Things to Improve

[locked_thread]

Here's my list of fundamental play issues that need to be addressed in any sequel:

1) Expensive units are not worth the investment.
Elite units often can’t be retrained in captured cities. Their initial training generally requires two turns, without creating a unit that’s twice as effective. Elite units are not only more expensive to build and maintain, but require expensive infrastructure. Thus historic units such as Companion Cavalry or Sacred Band play no role whatsoever.

2) Cavalry has no effective counter.
Even pike phalanxes are easily disrupted by headlong charges. Armies built entirely of light cav (or chariots) can crush anything.

3) Seige engines are not worth building.
They appear too late in the game and move too slowly to bring on campaign.

4) Bandits are too prolific and too damaging.
And they have no counter.

5) Espionage is tedious, distracting, and endlessly annoying.

6) Naval battles are indecisive, and timewasting.

7) Battles are small and repetitive, never epic and decisive.

8) Defenders can win battle by running the clock down.

9) Hand-to-hand fighting is resolved too fast.

10) Units must be micromanaged in battle.
No simple orders such as "advance", or "guard the left flank".

11) Useful battle formations are unavailable.
Available formations are line-based, and easily flanked. Where are box formations, such as Alexander used at Gaugamela?

12) Land seige alone cuts supply to coastal cities.
Historically those cities would have been supplied by sea anyway.

13) Limited unit types such as cavalry are unlimited.
Hence the occasional bizarre appearance of all-cav macedonian armies.

14) Ports can be blockaded without defeating adjacent fleet.

15) Field fortifications are a deathtrap, not protection from surprise attack.

16) There is no effective defense vs bribery, and it can’t be disabled.
When fighting Romans the game turns into "Total Bribery", as they bribe one or more cities each turn.

17) Naval movement is too slow.
A powerful navy should reward players by speeding up their campaigns.

18) Enemy zone-of-control is ignored by fleeing armies.
If anything, fleeing armies/navies should disband if forced to flee through enemy ZOC.

19) No penalty for withdrawing from battle.
This is not only unrealistic but frustrating, particularly when the AI withdraws time after time, when they could have fled before the battle screen loaded.

20) Characters are too complicated.
There are really only a three attributes worth tracking: stars, acumen, and dread. Anything more complicates the game without making it funner. It’s a huge time-waster to wade through constantly evolving and lengthy lists of self-contradicting attributes and personnel. Every VnV should translate into one or more of the three basic attributes.

[NodachiSam]

Your pepple throw into the pond has hit an island, if you know what I mean. I'm sure CA will try to do better.

[Conqueror]

A few points that need to be corrected:

1) Expensive units are not worth the investment.

Maybe if you use less than full army stacks. But when it comes to full stacks, the quality of individual units becomes important; you can't compensate by bringing more low-class units to the fight once you've hit the cap of 20 units. If you pit 20 Legionary Cohorts vs 15 Legionary Cohorts + 5 Praetorians, the latter stack holds a definite advantage against the former.

3) Seige engines are not worth building.
They appear too late in the game and move too slowly to bring on campaign.

With siege engines you can capture cities that you normally wouldn't be able to. An example: the enemy has a powerful army on the field near (not adjacent) a city, and a strong garrison inside. Your army is able to defeat the garrison 1 on 1, but would be hard pressed to fight the combined might of the field army and the garrison. If you assault the city without siege engines, you need to take at least 1 full turn to build ladders/towers/rams.

During that turn, the enemy field army will attack you, and you have to fight it and the garrison at the same time. But if you have some catapults or onagers, then you can attack immediatly as your army reaches the city. Which means that you only have to fight the garrison at that time. After you've conquered the city, your army will be taking shelter in there and gets to fight the other army from an advantageous position, if they attack.

6) Naval battles are indecisive, and timewasting.

Naval battles (like any battle) can be forced to be decisive. Place 8 ships around the enemy fleet so that it is completely surrounded. Then attack. If you win the battle, the enemy fleet will be unable to escape, and all of their ships will be sunken.

8) Defenders can win battle by running the clock down.

That's why you should always play with the battle timer disabled.

17) Naval movement is too slow.
A powerful navy should reward players by speeding up their campaigns.

If you use slow armies (that is, NOT all-cavalry armies) then loading units into ships lets you move them long distances much faster than marching, especially when highways (which only Romans can build) aren't available.

[Barbarossa82]

I agree with pretty much all of these, but it's point no. 1 that really hits the nail on the head. What would be a good idea is if they let military production buildings retrain troops of a higher level than those they can produce. That way you wouldn't need to pull back your top-of-the-line units to their homelands for retraining.

[rebelscum]

Here's my list of fundamental play issues that need to be addressed in any sequel:

1) Expensive units are not worth the investment.
Elite units often can’t be retrained in captured cities. Their initial training generally requires two turns, without creating a unit that’s twice as effective. Elite units are not only more expensive to build and maintain, but require expensive infrastructure. Thus historic units such as Companion Cavalry or Sacred Band play no role whatsoever.

2) Cavalry has no effective counter.
Even pike phalanxes are easily disrupted by headlong charges. Armies built entirely of light cav (or chariots) can crush anything.

3) Seige engines are not worth building.
They appear too late in the game and move too slowly to bring on campaign.

4) Bandits are too prolific and too damaging.
And they have no counter.

5) Espionage is tedious, distracting, and endlessly annoying.

6) Naval battles are indecisive, and timewasting.

7) Battles are small and repetitive, never epic and decisive.

8) Defenders can win battle by running the clock down.

9) Hand-to-hand fighting is resolved too fast.

10) Units must be micromanaged in battle.
No simple orders such as "advance", or "guard the left flank".

11) Useful battle formations are unavailable.
Available formations are line-based, and easily flanked. Where are box formations, such as Alexander used at Gaugamela?

12) Land seige alone cuts supply to coastal cities.
Historically those cities would have been supplied by sea anyway.

13) Limited unit types such as cavalry are unlimited.
Hence the occasional bizarre appearance of all-cav macedonian armies.

14) Ports can be blockaded without defeating adjacent fleet.

15) Field fortifications are a deathtrap, not protection from surprise attack.

16) There is no effective defense vs bribery, and it can’t be disabled.
When fighting Romans the game turns into "Total Bribery", as they bribe one or more cities each turn.

17) Naval movement is too slow.
A powerful navy should reward players by speeding up their campaigns.

18) Enemy zone-of-control is ignored by fleeing armies.
If anything, fleeing armies/navies should disband if forced to flee through enemy ZOC.

19) No penalty for withdrawing from battle.
This is not only unrealistic but frustrating, particularly when the AI withdraws time after time, when they could have fled before the battle screen loaded.

20) Characters are too complicated.
There are really only a three attributes worth tracking: stars, acumen, and dread. Anything more complicates the game without making it funner. It’s a huge time-waster to wade through constantly evolving and lengthy lists of self-contradicting attributes and personnel. Every VnV should translate into one or more of the three basic attributes.

Right on brother!

[Garvanko]

I agree with all that. But I still love the game.

[lars573]

Here's my list of fundamental play issues that need to be addressed in any sequel:

1) Expensive units are not worth the investment.
Elite units often can’t be retrained in captured cities. Their initial training generally requires two turns, without creating a unit that’s twice as effective. Elite units are not only more expensive to build and maintain, but require expensive infrastructure. Thus historic units such as Companion Cavalry or Sacred Band play no role whatsoever.

That is why ou have to rotate a depleted army back to a training center. Or merge it with another depleted army and leave the left overs as a city garrison

2) Cavalry has no effective counter.
Even pike phalanxes are easily disrupted by headlong charges. Armies built entirely of light cav (or chariots) can crush anything.

Phalanxes don't work right that is not news. Plus no all somethig army can crush anything and everything, that's a myth.

3) Seige engines are not worth building.
They appear too late in the game and move too slowly to bring on campaign.

You obviously have no ides how to use them properly. Which is sad really.

4) Bandits are too prolific and too damaging.
And they have no counter.

That is what a city garrison is for. Too many RTW player guard a city with peasants, not what you should be doing.

5) Espionage is tedious, distracting, and endlessly annoying.

You obviously have no ides how to use it properly. Which is sad really.

6) Naval battles are indecisive, and timewasting.

Which is the most realistic thing about naval battle in RTW

7) Battles are small and repetitive, never epic and decisive.

They can be. But the AI has to assemble a force to attack you. It tends to move an army in 2 or more parts then assemble it at a rally point then attack.

8) Defenders can win battle by running the clock down.

Which is a good thing.

9) Hand-to-hand fighting is resolved too fast.

Any slower and it would be boring

10) Units must be micromanaged in battle.
No simple orders such as "advance", or "guard the left flank".

And selecting a unit and telling them to move somewhere is what you telling them to dance a jig?

11) Useful battle formations are unavailable.
Available formations are line-based, and easily flanked. Where are box formations, such as Alexander used at Gaugamela?

You never use group formations like column?

12) Land seige alone cuts supply to coastal cities.
Historically those cities would have been supplied by sea anyway.

No city in RTW is it's own port. They are all seperate. Hence you siege a city you are cutting it off totally from the outside.

13) Limited unit types such as cavalry are unlimited.
Hence the occasional bizarre appearance of all-cav macedonian armies.

Macedonian "all-cav" armies only happen because they are only half an intended army. Plus Macedonia's recruitment parameter makes them field half cavalry armies. Also limiting cavalry would royally screw horse peoples like Parthia and Scythia. Bad idea never mention it again.

14) Ports can be blockaded without defeating adjacent fleet.

If they were close enough you'd have to fight them first.

15) Field fortifications are a deathtrap, not protection from surprise attack.

You obviously have no ides how to use them properly. Which is sad really.

16) There is no effective defense vs bribery, and it can’t be disabled.
When fighting Romans the game turns into "Total Bribery", as they bribe one or more cities each turn.

The best defense vs. bribery is a spy. But spy's can be bought by a high level diplomat. So assassinating them is the best option.

17) Naval movement is too slow.
A powerful navy should reward players by speeding up their campaigns.

No it's not naval speed it faster than foot movement. But only about the same as horse movement. It just take coordination to use it right.

18) Enemy zone-of-control is ignored by fleeing armies.
If anything, fleeing armies/navies should disband if forced to flee through enemy ZOC.

Stupid idea, never mention it again.

19) No penalty for withdrawing from battle.
This is not only unrealistic but frustrating, particularly when the AI withdraws time after time, when they could have fled before the battle screen loaded.

You sally/attack before they are ready and they run. Not always mind but sometimes.

20) Characters are too complicated.
There are really only a three attributes worth tracking: stars, acumen, and dread. Anything more complicates the game without making it funner. It’s a huge time-waster to wade through constantly evolving and lengthy lists of self-contradicting attributes and personnel. Every VnV should translate into one or more of the three basic attributes.

Characters are not complicated at all. You only manage the ones who are worth it. You also only get contradicting traits if you have a no-going back level in one trait and then pick up another trait that cort of counter it.

[Garvanko]

Haha. Can't argue with all that either.

[locked_thread]

But when it comes to full stacks, the quality of individual units becomes important; you can't compensate by bringing more low-class units to the fight once you've hit the cap of 20 units.

- If you build 2-turn elite units you will have half as many stacks. Which makes you unable to flood enemy territory or easily counter enemy flooding.
- Many elite units aren't significantly better than their 1-turn counterparts. Compare Spartans to regular Armored Hoplites.
- I've never played a campaign where elite units turned the tide. Usually I regret building them, as they cost a fortune and delay my attack, giving my enemies breathing room.

Your army is able to defeat the garrison 1 on 1, but would be hard pressed to fight the combined might of the field army and the garrison.

If you build cavalry instead of war machines, often you CAN defeat both the garrison and the field army. And you can lay seige sooner, because your army moves much faster without dragging war machines. A big exception of course - surprise attacks launched from boats onto coastal cities. Still, many campaigns are decided before I have the infrastructure to build war machines.

Place 8 ships around the enemy fleet so that it is completely surrounded. Then attack.

I used to do this but it's tedious and requires huge fleets.

That's why you should always play with the battle timer disabled.

Except for cases where you'd wait forever. Like seiges where the defenders sally and you kill them to a man, but the game doesn't notice. Or you have 500 pikemen and the Parthians attack you with a single family member who refuses to approach your lines and you have no way to run him down. (Both of these happened to me last night.)

If you use slow armies (that is, NOT all-cavalry armies) then loading units into ships lets you move them long distances much faster than marching...

Uh, yes, but it's still incredibly slow to move a fleet from Carthage to Egypt, for example.

[econ21]

Lars573, I think you should soften your debating style. For example, repeatedly writing: "You obviously have no ides how to use them properly. Which is sad really." is not constructive and liable to give offence. If people interact in this way, the Org will become an unpleasant and uninformative place.

I have just come back from interacting in some other forums [EDIT: not in the Org!!!] that shall remain nameless and found the whole experience left me feeling dirty . It has impressed on me the need to maintain the level of civility and reasoned exchanges that have always characterised the Org.

[econ21]

CyanCentaur, have you tried the Rome Total Realism mod? It makes changes in some of the dimensions you mention - notably overpowered cav (2) and fast combat speeds (9). The latest version 6.1 totally also surprised me by addressing (6): there are fewer ships and the naval battles are frighteningly lethal and decisive.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I have just come back from interacting in some other forums that shall remain nameless and found the whole experience left me feeling dirty . It has impressed on me the need to maintain the level of civility and reasoned exchanges that have always characterised the Org.

Certainly not the Backroom. Must be those barbarians in the Monastary.

Certainly, many issues on that list need to be tweaked at the least. And lars' response is rather sadly mean and I disagree with it.

Oh well.

[locked_thread]

That is why ou have to rotate a depleted army back to a training center. Or merge it with another depleted army and leave the left overs as a city garrison

- Rotating depleted armies slows your campaign and gives your enemy time to recover.
- It's always better to retrain depleted units because they keep their experience. With care, you can get extremely veteran units by the end of the game, that are equal to elites but easy to retrain.

Plus no all somethig army can crush anything and everything, that's a myth.

- I recently played an entire campaign using nothing but Carthaginian Round Shield Cavalry. It was incredibly easy.
- Previously I tried all-bow Egyptian armies and they slaughtered everything in their path.
- Another time I tried all-armored-phalanx armies and they were unstoppable.
- On another occasion I stomped over my opponents using pure elephant armies. It was a walk in the park.
- As the Seleucids I crushed everything and everything using nothing but chariots.
- Hmm... what was that myth again? Remember, this is single player against the AI....

That is what a city garrison is for.

Except you have to pull out the garrison and chase down the bandits, and it's incredibly tedious. Especially because you have to fight each and every battle or accept the autocalc which will cost you alot of troops and money.

You obviously have no ides how to use it properly.

Then tell me: what is the proper counter vs enemy spies? And don't say assassins because those aren't available until late in the game, and they fail much of the time anyway, even with stated odds of 90% or better.

Which is the most realistic thing about naval battle in RTW

If I wanted realism I would join the navy and scrub toilets.

Which is a good thing.

Except we end up with cases like: a horse archer who runs away the entire battle, thereby forces an enemy retreat.

Any slower and it would be boring

Any slower and we might get to see some actual fighting. There needs to be a "low gear" on the time control.

You never use group formations like column?

"Column" is not a useful battlefield formation except in sieges. The problem is, the AI spends all it's time scrambling to get on your flanks, even at the expense of its line's integrity. Not only does this result in bizarre battles, but there are no built-in formations where your flanks are covered. Quite the opposite, many formations deliberately extend your skirmish units far out to each flank where they are guaranteed to die instantly. The exact inverse of Hannibal's formation at Cannae, where he built up his flanks and left the weak units in the center.

No city in RTW is it's own port.

This is the problem, isn't it. Historically, many cities WERE port cities, and couldn't be cut off entirely by land forces. While others were able to maintain connection to their ports while under seige. Athens, for example, was besiged for years but built a fortified corridor to their seaport.

Macedonian "all-cav" armies only happen because they are only half an intended army.

Maybe so, but when I see full stack of Macedonian cavalry, independantly operating in the field, it looks like a whole army to me, and fights like one too.

Also limiting cavalry would royally screw horse peoples like Parthia and Scythia.

Obviously cavalry should only be limited for factions like Rome, Gaul, etc.

If they were close enough you'd have to fight them first.

But 99% of the time you can slip past and blockade the port. Even if there is a huge fleet inside.

You obviously have no ides how to use them properly. Which is sad really.

What's really sad is somebody who doesn't take the time to insult me properly, but uses copy-and-paste when they run out of good rebuttals....

So assassinating them is the best option.

Assassins appear late in the game, are expensive, can only target diplomats in the open, and fail often as not.

Characters are not complicated at all.

Well my poor feeble little brain gets overloaded with boredom when I see some guy with 8 ancillaries and 19 attributes, most of them causing multiple effects, all of which are hidden until I scroll down and mouse over each item one by one.

[econ21]

Certainly not the Backroom. Must be those barbarians in the Monastary.

Sorry, my bad - I meant other places than the Org, not any forum of the Org. There seem to be many game forums where the standard of debate appears to be posters basically just saying "I am right" and "You are wrong", with the only creativity being the petty insults they frame these posts in. And the worst is, the moderators and old timers often seem the most proficient at this posting style. The idea that there should be some content and civility to a post seems strangely absent. It's just depressing.

[locked_thread]

CyanCentaur, have you tried the Rome Total Realism mod....

Thanks for the tip, I'll have to check it out....

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Sorry, my bad - I meant other places than the Org, not any forum of the Org. There seem to be many game forums where the standard of debate appears to be posters basically just saying "I am right" and "You are wrong", with the only creativity being the petty insults they frame these posts in. And the worst is, the moderators and old timers often seem the most proficient at this posting style. The idea that there should be some content and civility to a post seems strangely absent. It's just depressing.

Don't be too sad - that's just a reminder of how awesome the .Org is!

[lars573]

- Rotating depleted armies slows your campaign and gives your enemy time to recover.
- It's always better to retrain depleted units because they keep their experience. With care, you can get extremely veteran units by the end of the game, that are equal to elites but easy to retrain.

-A slow campagin is a good campagin
-It is always better to retrain but sadly not always possible

- I recently played an entire campaign using nothing but Carthaginian Round Shield Cavalry. It was incredibly easy.
- Previously I tried all-bow Egyptian armies and they slaughtered everything in their path.
- Another time I tried all-armored-phalanx armies and they were unstoppable.
- On another occasion I stomped over my opponents using pure elephant armies. It was a walk in the park.
- As the Seleucids I crushed everything and everything using nothing but chariots.
- Hmm... what was that myth again? Remember, this is single player against the AI....

-Any all something has a weakness
-I could never bring my self to field an all something as a field army

Except you have to pull out the garrison and chase down the bandits, and it's incredibly tedious. Especially because you have to fight each and every battle or accept the autocalc which will cost you alot of troops and money.

-That depends on how you garrison
-My garrisons are usually 6 units, 4 militia 2 better ones. For a Roman city that will be 4 town watch and 2 urbans, praetorians or gladiators
-autocalc doesn't cost that much fighting bandits

Then tell me: what is the proper counter vs enemy spies? And don't say assassins because those aren't available until late in the game, and they fail much of the time anyway, even with stated odds of 90% or better.

-In city or army the cheapest counter to a spy is another spy
-You will always see them and there is a chance you will catch them and kill them
-This will lead to the governor (there be one) to get high security skill

If I wanted realism I would join the navy and scrub toilets.

All you people who complain about realsim are like this you want it, too a point. Make up your damn minds do you want realsim or not.

Except we end up with cases like: a horse archer who runs away the entire battle, thereby forces an enemy retreat.

-If you have a unit you can't catch just herd them into another unit
-Tricky but completely possible

Any slower and we might get to see some actual fighting. There needs to be a "low gear" on the time control.

-For some people (like me) the battles in vannila RTW are to damned long as is
-I get bored half way through the average field battle

"Column" is not a useful battlefield formation except in sieges. The problem is, the AI spends all it's time scrambling to get on your flanks, even at the expense of its line's integrity. Not only does this result in bizarre battles, but there are no built-in formations where your flanks are covered. Quite the opposite, many formations deliberately extend your skirmish units far out to each flank where they are guaranteed to die instantly. The exact inverse of Hannibal's formation at Cannae, where he built up his flanks and left the weak units in the center.

-The formations are designed to put skirmishers on the flank
-CA intended for skirmishers or other light unit to protect the flanks
-The reason that Cannae was so brilliant was because Hannibal threw away standard (and his subordinates might have though sane) military thinking and inverted his line arrangement with heavies on the flank and light in the center

This is the problem, isn't it. Historically, many cities WERE port cities, and couldn't be cut off entirely by land forces. While others were able to maintain connection to their ports while under seige. Athens, for example, was besiged for years but built a fortified corridor to their seaport.

The problem CA would have run into was which city had a seperate port which didn't. so it's just easier to have them all seperate and have sieges totally cut them off from the outside world.

Maybe so, but when I see full stack of Macedonian cavalry, independantly operating in the field, it looks like a whole army to me, and fights like one too.

Bet you it wasn't all cavalry. Bet you there were some hoplites and peltasts in the army.

Obviously cavalry should only be limited for factions like Rome, Gaul, etc.

No, I said it was a bad idea and I mean't it. i've mad up my mind and you shall not convince me other wise.

But 99% of the time you can slip past and blockade the port. Even if there is a huge fleet inside.

You mean if there inside the port itself? I've though about that some. To me that square bit that juts into the water from a port is the sea wall that shelters the harbour. When you blockade a port you block the enterance to that sea wall. You can't go in because it probably has defenses.

What's really sad is somebody who doesn't take the time to insult me properly, but uses copy-and-paste when they run out of good rebuttals....

You didn't deserve special individual rebuttals for each one.

Assassins appear late in the game, are expensive, can only target diplomats in the open, and fail often as not.

Assassins only appear in the late game for barbarians and maybe Romans. Every other faction starts out with or near (pop. growth wise) a minor city. Most people pick up on how to groom a good general but get totally confused with assassins. They are no different than a general they need to groomed and trained to get good at slitting throats. All you need to do to train him is find and kill other assassins. Also a fresh assassin's first kill is usually the hardest to get. But once you get the first kill (and I mean litterally the very first you miss that first one and the assassin can be ruined) and it will lead to a long and bloody carrer paved with many corpses

Well my poor feeble little brain gets overloaded with boredom when I see some guy with 8 ancillaries and 19 attributes, most of them causing multiple effects, all of which are hidden until I scroll down and mouse over each item one by one.

Once you learn what the more common traits are you can tell at a glance if it is good or bad, same for ancillaries. Then you can try and deal with them.

[Yukon Cornelius]

-All you people who complain about realsim are like this you want it, too a point. Make up your damn minds do you want realsim or not.

...

No, I said it was a bad idea and I mean't it. i've mad up my mind and you shall not convince me other wise.

...

You didn't deserve special individual rebuttals for each one.

Realism in a game is not binary. It is not either on or off. It's a matter of degrees. It's like excitement, in the sense that most people want to do things more exciting than watching paint dry but don't necessarily want to sky dive.

...

You seem to have your mind made up about everything. Perhaps a discussion forum is not the place for you.

...

I love your disrespectful attitude. It really makes the .org a better place. No sarcasm here. Nope.

[lilljonas]

CyanCentaur: well, most of the points you take up are the the reasons why I don't really thing R:TW is as good as it could be. Add paragraph 21: it takes 6 months for an army to perform a march that historical armies pulled off in a week!

Oh, and Lars573: you will find that people respect you more if you aren't acting like some kind of fourth-grade schoolyard bully. It's true.

EDIT: and yes, a full stack of light cavalry beats everything. Actually, my last Carthagian campaign was just like the one described: just stack after stack of round shield cavalry, eating everything thrown at them. At this period, most factions had a very limited supply of horses, and that's one of the reasons why the idea of full stacks of cavalry doesn't make sense. To say that "that's a dumb idea, never mention it again" only proves a point against you, especially since it is very far from a dumb idea.