Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: carthage...sucks?

  1. #1

    Default carthage...sucks?

    ok i began a campaign with carthage.but to my suprise, the units i have at my disposal suck.even poeni would break and run after a hard battle.every battle was a defeat or phyric(however you spell it) victory.was it just my bad generaling skills,or do the units just not compete well with the romans,also the temples confer no advantage to troops such as mars,or vulcan.

    anyway the carthage of history was better equiped correct?in generalship and soldier?j/w
    RUN AWAY!!
    VAE VICTUS-PaNtOcRaToR
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomi says
    Honour is that which preserves the dignity of the human spirit.
    It’s how you treat people, that makes you an honourable person.
    Not how many battles you win.
    The glory of your victories will soon be forgotten.
    But the kindness and respect you show for others, will not.
    So is there really any honour in Total War games?
    No.
    But there is in some of it’s players…

  2. #2
    Vermonter and Seperatist Member Uesugi Kenshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Mountains.
    Posts
    3,868

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    From what I have gathered from the History Channel'special on Hannibal the Carthaginian cavalry was far superior to their Roman foes, but the Carthaginian infantry was generally sub-par.
    "A man's dying is more his survivor's affair than his own."
    C.S. Lewis

    "So many people tiptoe through life, so carefully, to arrive, safely, at death."
    Jermaine Evans

  3. #3
    Member Member RollingWave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Republic of China (Taiwan)
    Posts
    352

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    Carthage did not rely so much on their own troops to fight for them, in the game wise probably only Poeni and sacred bands are carthiginian citizens, usually they relied on many celts/numidian auxilaries.

    In game wise though either your putting the setting on very hard or your just not much of a general/strategist. i could easily conquer Rome in about 10 years or so as the Carthiginian if the settings were on medium, and not much longer if it's on hard.

  4. #4
    Member Member Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lion City- Singapore
    Posts
    254

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    I am now playing as the Cathage, setting very hard and Victory will be mine after taking 12 more regions.

    Anyway I think the problem lays with the units because I do encounter the same problem with routing infantry units even when their number are still around full strength so for me I try not to depend on the infantry and use most cavalry for my army and they win me my empire but the round shields are not really reliable as they will rout almost immediately if placed in a dreadful situation.

    but to be fair the only infantry i have use in combats are the Iberian & Libyan and I can tell you Iberian sucks and roman infantry are far superior.
    From this land I was made
    For this land I will fall

  5. #5
    Abou's nemesis Member Krusader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kjøllefjord, Norway
    Posts
    5,723

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    As I've understood, the Carthaginians relied on mercenaries. The only units that had Carthaginian-born troops must have been Sacred Bands & perhaps Poeni infantry. But vast majority of ethnic Carthaginians served in the navy.

    Think I saw somewhere an article/text which said most Carthaginian cavalry were Numidians and infantry were Iberians, Gauls & from tribes of Tripolitania, Gaetulia & Mauretania. This might be just rumours or speculation.
    "Debating with someone on the Internet is like mudwrestling with a pig. You get filthy and the pig loves it"
    Shooting down abou's Seleukid ideas since 2007!

  6. #6
    Senior Member Senior Member Oaty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    2,863

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    Well it's a bit of how the game is themed. The games is designed behind the mighty Romans who were unstoppable in thier early years. Of course Rome suffered some nasty defeats even in it's early days.

    When playing as Romans you do not have to worry about chain routes and the such since usually you will have the superior army. I feel the dev's went the route of making Romans easy hence why they have to be played first, then the other faction are thier for a more challenging style of play.

    Anyways the historical value of Carthages army. Professional soldiers for Carthage. The sacred band came from Carthage citizens only and were forbidden to be hired as mercenaries. The Poeni's came from various phoenician colonies that was under Carthages control. Carthage(unlike Rome) had very few cities well under thier control. Carthage had torn down many of it's cities walls down to prevent any chance of rebellion and giving it's citizens very few rights. Unwalled cities can work against you too making takeover and betrayal much easier.

    Whereas for Rome not all legions/cohorts came from Rome directly. Cities with citizenship and rights in Rome would send men to Rome to be trained as legions. The excpetion was you had to be a landowner(in the early days) as this gave them a sense of what they were fighting for.

    Even if Carthages infantry was superior, they could in no way field nearly as many professional soldiers as Rome could.

    Theres also the fact that Rome was the only city/nation that could suffer a battlefield catastrophe and not be on thier knees due to lack of manpower.

    As far as your Poeni's getting routed easily, I'd like to know what's going on to cause that, that is if you are using patch 1.2 If not using patch 1.2 install it as it greatly improved phalanx warfare.
    When a fox kills your chickens, do you kill the pigs for seeing what happened? No you go out and hunt the fox.
    Cry havoc and let slip the HOGS of war

  7. #7
    Humanist Senior Member Franconicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Trying to get to Utopia
    Posts
    3,482

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    Quote Originally Posted by VAE VICTUS
    ok i began a campaign with carthage.but to my suprise, the units i have at my disposal suck.even poeni would break and run after a hard battle.every battle was a defeat or phyric(however you spell it) victory.was it just my bad generaling skills,or do the units just not compete well with the romans,also the temples confer no advantage to troops such as mars,or vulcan.

    anyway the carthage of history was better equiped correct?in generalship and soldier?j/w
    RUN AWAY!!
    I think the game is rather correct. Carthagians infantry was a mixture of many nations. Most of them were not good. However, their cav. is excellent. So as a gerneral you have to fight the Carthagian way. Your infantry only holds the line while the cav has to decide the battle.
    1. Fight the Roman cav: This should be easy; in parallal try to avoid close combat with your inf. Just pepper them with jav.
    2. Get your cav in the back of the enemy: Should not be a problem after 1.
    You even can start a flanking manoever with your inf. Iberians are not strong but quite fast.
    3. Your cav attacks the rear. Now it is time to call your elephants.
    4. Chase the enemy!

    Good luck!

  8. #8
    Patriot Member IliaDN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    772

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    I think it is a bit colloseum topic.

  9. #9
    Tovenaar Senior Member The Wizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,348

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    Indeed, and to assume RTW to be historically correct is quite as incorrect as the game is.



    ~Wiz
    "It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."

    Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul

  10. #10
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    If your infantry are breaking after only a few casualties, you might need better generals. A Few more stars from fighting rebels go a long way.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  11. #11
    Moderator Moderator Gregoshi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Central Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    12,968

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    Well, it started out as a historically based question. I guess it is asking too much for all you armchair Hannibals to refrain from providing your own strategies to the game side of this issue.
    This space intentionally left blank

  12. #12
    American since 2012 Senior Member AntiochusIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lalaland
    Posts
    3,125

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    There has always been doubt whether or not the Carthaginian military is (was) weaker than the Roman ones as they fight. Though there has been no doubt that Rome won the wars (could anybody doubt that?), the dispute over the true strength of the Carthaginian military forces versus the Roman one is a never-ending issue. Indeed, most people believe, quite blindly in fact, that Roman legionaries were the super tactic that won over every single foe they ever met.

    The truth is different.

    Though I must credit the Romans for such a powerful propaganda that still possess a very, very strong effect on modern minds (just look at Hollywood...) the Roman warfare tactics were not invincible. They (the tactics evolved overtime) were excellent tactics by any means; very flexible and are (were) especially effective against less flexible enemies - in other words, the phalanx tactics as a whole.

    The belief - or what I'd rather call the myth - of the Carthaginian military being weak and ineffective comes mainly from 19th century scholars who considered the Roman republic/empire as a godly model of a nation-state. They discredited the Carthaginian military force as ineffective because these scholars viewed mercenaries - what made up most of the Carthaginian armies - as inferior to "idealistic middle-class volunteers of the nation." However, it is clear that the mercenary army of Carthage is actually an effective fighting force. The records are, in fact, surprisingly clean. Only one major rebellion has occured in the entire history: the so-called "Slave War" between the unpaid mercenaries (who fought devotedly for Carthage under Hasdrubal Barca, father of Hannibal, in Sicily for decades - with no pay except war loot) who tried to demand their wages and the bankrupt Carthage that could not (or, as some say, the Carthaginian senate would not) pay them. The result was a bitter fighting, perfect for a Roman writer to record it just as an event in a rival nation and for later scholars to intrepet it all they want. No other major rebellions by the mercenary armies had been recorded - certainly a surprisingly loyal army as the men were not fighting for their homes or nations, and even their pay was often lacking, don't you think?

    Also, the Carthaginian cavalry - or more specifically the Numidian cavalry, the Iberian cavalry, and a few Carthaginian elite units (and by elite I mean true elites) are far superior to the Roman (Italian) cavalry. The debate over the horses and their skills are endless, but can be summarized as that the Iberian (Spanish) horse was - and is, even if their genetics has changed - famous as a powerful warhorse indeed, and that the Numidian (African) horse was nimble and swift, perfect for hit-and-run tactics. Carthage seems to bred a mix of these two horse species as a balanced and powerful horse used across the Carthaginian empire. Indeed, Hannibal's cavalry were rightly feared as they were the vital part - Hannibal's hammer - against the Romans in battle. And Zama, a great Roman victory, was known for the Numidians supporting Rome's army in battle, and not as well known that the supremely powerful Carthaginian cavalry unit: the fearsome Sacred Band (cavalry), was not present in that battle.

    However, the infantry was certainly what was recognized by historians and those who didn't know as much as what Rome was superior. Indeed, there is no point of arguing against that. However, the African units - the Libyan spearmen and the Phoenicians of Libyan descend (outside the city of Carthage) served in the Carthaginian army as phalanx units - were considered an equal to their legionary foes. Of course, the inherent weakness of the phalanx against the more flexible legions applies here, but, if we're talking about quality of men, of gear, of motivation, and such - these men were the equals of Roman citizens. The "foreign" elements in the Carthaginian army (that made up the majority of it) had varying skills and motivation overall. The Greeks and Macedonians were considered "elite" or at least "skilled," and the Macedonian mercenaries were the last to break at Zama. The Iberians, though skilled fighters (the Romans copied MUCH from the Scutarii warriors of the Iberian tribes - these men fight basically like any legionary would fight: with large shield, short sword, and javelin), were not as motivated to serve their Carthaginian masters as they would protect their own homelands. The Gauls, too, suffer from the same lack of motivation, as has been demonstrated clearly at the battle of Cannae, where Hannibal cleverly used them in the middle, with motives that are disputed (as ever...), but I believe he used them there because they were more expendable than others and that it is harder to run from the center than from the flank.

    It is also notable that the Phoenician militias (of the CITY of Carthage), that only was used in emergency, when went into battle were very well armed, but rather ineffective. The mercenaries were superior in battle than the poorly trained militia drafted in desperation. These men were the citizens of the city of Carthage (represented, I believe, as the Poeni infantry in vanilla), and was loyal and desperately brave to protect their city - unfortunately, they break and run when things got bad, as in Zama.

    Otherwise, there are smaller mercenary elements in the Carthaginian military also: the Balearic slingers, for example, were considered as the best "ranged force" in the Western Mediterranean.

    In other words, the original Rome: Total War portrayal of the Carthaginian army is inaccurate, especially when it comes to the cavalry and the mercenaries. The game seems to suggest that Carthage will have to nationalize their army to be of any good.

  13. #13
    American since 2012 Senior Member AntiochusIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lalaland
    Posts
    3,125

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    There has always been doubt whether or not the Carthaginian military is (was) weaker than the Roman ones as they fight. Though there has been no doubt that Rome won the wars (could anybody doubt that?), the dispute over the true strength of the Carthaginian military forces versus the Roman one is a never-ending issue. Indeed, most people believe, quite blindly in fact, that Roman legionaries were the super tactic that won over every single foe they ever met.

    The truth is different.

    Though I must credit the Romans for such a powerful propaganda that still possess a very, very strong effect on modern minds (just look at Hollywood...) the Roman warfare tactics were not invincible. They (the tactics evolved overtime) were excellent tactics by any means; very flexible and are (were) especially effective against less flexible enemies - in other words, the phalanx tactics as a whole.

    The belief - or what I'd rather call the myth - of the Carthaginian military being weak and ineffective comes mainly from 19th century scholars who considered the Roman republic/empire as a godly model of a nation-state. They discredited the Carthaginian military force as ineffective because these scholars viewed mercenaries - what made up most of the Carthaginian armies - as inferior to "idealistic middle-class volunteers of the nation." However, it is clear that the mercenary army of Carthage is actually an effective fighting force. The records are, in fact, surprisingly clean. Only one major rebellion has occured in the entire history: the so-called "Slave War" between the unpaid mercenaries (who fought devotedly for Carthage under Hasdrubal Barca, father of Hannibal, in Sicily for decades - with no pay except war loot) who tried to demand their wages and the bankrupt Carthage that could not (or, as some say, the Carthaginian senate would not) pay them. The result was a bitter fighting, perfect for a Roman writer to record it just as an event in a rival nation and for later scholars to intrepet it all they want. No other major rebellions by the mercenary armies had been recorded - certainly a surprisingly loyal army as the men were not fighting for their homes or nations, and even their pay was often lacking, don't you think?

    Also, the Carthaginian cavalry - or more specifically the Numidian cavalry, the Iberian cavalry, and a few Carthaginian elite units (and by elite I mean true elites) are far superior to the Roman (Italian) cavalry. The debate over the horses and their skills are endless, but can be summarized as that the Iberian (Spanish) horse was - and is, even if their genetics has changed - famous as a powerful warhorse indeed, and that the Numidian (African) horse was nimble and swift, perfect for hit-and-run tactics. Carthage seems to bred a mix of these two horse species as a balanced and powerful horse used across the Carthaginian empire. Indeed, Hannibal's cavalry were rightly feared as they were the vital part - Hannibal's hammer - against the Romans in battle. And Zama, a great Roman victory, was known for the Numidians supporting Rome's army in battle, and not as well known that the supremely powerful Carthaginian cavalry unit: the fearsome Sacred Band (cavalry), was not present in that battle.

    However, the infantry was certainly what was recognized by historians and those who didn't know as much as what Rome was superior. Indeed, there is no point of arguing against that. However, the African units - the Libyan spearmen and the Phoenicians of Libyan descend (outside the city of Carthage) served in the Carthaginian army as phalanx units - were considered an equal to their legionary foes. Of course, the inherent weakness of the phalanx against the more flexible legions applies here, but, if we're talking about quality of men, of gear, of motivation, and such - these men were the equals of Roman citizens. The "foreign" elements in the Carthaginian army (that made up the majority of it) had varying skills and motivation overall. The Greeks and Macedonians were considered "elite" or at least "skilled," and the Macedonian mercenaries were the last to break at Zama. The Iberians, though skilled fighters (the Romans copied MUCH from the Scutarii warriors of the Iberian tribes - these men fight basically like any legionary would fight: with large shield, short sword, and javelin), were not as motivated to serve their Carthaginian masters as they would protect their own homelands. The Gauls, too, suffer from the same lack of motivation, as has been demonstrated clearly at the battle of Cannae, where Hannibal cleverly used them in the middle, with motives that are disputed (as ever...), but I believe he used them there because they were more expendable than others and that it is harder to run from the center than from the flank.

    It is also notable that the Phoenician militias (of the CITY of Carthage), that only was used in emergency, when went into battle were very well armed, but rather ineffective. The mercenaries were superior in battle than the poorly trained militia drafted in desperation. These men were the citizens of the city of Carthage (represented, I believe, as the Poeni infantry in vanilla), and was loyal and desperately brave to protect their city - unfortunately, they break and run when things got bad, as in Zama.

    Otherwise, there are smaller mercenary elements in the Carthaginian military also: the Balearic slingers, for example, were considered as the best "ranged force" in the Western Mediterranean.

    In other words, the original Rome: Total War portrayal of the Carthaginian army is inaccurate, especially when it comes to the cavalry and the mercenaries. The game seems to suggest that Carthage will have to nationalize their army to be of any good.

  14. #14
    Cynic Senior Member sapi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    4,970

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    In other words, the original Rome: Total War portrayal of the Carthaginian army is inaccurate, especially when it comes to the cavalry and the mercenaries. The game seems to suggest that Carthage will have to nationalize their army to be of any good.
    Yes, that is strange


    VAE VICTUS, can you please stop spamming threads!
    From wise men, O Lord, protect us -anon
    The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of millions, a statistic -Stalin
    We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area -UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer

  15. #15
    Humanist Senior Member Franconicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Trying to get to Utopia
    Posts
    3,482

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregoshi
    Well, it started out as a historically based question. I guess it is asking too much for all you armchair Hannibals to refrain from providing your own strategies to the game side of this issue.
    Hannibal? Who is that??

  16. #16

    Default Re: carthage...sucks?

    Hannibal Barca.

    You know, the guy who took on the Romans and almost won? He marched through the Alps with elephants.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO