Are the Romans too Powerful?

[guineawolf]

I was playing as the Romans, not the Greeks.

what i trying to say here,you will find out you will slaughter those romans with spartans as simple as you slaughter those spartans with romans..

experienced it,you will find out why.....

[Ossie The Great]

I think the romans are to strong as i had taken a good part of eurpoe with britan but when it came to fighting the romans they seemed to be impossible to beat and had armys everywhere. All though saying this i managed to beat 1023 romans with armina and did not even lose one man

[Plebian#10]

I have only played the Greeks and the Macedonians but I have had only a little problem beating the Romans on medium battle difficulty. I believe the true weakness is only the AI. While I agree that historically the Romans were at best weak in the calvary and archer departments before the Marius reforms how can we explain their historical expansion before the Marius reforms and not include their superb tactical ,logistical, and engineering capabilities. This is not to say that the Romans were unbeatable as pointed out by Noir but they just kept coming - tenacious is a word that comes to mind.
IMHO the game is as balanced as possible with the weak link going to the AI ability to play against a human. If a human versus a human game is conducted the results would be much different than a human versus the AI.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Plebian#10
IMHO the game is as balanced as possible with the weak link going to the AI ability to play against a human. If a human versus a human game is conducted the results would be much different than a human versus the AI.

Indeed they are different - and they most likely indicate that the balance you describe is not there. I've read that RTW Multi Player is effectively dominated by certain factions (as two players cannot take the same one to my understanding) - that is there is a process in finding out the best units and use only them in order to win, as far as understand. Someone that has experience in playing RTW online might give us a better insight relative to the truths of my sayings - because i just played RTW Single Player and read the forums for MP.

If you ever try the older TW games, most notably the original STW and the VI expansion for MTW, you'll find that they are (most likely) better balanced for MP, that is units give more equal chances to both opponents and this means that the game is not decided by taking "the best" units, but by playing with the most skill.

It is also indicative that many mods nerfed the Roman units considerably.

As i posted before the TW AI is actually quite good IMO if he is given equal armies and plays in flat terrain (that is how a multiplayer opponent would play you anyway) - at least he was so in STW/MTW and i find it very difficult to believe that it radically changed or had been dumped down since then. The new battle engine in RTW is in my opinion way more responsible for the "bad" AI in RTW, rather than the AI himself.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Ludens]

As i posted before the TW AI is actually quite good IMO if he is given equal armies and plays in flat terrain (that is how a multiplayer opponent would play you anyway) - at least he was so in STW/MTW and i find it very difficult to believe that it radically changed or had been dumped down since then. The new battle engine in RTW is in my opinion way more responsible for the "bad" AI in RTW, rather than the AI himself.

Back in the early days of R:TW I had a discussion on this subject with several members that have investigated R:TW engine thoroughly. Unfortunatly, I can't find the thread, but we identified many situations in which the R:TW A.I. underperformed compared to M:TW and S:TW. My own contribution to this discussion was to point out that the R:TW A.I. never uses ambushes on the battlemap. If it's units are hidden, it's just because they happened to be between the trees. Also, if the player's units hide, the A.I. forgets about them. I recently saw the A.I. chase one of my skirmisher units through the forest. I ordered my unit to halt, and they went into hiding. The A.I. broke of pursuit, and ordered it's units to return to the collunm. For all intents and purposes, it acted as if it had forgotten about my skirmishers.

Another example is the use of height advantage. In M:TW and S:TW the A.I. would move to gain as much height advantages as possible. If you moved to negate this, it would reposition itself to maximize height advantage again. This could lead to an elaborate dance with the player in which both tried to turn the terrain to their advantage. The R:TW A.I. also likes to take the hills, but if you move around it to gain the higher ground, it does nothing to prevent that. It merely swivels to face you. If the hill it positioned it's army on is very small, you can sometimes make it swivel it's army of the hill .

From this and several other examples we concluded that the A.I. in R:TW was not the same as the one that powered M:TW. This was back in the 1.1 or 1.2 days, and the A.I. did improve in the mean time, but both of the above arguments are valid for R:TW 1.5.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Ludens
My own contribution to this discussion was to point out that the R:TW A.I. never uses ambushes on the battlemap.

There was an ambush morale (or attack?) bonus (or was it penalty for the victims, or both? - need to check) for units previously in hiding attacking other units in the older engine (legendary for working in the infamous STW fog). This bonus together with many others seems to have been taken out - i have no clue if this is the cause for the AI not finding ambushes worthwhile anymore, but it might as well be related.

Other bonuses including penalties for cavalry in woods and accuracy penalties for archers and volley density relative to sight obstructions and formation shape were also removed. These are only a few examples to my understanding. All these simplifications might possibly account for simpler behaviour for the AI to a lesser or higher degree.

If the AI used in RTW was the same as that for MTW, even in principle - the simplifications in the engine might have confused it and made it look goofy IMO.

Originally posted by Ludens
If it's units are hidden, it's just because they happened to be between the trees. Also, if the player's units hide, the A.I. forgets about them. I recently saw the A.I. chase one of my skirmisher units through the forest. I ordered my unit to halt, and they went into hiding. The A.I. broke of pursuit, and ordered it's units to return to the collunm. For all intents and purposes, it acted as if it had forgotten about my skirmishers.

I really didn't know about that, i must say - thanks for the information.

Originally posted by Ludens
Another example is the use of height advantage. In M:TW and S:TW the A.I. would move to gain as much height advantages as possible. If you moved to negate this, it would reposition itself to maximize height advantage again. This could lead to an elaborate dance with the player in which both tried to turn the terrain to their advantage. The R:TW A.I. also likes to take the hills, but if you move around it to gain the higher ground, it does nothing to prevent that. It merely swivels to face you. If the hill it positioned it's army on is very small, you can sometimes make it swivel it's army of the hill.

I disagree on this one. The MTW AI is indeed better to use the high ground however he does fall in the "change facing trap" and also allows advance to the player to a certain extent if you move from a smoother slope to meet him.

In many cases (also very recently actually) i got it to completely give up his edge camping strong position by advancing fully from the flank. The AI redeployed to a far off position and in the process lost the high ground and i got the chance to attack him. It was in an Almohad campaign in my home mini-mod for MedMod IV. The same behaviour i have noticed in other mods and in vanilla MTW/VI.

I remember that similar things could happen in STW WE.

Many Thanks

Noir

[IceWolf]

I think that the RTW AI is ok with the more advanced civs-Romans, Macedonians. But less so with th gauls and Brits.

IceWolf

[Ludens]

I disagree on this one. The MTW AI is indeed better to use the high ground however he does fall in the "change facing trap" and also allows advance to the player to a certain extent if you move from a smoother slope to meet him.

In many cases (also very recently actually) i got it to completely give up his edge camping strong position by advancing fully from the flank. The AI redeployed to a far off position and in the process lost the high ground and i got the chance to attack him. It was in an Almohad campaign in my home mini-mod for MedMod IV. The same behaviour i have noticed in other mods and in vanilla MTW/VI.

I remember that similar things could happen in STW WE.

True, yet the defensive A.I. of M:TW was far more mobile and proactive in trying to gain height advantage. The R:TW A.I. simply picks its spot and sticks to it.

I don't think the lack of ambushes is matter of bonuses. A morale penalty is hardly the only or even the most important consequence of an ambush.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Ludens
True, yet the defensive A.I. of M:TW was far more mobile and proactive in trying to gain height advantage. The R:TW A.I. simply picks its spot and sticks to it.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Ludens
I don't think the lack of ambushes is matter of bonuses. A morale penalty is hardly the only or even the most important consequence of an ambush.

Morale penalties can make a true difference if the game is on the line (when the decisive melee is joined) and at the closing stages of a battle were armies are scattered all over the map, are fatigued and undermaned.

Having joined the MP game recently, i start understanding that there is a very fine morale "link" in the MTW engine that keeps together an army. Units need to support each other in terms of space and time, and against other units if they are not to rout.

In the SP game this is not always visible due to all the upgrades and bonuses - for example 30 turns in the campaign in the original MeddMod IV, my swordsmen would fight till the last man as they carry many valour,armour,weapon and morale upgrades.

If you play without upgrades (in the campaign or online) this is not the case and morale is instrumental. So ambushing, ie attack from a hidden place at a critical point can have a massive hit in the "relationships" that the enemy is having for keeping his units together morale wise, and turn the tables in a short time to a massive rout that usually is irrecoverable.

Similarly, if the AI had an all infantry army versus a cavalry heavy army, he would set it in the woods, since they was something to be gained (cavalry was getting hefty penalties in woods in STW/MTW but not in RTW).

Anyway, it is only a suspicion i have relative to the RTW AI behaviour and so unsubstantiated.

Another example isthat in MTW 1.0 spears were more of cavalry killers until they were nerfed (in order to lose from swords by popular demand).

However the AI is still using the spears past that stage as cavalry killers, when they are now pinners (low attack, high defence). Cavalry killers are now halberds,other cavalry and even swords when properly valoured-upgraded.

All in all the AI kept his habit and that put him at a disadvantage. Something similar might be happening in RTW or simply of course whole AI sections were taken-out to make the game more simple and so accessible, perhaps.

For another example the MTW AI is a very keen flank charger with cavalry - the RTW is much less keen on this but then again there is no blobbing penalty and charges seem to work just as well through friendly and enemy units.

Another thing to consider is perhaps the control the AI has over individual men. In the older engine i read that calculations were being done on a per man basis and this does not seem to be the case in the newer one.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Ludens]

If you play without upgrades (in the campaign or online) this is not the case and morale is instrumental. So ambushing, ie attack from a hidden place at a critical point can have a massive hit in the "relationships" that the enemy is having for keeping his units together morale wise, and turn the tables in a short time to a massive rout that usually is irrecoverable.

Very true.

Anyway, it is only a suspicion i have relative to the RTW AI behaviour and so unsubstantiated.

Several particapants of the thread I refered to shared your suspicion. However, personally I think the A.I. has lost they capability of doing so, rather than still being able but chosing not to. However small the height advantage is, it's still an advantage so why does it it given away? It can't be because the A.I. does not want to tire its units, because it shows no consideration for the level of fatigue in combat.

Another example isthat in MTW 1.0 spears were more of cavalry killers until they were nerfed (in order to lose from swords by popular demand).

However the AI is still using the spears past that stage as cavalry killers, when they are now pinners (low attack, high defence). Cavalry killers are now halberds,other cavalry and even swords when properly valoured-upgraded.

All in all the AI kept his habit and that put him at a disadvantage. Something similar might be happening in RTW or simply of course whole AI sections were taken-out to make the game more simple and so accessible, perhaps.

In my view, this supports my hypothesis that the A.I. does not calculate the actual combat value, but operates on routines.

Another thing to consider is perhaps the control the AI has over individual men. In the older engine i read that calculations were being done on a per man basis and this does not seem to be the case in the newer one.

The older engine definetly made combat-calculations on a man-to-man basis. Why do you think this has been changed?

[Noir]

Originally posted by Ludens
However, personally I think the A.I. has lost they capability of doing so, rather than still being able but chosing not to. However small the height advantage is, it's still an advantage so why does it it given away? It can't be because the A.I. does not want to tire its units, because it shows no consideration for the level of fatigue in combat.

Sorry, but i lost the flow of thought there - if it gives away (the position advantage) then how can he be showingconsideration for not tiring his units, since he does so (tiring hi units) in the process?

I agree that the AI shows no consideration for fatigue at all almost; in fact this is interesting as for some home modding i did i put the movement modifier much lower (about 45% to 60% - tried values) to slow down the movement speeds. The result was that fatigue was far more pronounced to units in other words it was like they walked more ground for the same distance in that way. I didn't play long enough that way to gauge AI response to that though.

Originally posted by Ludens
In my view, this supports my hypothesis that the A.I. does not calculate the actual combat value, but operates on routines.

Not necessarily - when i play MTW & mods the AI seems fully conscious of his overall melee power of his and the opponents army, and if he has more melee infantry than the player he rushes, in a full scale attack and i noticed the same behaviour in RTW. If not, he plays more safe, skirmishing, deploying piece meal and trying out flank moves or just stays there until he is attacked.

He also seems to be doing the same at various times during a battle, ie re-assess and act accordingly.

Originally posted by Ludens
The older engine definetly made combat-calculations on a man-to-man basis. Why do you think this has been changed?

I am no expert in these things but it would appear to save some calculation power (cpu) for other things, that probably have to do with graphical appearances.

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).

Units in the older engine were very obedient in taking orders and also could do quite amazing courses of action that gave tactical options for the skilled player. One example is the way they spreaded in chasing down routers - you can clearly see that they were operating well in an individual basis.

Another example is that i have seen for example cavalry that charges a close opponent split in two, ending up attacking a second opponent too if you give the order to them to do so in the last moment. In a recent battle i was able to hold up two enemy "blobs" this way until help arrived with 1 single heavy cavalry unit. It shows that the AI was "instilled" in each sprite individually probably, as well as in the unit as a whole.

In RTW units move as one whole/blob and such tricks as well as effective router chasing do not happen (at least i didn't notice them). They also seem to be slightly deficient in the way they gang up on enemy soldiers.

This last bit, together with the larger amount of battles on avergare per campaign due to the introduction of the new campaign map system, may be the source of the very fast kill rates that were also responsible for a loss in tactical depth in RTW. In other words the game would look bad and boring and take ages to complete with more "reasonable" kill rates, and this can be seen in certain mods that the units duke it out with their repetitive hits or in RTR that there is an endless array of relatively long battles that render it too long to be trully fun for a new player non-TW hardcore.

All in all - the extra complexity seems to have taken out forcibly some of the options engine abilities for tactical depth as there has to be a compromise between what can be achieved (system requirements), what looks believable (appearance - feeling of a battle) and tactical depth. That is tactical depth has to share consideration with two other parameters that "do not care" for it, in fact they contradict it in many cases.

In the end, the results look goofy to me even to this day. The animations of 3-D men, however advanced - still defy belief and are ridiculous, and if i may add of hollywood-like aesthetics that are cheap and populistic IMO. They would need uber computers to make them act really proper, and once one starts going down that route there is no end to the amount of detail you can include.

At the same time, the game suffers on the gameplay side because of this, in the battle-map (and in the campaign map IMO, but that's another story).

Many Thanks

Noir

[caravel]

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).

Men in the older engine were constantly tracked through out battle and the campaign, I'm not so sure about the new engine. Every many had his own valour stats IIRC. The unit valour is just an average of the valour of every man in the unit. I believe that this is no longer the case in the newer engine.

Units in the older engine were very obedient in taking orders and also could do quite amazing courses of action that gave tactical options for the skilled player. One example is the way they spreaded in chasing down routers - you can clearly see that they were operating well in an individual basis.

True, I have noticed this also.

In RTW units move as one whole/blob and such tricks as well as effective router chasing do not happen (at least i didn't notice them). They also seem to be slightly deficient in the way they gang up on enemy soldiers.

I find them unwieldy and they never seem to target a particular man in a unit but more so attack the mass of the unit, I've observed cavalry riding past jabbing at thin air, and a man on the ground suddenly fall down dead when he was clearly not close enough. This is more obvious when you're trying to clean up routers. Also you can end up having to pull units out and send them in again just to kill off a lone enemy in a "glob" this is more of a problem in city plazas. The contact is simply unconvincing. If they were individuals then one of those individuals would be able to kill that lone enemy inside the mass of your men, this leads me to believe that somehow they're not. STW/MTW had poor sprite based unit graphics but if you look you can see exactly which man is attacking which.

This last bit, together with the larger amount of battles on avergare per campaign due to the introduction of the new campaign map system, may be the sourse of the very fast kill rates that were also responsible for a loss in tactical depth in RTW. In other words the game would look bad and boring and take ages to complete with more "reasonable" kill rates, and this can be seen in certain mods that the units duke it out with their repetitive hits or in RTR that there is an endless array of relatively long battles that render it too long to be trully fun for a new player non-TW hardcore.

True, the battle engine has been designed around a different principle. Trying to apply the STW/MTW principles of slower speeds, lower kill rates etc doesn't work for RTW IMHO.

In the end, the results look goofy to me even to this day. The animations of 3-D men, however advanced - still defy belief and are ridiculous, and if i may add of hollywood-like aesthetics that are cheap and populistic IMO. They would need uber computers to make them act really proper, and once one starts going down that route there is no end to the amount of detail you can include.

The problem with the battle engine is that CA's entire focus was on 3D unit models, and nothing else. In a strategy game where if you're actually zoomed in close enough to appreciate it all, then you cannot really oversee the battle effectively. The physics of this are quite simply appalling. Men shooting through the air in all directions, flying horses, slow and unrealistic lunges and swipes. The physics seemed to have taken second place to the appearance.

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).

And this is, for me, the interesting part. 3D men with no substance. They are 3D visually only. They still work on the principles and same attack round system of SWT/MTW, as far as I can tell. The weapons and attack swings are only cosmetic and very often out of sync with the opponents death. This is no more advanced than STW/MTW in terms of combat, and not truer combat physics such as that seen in some hack and slash games where the actual weapon is picked up, and used to attack the enemy causing damage on intersection with the mesh/bounding box. It doesn't work like this in TW games because a true physics engine for combat, for thousands of men, and not just a few, would eat the CPU. In short their 3D nature is only cosmetic, it adds nothing to the physics and dynamics.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Cambyses II
The problem with the battle engine is that CA's entire focus was on 3D unit models, and nothing else. In a strategy game where if you're actually zoomed in close enough to appreciate it all, then you cannot really oversee the battle effectively. The physics of this are quite simply appalling. Men shooting through the air in all directions, flying horses, slow and unrealistic lunges and swipes. The physics seemed to have taken second place to the appearance.

Now connect this with the fact that the long distance sprites were, and are to this day simply awful. This one was very important to whoever was playing the game for tactics and not zoomed in half of the time; even if you look at battles from miles away with IAN mode at the older engine the sprites and their actions, and even the arrows mid air, are reckognisable. In RTW everything turns blurred, past step 3 or 4 in the camera that allows for effective battlfield surveyllance.

Originally posted by Cambyses II
They are 3D visually only. They still work on the principles and same attack round system of SWT/MTW, as far as I can tell.

This might or might not be the case for M2. The combat results and apparently cycles are strongly connected to the animations and thus the 3-D
men may have substance there. I haven't played the game long enough (for 2weeks upon release) to really observe this; my comment is based in reading the forums and intuition. In RTW i agree that the system seems to be fairly similar to that of the old engine - if not identical.

Many Thanks

Noir

[IceWolf]

Is it just me or do the Roman General's bodygaurds (heavy cav) turn into the stormtroopers of death after Marius? They are just unstoppable now, I've seen them slaughter ridiculus amounts of my Scythians lately. My Scyth Generals can't stand up to them anymore.

IceWolf

[Ludens]

Sorry, but i lost the flow of thought there - if it gives away (the position advantage) then how can he be showingconsideration for not tiring his units, since he does so (tiring hi units) in the process?

The point is that the A.I. lets you take the height advantage without responding (other than changing it's facing). If, like you suggest, the A.I. does this because it believes it gives it the highest combat modifiers, maintaining or regaining height advantage must mean a trade-off with another combat modifier. The only modifier I can think of is fatigue, but the A.I. shows very little concern for fatigue in other conditions. Ergo, I do not think the A.I. calculates optimal combat modifiers, but instead works with routines.

Not necessarily - when i play MTW & mods the AI seems fully conscious of his overall melee power of his and the opponents army, and if he has more melee infantry than the player he rushes, in a full scale attack and i noticed the same behaviour in RTW. If not, he plays more safe, skirmishing, deploying piece meal and trying out flank moves or just stays there until he is attacked.

He also seems to be doing the same at various times during a battle, ie re-assess and act accordingly.

True. However, as you said it still employs it's spear as cavalry-killers even though they are not suited for that after the 1.1 patch. Again, this suggests to me the A.I. works on routines rather than always calculating combat modifiers.

On the other hand, according to Puzz3D the A.I. of M:TW would never attack an enemy unit with a weaker one, so apparently there is some calculation of modifiers going on. This is not the case in R:TW, though.

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).

Units in the older engine were very obedient in taking orders and also could do quite amazing courses of action that gave tactical options for the skilled player. One example is the way they spreaded in chasing down routers - you can clearly see that they were operating well in an individual basis.

Another example is that i have seen for example cavalry that charges a close opponent split in two, ending up attacking a second opponent too if you give the order to them to do so in the last moment. In a recent battle i was able to hold up two enemy "blobs" this way until help arrived with 1 single heavy cavalry unit. It shows that the AI was "instilled" in each sprite individually probably, as well as in the unit as a whole.

In RTW units move as one whole/blob and such tricks as well as effective router chasing do not happen (at least i didn't notice them). They also seem to be slightly deficient in the way they gang up on enemy soldiers.

Good points. However, I recall one of the developers stating that they did not implement overhand spears because they had trouble with the hit-boxes. Also, animation speeds also have an influence on combat outcome. Thirdly, I've seen the "general killed" animation start, and suddenly stop without the general dying, apparently because an enemy soldier in the general's vincinity was cut down. This does suggests that combat is calculated on an individual basis.

All in all - the extra complexity seems to have taken out forcibly some of the options engine abilities for tactical depth as there has to be a compromise between what can be achieved (system requirements), what looks believable (appearance - feeling of a battle) and tactical depth. That is tactical depth has to share consideration with two other parameters that "do not care" for it, in fact they contradict it in many cases.

In the end, the results look goofy to me even to this day. The animations of 3-D men, however advanced - still defy belief and are ridiculous, and if i may add of hollywood-like aesthetics that are cheap and populistic IMO. They would need uber computers to make them act really proper, and once one starts going down that route there is no end to the amount of detail you can include.

At the same time, the game suffers on the gameplay side because of this, in the battle-map (and in the campaign map IMO, but that's another story).

Very true, sadly.

[guineawolf]

i am thinking that romans aint that powerful if they do not have that 12 armor,armor piercing pila and swordarm......and every romans unit have better morale than other factions.....romans unit can fight without general.

coz i have try to playing Brutii in different way,since the Brutii are so rich,then i decide to using numbers to overwhelm every faction of the campaign.............(just like the zerg overwhelming those terrans with zerglings)(it is fun to see my enemy killing a lot of my troops but still get exterminated=overwhelming!unstoppable!!!i am going to use eastern infantry next time)

i have use town watch as my regular infantry,but seem the town watch are too weak for combat and it's morale are too low to prolonged their combat,then i decide to build temple of Mars=3 exp(1exp give 1 morale bonus) and 1 morale bonus=give 4 morale bonus(since Mars also got increase tradeable goods by 2 compare to Mercury).And i am using generals with morale boost retinue and traits to boost town watch low morale...

my town watch have fight greek armour hoplites,hoplites,militia hoplites and spartans..
Fighting militia hoplite is easy,same armor,easy kill...hoplites?slower a bit than militia since only 6 armor,spartans same with hoplite just take out a lot of my troops...then armoured hoplites,that is pain in the ass,i can't even take down 1 unit of armoured hoplites with 20 units town watch surrounding it WITHIN 30 MINUTES!!!(those hoplites are using phalanxe formation)
I flank them on their side and their back do me no good,those armoured hoplites keep falling and keep stand up and fight!( there is a 10 command star general leading my town watch)time end!always got 10 to 20 leftovers,then i decide to use auxilia,finally it finish the job,just a little bit faster......
then facing Julii's legions,still same,town watch can't kill them in time,auxilia finish the job,of coz with high casualties too!

i do custom battle,1 general,4 militia,against 1 legion.results=1 militia rout with 20men left,another militia rout the legion(legion left 10 men) with only 30-40 men lost,the miliita hoplite can kill legion very fast too without flanking move(face to face) with just swordarm not phalanxe,but town watch just a little bit faster than campaign battle...

my conclusion here is it seem when they reach more than 10 armor,it is impossible to using spears to against them.....
it explain a lot why my parthians hillmen can't hurt those legions while militia hoplites can....and it explain a lot why barbarian light warband(short spear warband)can take many hastati and principles with them but not legion with lorica segmenta armor(12 armor)
Even those phalanxe pikemen that using swordarm in my old Seleucid campaign can beat legion,if they(phalanxe pikemen) can have higher morale then they can fight longer even without general....(legion got 10 morale while phalanxe pikemen have 4 only)

1 of my custom battle,gladiators vs gladiators,free at will,i use Scipii mirmillo(weapon=spear),i wait and let Julii samnite(weapon=sword) fight with Brutii velites(weapon=spear),samnites take out velites easily fight with my mirmillo,my mirmillo wins,but with high casualties

note:all my units oredi have silver equipments(level 2 weapons and level 2 armor)

[guineawolf]

this time i am using light auxilia(romans javelinmen) to against greeks cities,coz it have 6 javelins to against phalanxe formation,and sword that can effectively against infantry and fast moving that can do fast flanking move..and it just 290 denarii to train compare to auxilia 430 denarii,same upkeep 170 denarii....
i got 7 unit from city own temple city of Horus and city own large temple of Mars,it's attributes:
-unit from Horus- ***-unit from Mars-
melee attack -7 9
missile attack-9 11
charge bonus-2 2

armor *****-5 4
defence skill -3 5
shield *****-2 2

total defence-10 11

my army face 3 unit of armoured hoplites=484 soldiers,i take out all of them with 7 unit light auxilia=1127 soldiers,just 450 to 470 casualties......

it seems swordarms works...sweet!!!..


a movie=Battle for rome, Romans vs the Jews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xum38KinXQ4&NR=1



after a few battle,it prove that light auxilia are very useful with it's fast moving and swordsarm after shower of javelins to it's enemy....just make sure always get a general to take care of them......(even enemy archers can't resist them.....)

[guineawolf]

after watching first EPISODE of Ancient Rome from youtube,those infantry uniform look like principles,it seems that they are still using principles after Marius Reforms,it just better trained.
And i read from history that classic legion(legion with lorica segmenta armor) is introduced by Augustus,i think i will put principles into militia barrack,1 level lower than original principles producing barracks(city barracks) for early swordmen for romans.(since the principles having the same armor with auxilia)


link to that movies,it got 6 part:
Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4g5DnhjBjo

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufv75Wn9ZHk

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIb1G12AItQ

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsXwEqqdhbM

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKlU8cmBy0

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGfyFnSv-GM

after reconsidering for the game balance here,i think i will use light auxilia to replace the principles........

[Rascal]

Game balance is great but look at the facts here. The Romans were a superpower unlike the world had never seen before. They conquered almost all of the known world and dominated it for hundreds of years. They are not overpowered in the real scheme of things, they were in fact that powerful. Nobody could withstand a full scale Roman invasion for very long. They lost battles and legions and left some regions alone for lack of profit, but when they rallied their armies all fell before them. Game balance only goes so far and thats what difficulty levels are for. I still lose a rare battle from being too cocky and trying to prove my might with small forces, so be it. If I want more balance I play another faction who are not as powerful and let the romans do their thing and build into their normal superpower then take em head on. That makes a long campaign with a lot of angry Romans sending wave after wave of troops at me...

[Noir]

Originally posted by Rascal
...but look at the facts here. The Romans were a superpower unlike the world had never seen before. They conquered almost all of the known world and dominated it for hundreds of years. They are not overpowered in the real scheme of things, they were in fact that powerful. Nobody could withstand a full scale Roman invasion for very long. They lost battles and legions and left some regions alone for lack of profit, but when they rallied their armies all fell before them. Game balance only goes so far and thats what difficulty levels are for.

I object this view for the simple reason that Rome didn't started as an superempire - it started as a bunch of little villages around a larger village that were trying to protect themselves from raiding Gauls and other local competitors such as the Samnites and the Greek City states in the South.

The Romans were expert at assimilating other cultures and peoples and that was a major strength and reason for their growth, that was slow, difficult and far from predestined. In many cases they were "drawn-in" to the conquest game that they didn't really intend to play until some advanced point.

The vanilla game fails to portray all these struggles and ups and downs because it lacks subtlety in the details - it sets forth to the predestined conclusion that is the "from our time" view of Rome as a superempire.

I also very much doubt that you get play-balance by the higher difficulty levels and playing the other factions.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Ludens]

The Romans were expert at assimilating other cultures and peoples and that was a major strength and reason for their growth, that was slow, difficult and far from predestined. In many cases they were "drawn-in" to the conquest game that they didn't really intend to play until some advanced point.

True. Some of Rome's greatest victories (conquest of Greece and Asia, Gallic wars) happened again enemies weakened by infighting. During the Punic wars, when the Romans were up against an enemy at the peak of its power, they often got trashed pretty bad. You also notice that as soon as the veterans from the second Punic war retire, the Romans suddenly suffer from a string of defeats in Iberia and Africa. Their legions were strong, but not invincible, and the Punic wars were won more due to their ability to field army after army in the face of defeat, rather than any superiority at fighting.

[zoyclem]

Noir,

I play Rome for fun rather than for historical accuracy. The game developers at Creative Assembly did a commendable job on creating a quasi-simulation while retaining the simplicity and quick pace of a game. Adding the features needed to provide a true simulation would slow the game down and make it too complex for most players.

Instead the developers chose acceptable (for the most part) historical and mechanical compromises in both the strategic and tactical aspects of the game to enhance playability and provide an advantage to Rome so that it stood a good chance of becoming the dominant power in the Mediterranean. Seeing that Rome actually did conquer and impose its culture on Western and Southern Europe, North Africa, and both the Middle and Near East makes that premise sensible.

That said I prefer Medieval II or Barbarian Invasion over Rome. One thing I like about Barbarian Invasion is that it captures a sense of how desperate the situation was for the western half of the empire in the closing years of the fourth century. I'm reading Ammanus Marcellinus right now and he's chronicling the years roughly from AD 354-378, and the mood he creates with his writing is very similar to the mood created by Barbarian Invasion. Both the reading and the game playing are enjoyable experiences. The game manages to create a good 'gloomy' general picture of the situation faced by Rome circa 376.

Obviously, the challenges one faces in Rome, Barbarian Invasion, or Medieval II aren't especially accurate in regards to known historical events, but these are games, not re-creations. And the truth is (especially in the later empire) there is much more that we do not know about Rome than we do, so a little creativity in a game setting is tolerable. Finally, the developers did allow for fairly extensive game modification, so that should largely address the realism concerns of purists. I’m happy enough with the packaged games myself.

Someone mentioned Roman citizenship: I believe it was Lucius Julius Caesar who introduced the law to grant citizenship to the Italian allies before finishing his term as consul in 90 BC. The actuality came about only after the ‘Social War’ ended. This war between the Italian allies and Rome erupted in 91 BC (after the assassination of Marcus Livius Drusus the Younger, a tribune who also promoted citizenship) and ended in 88 BC.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla, who won the Grass Crown during the war—the highest Roman military honor—and Pompeius Strabo (the 'Butcher') probably played a bigger role in ending the conflict than Gaius Marius. Marius had become a destructive force by this time and his actions during the Social War and the atrocities committed in his seventh Consulship only weakened the republic and cultivated the events that followed. Interesting times...

Citizenship throughout the entire Empire was granted during the reign of Caracalla (AD 212). Also interesting times, but this post is too long already.

Cheers.

[IceWolf]

Excellent links GunieaWolf. Though it bored Mrs IceWolf to tears, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Noir]

Originally posted by zoyclem
I play Rome for fun rather than for historical accuracy. The game developers at Creative Assembly did a commendable job on creating a quasi-simulation while retaining the simplicity and quick pace of a game. Adding the features needed to provide a true simulation would slow the game down and make it too complex for most players.

Instead the developers chose acceptable (for the most part) historical and mechanical compromises in both the strategic and tactical aspects of the game to enhance playability and provide an advantage to Rome so that it stood a good chance of becoming the dominant power in the Mediterranean. Seeing that Rome actually did conquer and impose its culture on Western and Southern Europe, North Africa, and both the Middle and Near East makes that premise sensible.

I doubt that very much zoyclem. CA's solution-line of design, follows the path that had followed throughout their games eversince MI for STW (the only time that they plausibly deviated from this was STW itself).

This line is characterised by wanting to recreate historical eras/periods through the principle of "Sengoku Jidai" essentially, that predictably matches well only with... Sengoku Jidai. This IMO had implications as degrading the battles as well as the strategic portion. For example there are no proper homelands in TW other than in mods (there are few generic ones). This means that as soon as you conquer a place you start... churning troops out of it, that is fine in Sengoku Jidai Japan, but defies belief and destroys plausible campaign running/progression in MTW or RTW for example.

CA has incorporated many little campaign features in the two newer games that are a tedium in essense and add very little extra to strategic options/deciisions IMO than what the original STW campaign had. Some additinal features of importance in the campaign game were inserted in MTW such as families with marriable daughters, loyalty and civil wars, titles, the pope, hordes (that were present eversince MI in essence in TW) as well as the GA mode. Several of these must have been planned for STW as well as you can see that there is the announcer voice for princess in STW WE as well for example, and the Emperor, the possible predecessor of the pope.

Most of those were actually removed in RTW and some saw a return in BI and M2 in a largely unsuspected of them new fanbase.

The game is essentially as simple as it was in its conception in strategic terms - if not more - all that has been added was micromanaging jingles and many unit types that exceed the range of usefulness the engine provides apparently as most of them tend to be underpowered or overpowered. This is natural as it is very hard to really balance all those units (100+!) in a real working environment - the only reason i can think of for their inclusion is because the majority of the gaming audience finds interest through them, simply by means of presence and graphical appearance (that have little to do with gaming fun actually IMO).

For the proof of this, try to imagine what releasing something similar to STW for the current TW fanbase will incur - the game will be murdered first and foremost by the fans.

As for "simulating" history lets leave please this cliche argument out - it is entirely off the mark IMO and yes, i also play games for fun, that's why i point out the absence of balance that kills the fun, because it kills the challenge by introducing exploits. It also very much depends on your definition of "fun" and how this blends in with history that clearly has to play a certain part in a history inspired game.

What i am suggesting is a game that's more detailed where it matters - not an actual simulation of history that is anyway impossible to do in the frame of a game engine as it would be way more comlicated.

History is infact the consolidation of a certain stream of events through millions of possible others that result by circumstantial factors - and it is in the many "ifs" that exist as possible byroutes in that stream of events that a game such as TW is based on. I wouldn't like the game to have the same run all the time if that's what you mean by simulation - but i would like the game to provide challenges that relate to those politico-sociological and military challenges that a faction/ethnicity has gone throughout its existance in playing the game. Such challenges include: search for ethnical-cultural-religious identity, political balance through the levers of power and administration including the military, fund raising and prosperity by making use of native resources and by obtaining/maintaining/bidding for control to trade international resources. If the game presents me with a-priori conditions for certain "historical" things to occur then it is much more of a simulation as you seem to mean it and actually not a fun one. At the moment the military part is exagerated as it is very easy to convert territories to your own and expedite forces throughout the map. Factors such as army supply and ethnical background of places are entirely neglected.

The main ways that TW games simulate history is from starting positions, preset tech trees and preset rosters and the last two are way more decisively restricting the game into a "simulation" than what i am suggesting, but nobody complains about them. Set rosters by theway work well in small frame games such as BI, and much less well in larger time frame game as RTW.

To make an example why the Byzantines have to have a decadent roster over time in M1&2? Why the Romans have to have a better roster over time in RTW? Two appropriate rosters may have been designed with having in mind the possible position of each of these factions over time and these could be "triggered" for example by the condition of the faction at a "change of era point", if you hold x amount of provinces have x amount of money you can make building y and have the Marian reforms say. Instead the Marian reforms depend upon an imperial palace whithin Italy, which you can have embarassingly early and even if you haven't conquered much yet (even if you are losing provinces instead of gaining). I very much doubt that Rome would make its soldiers professionals if they hadn't conquered what they did by the time these reforms were made.

In short TW claims for re-writing history by giving the Romans for example a-priori some of the strongest units (if not the strongest) in the game no matter how the game plays.

Many other things could be added to represent history and its challenges better as the afformentioned homelands, an ethnical inedx for provinces (much like the religion index with whom it can interact), that would determine homalands or no homelands to say only a few examples. These would be inserted in a feasible and easy to understand use way and the campaign game would gain some much needed depth instead of staying a hollow and superficial re-iteration of the STW principle.

If a game for the rise of the Roman empire would get too long to play if properly done (for example Europa Barbarorum?), then CA should have went for smaller campaigns as they actually orginally intended for RTW (now finally in kingdoms they will implement this idea) because their games simply play in their long run progression without the least respect or resemblance to historical challenges (that is supposed to be the aim) as they are way too simplistic reative to the time-frames and number of factions they aim to represent.

Some fans resented even the inclusion of the whole medieval Europe when MTW came out because it was impossible to realistically properly portray it in principle with the TW engine - the result was VI. TW would have been much better off including smaller time frames, less factions and less units that would make it easier to set a better balance in the strategic portion and the tactical portion. Infinite such scenarios existed such as: the Reconquista, the Crusades-holyland, the 100 year wars, Byzantino-Turk conflict in Asia Minor, the Crusades-north, the Italian city states etc etc Most of these were first touched by moders.

Instead CA went for "more": more factions, more units, more years in period covered and consequently more unbalanced and less challenging (due to the exploits that result from unbalance) games. This is natural as balancing the game while having to create the engine for it at the same time sounds impossible to me.

Their decisions IMO are catered for design, but that design aims to make a grandiose release in paper that is "fun to play" ie in actuality is an unbalanced and simplistic mess that very little deviates from the core game in STW in what matters (as Mike Simpson stated in the "Eras" special: "We made the core game (in M2) unreckognisable"); RTW and M2 are the epitomes of those principles actually. CA's aims are less pure as far as i am concerned than good game design descisions only.

By the way Rome didn't impose its culture to the world more than the world imposed its culture to Rome IMO - the Romans were notorious for being very practical people far from puristic cultural pursuits like the Greeks or from the inspirational individuality/autonomy that was powered by a strong sense of personal freedom that the northern peoples put at the centre of their existence. They were capitalists first and foremost, taking only what was necessary, integrating rather than destroying, masters of politics, with little regards to morality or perfection of any kind and the greatest engineers (and not Architects, that would indicate a strong culture) ever, in fact.

The Romans had strong principles - but very little culture IMO, and so they adopted elements from every other and called them "theirs", and were trying to blend-into these "foreign" trends even in the hey-day of their power.

In fact i believe that it was the very absence of a strong culture that ensured that Rome developed in an empire and that that empire survived for as long as it did (do not refer to Byzantium here as it had an entirely different identity).

Many Thanks

Noir

[caravel]

Agreed completely. Shogun was indeed the only original TW game that CA ever made. MTW was definitely on too big a scale, I have had that sense since I first bought the game when it was released. The MTW engine with it's 1 year per turn and provinces the size of entire kingdoms just doesn't do feudal era Europe any justice.

All later games have been based on STW with it's lack of homelands and a style of play more suited to a smaller time frame and smaller region. This is why I felt that VI was a better concept than MTW, though VI's main flaw was in it's execution. Boring and linear gameplay and horrendously imbalanced units have contributed to me never playing VI for long. With VI the campaign had been set up so that the English factions would win, mainly the Mercians or Saxons, and the others would lose. The Vikings were an inflexible and destructive "Mongol Raider" faction with uber units and the ability to make port anywhere. This did not represent Norse colonisation of Britain and actually made the Vikings a nuisance that were very easy to exploit and defeat. Also because battles between AI factions make use of the auto-calc battle system, missiles were not taken into account, which equates to the toughest melee units winning the day. Those factions making use of bows were always at a disadvantage, having to rely on their melee skills. This is why the Turks in MTW were almost always wiped out early.

This kind of mindset that gave us the overpowered Saxons, Mercians and Vikings and ruined the VI campaign has continued into RTW with the Roman faction, due to it's perceived destiny to win, being very overpowered.

Quite simply a smaller period and region would not appeal to many of the current fan base. An Hundred Years War - Total War or Italian City States - Total War with only a hand full of factions is simply not enough for those that see more factions, more units, more men on the battlefield as a necessity.

[econ21]

The Romans are a bit overpowered in RTW, I think. As one of the earlier posters said, it may be because lorca segmenta and related Roman armour is over-rated in the stats. In terms of the stats, it seems to be regarded like plate mail when one only has to look at it to see there are so many exposed parts. The Roman (auxiliary) archers and (legionary) cav are also over the top from a historical point of view, although so are elite missiles and heavy cavalry in RTW generally.


However, the Romans do have some weaknesses in RTW which are historical. Head-on, a decent phalanx line can walk over their infantry - the AI won't pull this off, but you can against the AI. Exhibit A, Germans trouncing hastati:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...54&postcount=4

and exhibit B, levy phalanx walking over Praetorians:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...87&postcount=7


And horse archers can murder "historical" Roman armies which are light in missiles and cav. Even the AI can do this to you, if you let it. Exhibit C, AI Sarmatians humilitiating my mid-game Julii army:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...7&postcount=26

[Aradan]

I have nothing to add here, except for a wish that future TW games will be focused on gameplay (which is anyway the quintescence of a strategy game) rather than fancy visual effcts, and "more" stuff.
And also I want to give my compliments to Noir and Caravel for a trully great (in every way) discussion and for clarity of thought and expression.

[Noir]

Originally posted by econ21
The Romans are a bit overpowered in RTW, I think. As one of the earlier posters said, it may be because lorca segmenta and related Roman armour is over-rated in the stats. In terms of the stats, it seems to be regarded like plate mail when one only has to look at it to see there are so many exposed parts. The Roman (auxiliary) archers and (legionary) cav are also over the top from a historical point of view, although so are elite missiles and heavy cavalry in RTW generally.


However, the Romans do have some weaknesses in RTW which are historical. Head-on, a decent phalanx line can walk over their infantry - the AI won't pull this off, but you can against the AI.

Although i agree to a large extent, i would like to point out that the AI as you mention does not play with uninterupted "stretched" phalanx lines and also that the 6 to 10 stars German generals versus the none to one star Roman generals in exhibit A must also have a part to play in the results. I would suspect that in exbibit B, holding the high ground also incurs a certain advantage to the Seleukids.

(edit: in MTW units under the command of a general would gain 1 valour for every 2 command stars to my knowledge. 1 valour = +1 attack +1 defense +2 morale. If exhibit A was in MTW, i would say that that fight wouldn't be lost for the Germans even if... Jupiter himself was guiding the Romans.)

Many Thanks

Noir

[caravel]

However, the Romans do have some weaknesses in RTW which are historical. Head-on, a decent phalanx line can walk over their infantry - the AI won't pull this off, but you can against the AI. Exhibit A, Germans trouncing hastati:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...54&postcount=4

I hate to say it but around 2600 men, mainly made up of the German phalanx warbands, led by two very high command generals vs an army of mainly Hastatii led by a 1 star general, seems like a forgone conclusion - overpowered Romans or not. Add the phalanxes to the equation and it's a massacre. When playing RTW I had to give up on all types of phalanx units because it was so shockingly easy to win with them. Your other examples are also Phalanx and of course Horse Archers which are so ridiculously overpowered that you can often leave them to their own devices and check back later to see that they've cleared the field. Aside from the obvious Romans, phalanxes and horse archers are the other two non Roman units that are severely overpowered.

[Stuperman]

Noir, I have to disagree, CA set out to make a game, not a history lesson. Yes it is regretable that many of the historical events come at...interesting times, but the game you describe in the 9th paragraph of your previous post sounds like SimRome, not Rome TOTAL WAR. In mind it sounds like the Ceaser games of yore that were complicated to the point of being not fun. The focus is (and should be) on the military conquests of each faction, many of the critisisms(sp) you outline (no area of Recruitment - 'homelands') are there for gameplay reasons, to allow RTW to compete with other RTS games out there. I'm also a bit confused, you critisize RTW for having too many 'micromanaged jingles' then ask for more?

Now this is just me, but the Idea of smaller, more scripted campaigns really turns me off. I want to build MY own empire, not necessarly re-create something from history. Set my own goals, lead factions to victory that never reached any sort of glory in 'real' history.


More detail and simpler, more balanced unit rosters are polar opposites.

edit (Caravel posted while I was typing):

So, Roman infintry, archers and cav is over powered, as are all phalanx and HA units.......What does that leave that ISN't over powered in your opinion?