superb fighting machine. without hannibal, trebia would have been a defeat for the carthaginians, trasimene wouldn't have even happened, and cannae would have been a win for rome too.

[Zanderpants]

Hmm, if the Romans were so superhuman, shouldn't they've been able to win the "battle" of the Teutoberg forest? I know this is an unfair example, but it proves a point. The Romans were still men; some are better at fighting than others, and no matter how good at fighting they are, with incompetant leadership, they'll still lose a fight. What the Romans really had going for them was their superior tactics. We see that when Roman tactics fall by the wayside, they lost battles. Namely, the battle of the Teutoberg forest, as well as a battle of Adrianople.

[DemonArchangel]

Ok, look at the Cry for Help thread.
This is a game, with possibilities too.

What if the Romans encountered the Ptolemies instead of the Carthies first? How would they have developed differently?

What if the Germans, not Gauls sacked Rome in 390 B.C?

There are many, many other possible scenarios, and EB should reflect that.

[GeWee]

Hey, what's this?
I come back after a few days and find my thread's been hijacked and crashed by the road(forum)side...

[Urnamma]

Guys, everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, and Romans are no different. But we must all remember that humans are made, not in batches, but as individuals. You can have people like M. Claudius Marcellus that can defeat a Gallic king in single combat without breaking a sweat, then you have people like Varro who lead their armies into hell. I'm sure there were some Romans that could beat the living hell out of an Iberian soldier, just like there were Iberians that could do the same to a Roman soldier. The point is the creative tactics used by the generals and officers. That is what wins a battle for you.

The Roman units will not be nerfed, and they'll be strong enough to assume their proper place in history. Prom is speaking emotionally and unconvincingly, but we must all concede that he has a grain of truth in his words. There is an unfortunate bias against Romans and Greeks here, which I find odd seeing as how these two peoples did manage to sweep all before them except one another. That said, no one is really more powerful than anyone else (speaking of the factions), because creative generalship is the key to winning any battle or war.

[Steppe Merc]

I think their's more of a bias against Roman's than against Greeks... some Greeks knew how to ride horses at least!
And Romans didn't conquer all in their path. It took very many years for them to do what they did. Besides, most of the Generals were politicians, so it's not pure military in what they accomplished.

[Vinsitor]

So Romans were crap... but ruled the ancient world, strange

I believe that Roman's soldiers' strenght was in tranining and "faithful" on the general and their "warmate" (like Greeks Oplites).
Barmarian warriors' strenght was in the individual skill. This is the point IMHO

[giorgio666]

All the antipathy against Rome by the americans here is just based on envy. At the times Romans built a huge empire and beautiful buildings you were living in caves or tents, the more civilized. U got no history and u quote the few battles where the romans were defeated...what about the other thousands they won? You know why anyone remembers them ? because they were just the exception that confirms the rule, id est the roman army and his generals were superior. It's like quoting general Custer being crushed by Crazy Horse at lil big Horne. Hope u get the point.
As for the other european here you might have had good warriors but they lacked of discipline.
Hat's off to Alexander the Great and his Macedonian army, his only misfortune was that he died too young and no one was great like him to manage his huge empire.

[Big_John]

it's just us americans that are bashing rome?? i never woulda thunk it.

i'm no fan of denegrating the ancient romans, but you'd do well to remember, giorgio, that rome often 'out-diplomacied' her enemies long before beating them in battle.

[giorgio666]

My post wasn't actually directed to you but more to Zanderpants. Have you ever wonder why so many ppl are now bashing the Americans ?? Same reason, cuz of envy and cuz your the richer and more military advanced nation. That said in the period covered by RTW Romans were the most unmatched military advanced faction and that's not my opinion it's just History.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

All the antipathy against Rome by the americans here is just based on envy. At the times Romans built a huge empire and beautiful buildings you were living in caves or tents, the more civilized. U got no history and u quote the few battles where the romans were defeated...what about the other thousands they won? You know why anyone remembers them ? because they were just the exception that confirms the rule, id est the roman army and his generals were superior. It's like quoting general Custer being crushed by Crazy Horse at lil big Horne. Hope u get the point.
As for the other european here you might have had good warriors but they lacked of discipline.

Please restrain from commenting things you do not know about. Nobody is bashing Romans. And most of the realistic non-biased comments are made by non-americans and are also perfectly justified.

On another note. Rome hadn't the best generals. They had some good ones, but most of the times Romans wer poorly commanded. Their great capabilities were organization, logistics, adaptability, great trainning and discipline. They weren't individually better skilled than many other warriors.

BTW, Custer, like so many Americans of those days, was an asshole. And I'm not saying this because of envy. The politics of the American goverment of that era were responsible for one of the greatest genocides in History: the slaughtering of the North American Indian populations. 5 million across North America in the end of 17th century, less than 500000 at the end of the 19th century. And nobody talks about those dispicable actions. Like the American Governmental policy of incentives to kill all praire bisons. This to destroy the food resouces of the greatest obstacle to colonial expansion in the great plains area: the Sioux. Like the random genocidal attacks to villages implemented by the "glorious" US Army. Or like every other promisse made by the white men and always broken.

Parapharasing one American Indian Chief:

"...what promisse have we made that we've not kept? None. What promisse the white men made they have not broken? Not one..."

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

My post wasn't actually directed to you but more to Zanderpants. Have you ever wonder why so many ppl are now bashing the Americans ?? Same reason, cuz of envy and cuz your the richer and more military advanced nation. That said in the period covered by RTW Romans were the most unmatched military advanced faction and that's not my opinion it's just History.

It's also History that you should read more about. Contrary to what is depicted in RTW, Romans had no siege engines up until the 1century BC.
Hellenics were much more advanced than Rome until about 100BC. The Celts sacked Rome in 390BC because the Romans were defeated, by the Celts, in battle. Celts considered Romans uncivilized because they wouldn't wash with soap and didn't shaved their body hair, etc... I could go on for hours.

The "barbarian" term is used by a winning civilization to classify the populations that they defated. Greeks considered all non-greeks "barbarians", even Romans. Rome did the same. If the Celts had defeated Rome and occupied all of Italy, RTW would be called CTW (Celtic Total War). It's just that the adopted morale is the winner's morale.