Are the Romans too Powerful?

[Kuni]

Yes, Romans are too powerful. They are no doubt a superpower.

But this is Rome: Total War, after all.. MTW M2TW and STW are not centered on one faction, RTW is.

[IceWolf]

I'm starting to think that post-Marius they are. I'm playing a Scythian campaign right now and I keep trashing one stack after another (at much higher cost than my earlier battles) and another group of hard fighting Brutti/Julii pops up to take their place. Rome has the units and the econ to support them.

[Celt Centurion]

While the Romans can be some tough guys, I've found many other tough units in other factions. As one of you mentioned, I also upgrade armor as soon as I can, and as often as I can. Copper upgrades to silver which upgrades to gold. If I managed to build or capture a city with a foundry and a temple of Hephaestus, or Artemis, I upgrade the armor of everybody in the place, and then start "trading" units from neighboring cities to get the armor upgrades.

Presently, I have an XGM game as Macedon. I've taken most of present day Turkey from The Greek Cities and Selucids. Pergamum has a foundry and awesome temple of Artemis. Imagine the armor upgrades in that! I've also gotten the same upgrades in every city in Western Turkey, and have taken a bunch more.

I think that a lot of it is upgrading with improved barracks and armor.

Try the armor and experience upgrades, and you may find what you are looking for.

Strength and Honor

Celt Centurion

[Shieldmaiden]

well i think its hardly inaccurate because there the most successful army of the ancient world.But that said there cav is to over powered cos they didnt have many or that great cav,most of them werent Romans or Italians.And also i dont think they could of beat the spartans in real life anyway

Yes, I think what bothers me is why they are overpowered in RTW.

Romans in RTW would be more historically accurate without silly uber Cavalry, and continue to be powerful due to their superior infantry and infrastructure.

[Noir]

this whole discussion stating essentially "they've beaten everyone in history they should be doing so in game" is flawed IMO and this is why:

a) In "real" history the Romans faced defeat inumerable times (Pyrhus, Hanibal, Celtiberian&Gaulish&Germanic&Balkan Tribes, Carrae, Teutoberg Ward and many others battles lost) - they learned from it though and adapted their style and equipment, and this adaptability gave them an edge. Their battles were nowhere easy or won before fighting actually happened. This is not accounted for in the game, as their units are the best in every "era" by default.

b) From a gameplay perspective it is absolutely wrong to give all winning cards in one team - the game is no fun then. All factions should have strengths and weaknesses in the field giving overall equal chances of success and this is poorly implemented in RTW (although attempted) as the Roman units can beat the equivalent of most other factions in the field and also field the best units in every department , which is boring and historically inaccurate.

The Romans had no archery or equastrian traditions they were terrible horseman and ineffective with the bow - they've always relied on mercenaries and auxiliaries for this.

RTW, attempted to introduce TW to new fans, first ad foremost. It was for this reason that the Romans are overpowered and one can win anyway with them.

Many Thanks

Noir

[caravel]

People often assume that the Roman empire was built on the strength of it's armies alone. In truth it was the Roman beliefs and values, greater unity than their neighbours, better system of government, higher morale and better training of troops, logistics and way of life that all contributed to establish the Roman Empire, not brute force alone. The idea that the Romans simply headed north and wiped the floor with the inferior "barbarians", because they had tougher armies, is a little naive.

The Romans' Manipular formations and tactics were also superior to many of their opponents at the time, again this is something for the player to learn to do in battle. Forming up your units with use of good tactics (which is how the Romans won their battles), as opposed to bum rushing the RTW Roman uber units at the barbarians knowing quite well that you're going to win nearly every time, because of the overpowered nature of the Roman units.

[Stuperman]

this whole discussion stating essentially "they've beaten everyone in history they should be doing so in game" is flawed IMO and this is why:

a) In "real" history the Romans faced defeat inumerable times (Pyrhus, Hanibal, Celtiberian&Gaulish&Germanic&Balkan Tribes, Carrae, Teutoberg Ward and many others battles lost) - they learned from it though and adapted their style and equipment, and this adaptability gave them an edge. Their battles were nowhere easy or won before fighting actually happened. This is not accounted for in the game, as their units are the best in every "era" by default.

Most of the battles you have listed were lost due to poor leadership on the roman side, or military genius on the behalf of the roman opposition. In generally all situations, man to man, the romans were MUCH better trained and disciplined, especially after the marius (marian?) reforms.

b) From a gameplay perspective it is absolutely wrong to give all winning cards in one team - the game is no fun then. All factions should have strengths and weaknesses in the field giving overall equal chances of success and this is poorly implemented in RTW (although attempted) as the Roman units can beat the equivalent of most other factions in the field and also field the best units in every department , which is boring and historically inaccurate.

The romans (in game) do have a few ahistorical units (urban cohorts, high end cav), but I wouldn't say they have all the wining cards, Cataphracts(sp) are the best cav, pharos bowmen, cretian archer and forester warband are all better missle units. Spartans, Bastarnae, beserkers, and Sacred Band can all beat post marian armies. Scutarii/spanish mercs and most phalanx units can beat pre marian armies relitively easily.

Some factions (carthage) are grossly underpowered but that is really for game play reasons and Vanilla Balance mod ( https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79547 ) helps fix that if it really bugs you that much.

The Romans had no archery or equastrian traditions they were terrible horseman and ineffective with the bow - they've always relied on mercenaries and auxiliaries for this.

Many Thanks

Noir

Not going to touch the horsemen one, but after the reforms the archer units avaiable to the romans are called archer auxillia.

Thanks

Stuperman

[Noir]

Originally posted by Stuperman
Most of the battles you have listed were lost due to poor leadership on the roman side, or military genius on the behalf of the roman opposition.

Agreed, however the same can be claimed for their victories, no? (ie poor leadership of opposition and Roman military genius - not to mention Roman logistical strength past some point).

Originally posted by Stuperman
In generally all situations, man to man, the romans were MUCH better trained and disciplined, especially after the marius (marian?) reforms.

Yes, however the game has other factors than simply giving better fighting stats to reflect this - like for example morale and discipline. These were fully employable in the old engine STW/MTW, but i have no clue how much they matter in the new one.

If anything the Roman units should be having lesser stats than say the Barbarian units that were larger and stronger men.

Originally posted by Stuperman
...but I wouldn't say they have all the wining cards, Cataphracts(sp) are the best cav, pharos bowmen, cretian archer and forester warband are all better missle units. Spartans, Bastarnae, beserkers, and Sacred Band can all beat post marian armies. Scutarii/spanish mercs and most phalanx units can beat pre marian armies relitively easily.

They have: the best infantry, excellent cavalry and very good missiles. They overall excel over other factions by a large margin except the Seleukids and the Egyptians (in these cases the margin is smaller) - that also can be beaten easily with a little patience to shoot out the troublesome chariots and elephants.

What you list is a few units that are better and not a faction that has equal chances.

By the way both the Egyptians and the Seleukids have dead flat boring overpowered rosters IMO.

As for the most phalanx units beating principe and hastati or postmarian legionaires i doubt it in a practical situation as they take ages to do so and need to engage front only in order to. By then they are dead.

Originally posted by Stuperman
Some factions (carthage) are grossly underpowered but that is really for game play reasons and Vanilla Balance mod ( https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79547 ) helps fix that if it really bugs you that much.

Well it "bugs me" so much i'm afraid that i gave up on RTW after playing it and many of its mods for almost 2 years. My favorite mods were: RTRplatinum with Naval&City Mod and EB as well as others not in the setting (tried Chivalry, The Crusades, Napoleonic and others).

The battles are only a shadow of what they've been in the older games IMO. Balancing is accoding to SP criteria only most of the time that do not account exactly for the best results relative to tactics. Ironically enough mods that turned RTW "more tactical" took out key TW features like morale or increased defence and morale to the skies (essentially taking them out again) to make melees last longer.

Originally posted by Stuperman
Not going to touch the horsemen one, but after the reforms the archer units avaiable to the romans are called archer auxillia.

Yes, auxilia recruitable all over the Italian peninsula in the provinces of the old Res Publica- not very convincing i'm afraid.

Many Thanks

Noir