RTR....how the game should have been

**Darius** · 03-09-2005, 05:00

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

**lt1956** · 03-09-2005, 13:25

Dont worry darius, write more of your fun on RTR campaign. I have no intention of replying.

Lt1956

BTW what do you like best about RTR, factions etc.

**Darius** · 03-09-2005, 18:16

Probably the way the fights go. Every nation has the ability to build large and powerful armies, and the outcome of a few of these large battles will ultimately determine the course of events. Also the way the financial system has been reworked. With the constant wars I am fighting I have to make crucial decisions on where my money will be spent and how, as well as whether it is more to my benefit to exterminate a city for quick cash or to retain it to provide a powerful economic center.

**lt1956** · 03-09-2005, 20:48

Sounds like you are having some tought battles. :-)

What faction do you like best?

Lt

**Turbo** · 03-10-2005, 00:30

I guess I am going to have to try 5.3. I will tell you though that my confidence in RTR continues to be shaken by the lack of quality testing that seems to accompany their releases. I have never experienced the frustration that I went through with 5.2.

**Darius** · 03-10-2005, 05:05

So far this is my first campaign with 5.3 and so far as the Romans its been an absolute blast. You start out small and surrounded by potential threats, and basically by turn 3 I was getting thrashed by the Greek General Pyrhus of Epirus. I've never really had a game that went without me simply building up, throwing a big army at an enemy, and then essentially once the army got going it would never stop. Now I need to get recruits from loyal Roman citizens in order to replenish my soldiers numbers, and the enemy themselves somehow seem to actually behave much more intelligently with their troop movements.

Normally it was just victory after victory, with a close victory every now and again. Now I am actually being defeated, and sometimes soundly (sometimes embarissingly). The most important part about that is the fact that my defeats arent because of the simple fact that their units are obviously better than mine or because of simple bad luck, but because the units are now actually functioning the way they're supposed to. Pike Phalanxes used to be simple to kill with a few principes, now its tricky business. Hoplite Phalanxes can take absolute deluges of arrows before taking heavy casualties. So much was changed and tweaked and perfected to the point where when I enter a battle, I actually have to constantly rework, reform, and execute a new strategy for each new situation that develops within a fight in order to ensure victory. No longer can I just simply run around the sides and just flank and attack from the rear and cause big chain rout and everything is craptastic for everybody.

Another good thing is, like I said before, how decisive battles are actually decisive now. With the way finances are constantly strained, raising an army takes time. No longer can I simply queue up a massive army in a couple turns. However this does not mean that armies are less massive. Indeed I've noticed far more armies, and much larger ones at that, being placed in the field by every faction. Currently I am absolutely dreading my inevitable clash with the Ptolemies...they have about a dozen or so full stacked armies...and I'm guessing I wouldnt be so lucky to find out that they're all only just peasants and its all just a big joke on me...

**Bob the Insane** · 03-10-2005, 10:56

Just to add a bit more to my personal experiences of the mod...

It is now 240BC and the last 10 years have been dominated by one thing, the war with Carthage.

I had landed two full legions on Sicily and quickly took Messana with one while blocking the northern pass with the other. By manouvering the legions into the narrow passes I reduced the numerical advantage of Carthage's armies as they could only attack one army at a time. The fact that Greece and Carthage where at war as well created a three way conflict on the island. But while we where at war with the Greeks officially there had been no actual conflict in many years (just the odd naval skirmish). So while Carthage splite it's forces to besiege the Greek cities we concentrated on solely on fight Carthage.

The other step in our plan was the rapid construction of large fleets to dominate the central mediterranian and prevent Carthage reinforcing the troops on Sicily (which it was activily do at the start of the conflict). The result was thousands of Carthagian troops being drowned on their way to Sicily and the development of a large and very experience Roman navy. The destraction of Carthage's navy was so successful that we are now actively blocking Carthagian ports rather than simply defending our coastline.

The final move was to grant our Iberian allies 10000 denarii to aid them in their conflict with Carthage (and hopefully divert some troops away from Sicily).

Now I can take back what I said about "rolling in cash", war it appear is the big money drain. Constant fleet build and reinforcement had made money pretty tight. We are never broke and can keep up with contruction and reinforce costs, but only just. I remind you that we are fighting only one war again an enemy we share no land border with (yet!) and we are at peace and trading with just about every one else!!

I have a screen shot of one of those decisive battles that Darius mentioned:

https://photobucket.com/albums/y30/B...ent=battle.jpg

plus:

https://photobucket.com/albums/y30/B...inter244BC.jpg