Are the Romans too Powerful?

[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

[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.

[econ21]

Noir and Caravel - don't be distracted by the high command of the German generals. Command does not alter combat stats in RTW, unlike MTW. That's one of the improvements of RTW/M2TW over the STW/MTW. It only affects morale and I doubt morale was the issue here (although I admit the Julii broke early). Also numbers were not terribly important - the point was just that a solid phalanx wall walks over hastati face on. I guess you had to be there to see it, but it surprised me at the time how effortless it was. The thing is that in RTW phalanxes seem virtually invulnerable to non-phalanx infantry head on - it is like the Roman swords just can't make contact with the enemy (a reach advantage).

... phalanxes and horse archers are the other two non Roman units that are severely overpowered.

I disagree on both counts. As I said, I think both are historical weaknesses of the Romans.

On the phalanx, before it came out, I wondered how RTW would handle the phalanx vs legion match up. I am not historian, but the way it is done just feels right. Head on the phalanx wins; with flanking the legion wins. It seems perfect. It is just a shame the AI can't handle phalanxes (either attacking with them or against them). Phalanxes are woefully underpowered vs cav, though.

On horse archers, I think RTW and M2TW have got them just about right (maybe RTWs Parthian shot is overpowered). They are now a real force to be reckoned with - the one unit type (apart from generals) you are going to take significant losses fighting. You can see how the Romans and Greeks would struggle against them. In STW, they took too much micro-management and in MTW, they were just fodder for foot archers.

[guineawolf]

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

"(legionary) cav are also over the top from a historical point of view"
this is what i agree,after reading some history of roman military,the RTW Romans faction's cavalry are overpowered and historical inaccurate,coz romans are infantry base factions(that is the reason Hannibal Barca decide to use cavalry to against them)....

and the whole Roman eastern army being completely destroyed by heavy cavalry at(The Roman Army AD 250-378-----
In AD 378 the Gothic cavalry annihilated the eastern army under emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis).
The point had been proven that heavy cavalry could defeat heavy infantry in battle.
.......

[Noir]

Originally posted by econ21
Noir and Caravel - don't be distracted by the high command of the German generals. Command does not alter combat stats in RTW, unlike MTW. That's one of the improvements of RTW/M2TW over the STW/MTW. It only affects morale and I doubt morale was the issue here (although I admit the Julii broke early). Also numbers were not terribly important - the point was just that a solid phalanx wall walks over hastati face on. I guess you had to be there to see it, but it surprised me at the time how effortless it was. The thing is that in RTW phalanxes seem virtually invulnerable to non-phalanx infantry head on - it is like the Roman swords just can't make contact with the enemy (a reach advantage).

As i said before i agree with your previous assessment largely and there is no need to be there and see happening it as... i've been there. I also wrote that the Egyptians and the Seleukids are also overpowered and that the phalanx will beat the legion head-on previously in this thread.

Your screenshots reminded me my very first campaign as the Germans in VH/VH a long long time ago. The Britons put me under pressure since they were way richer and went for an all out rush attack that i counter with the aid of the HC boduguards and the only unit i could built due to the meager income: the German phalanx.

Strecth long and wide and guard the flanks with HC and the enemies would sooner or later rout - simple as that. So simple in fact that i completely eradicated the Britons taking over their island and then got all the later German units and crossed the Alps and started trashing Roman stacks for fun.

It was a hideous campaign as most of the others i played for the simple reason that the game is full of exploits on the battlefield and that is true for most factions - if not all. The way to play the phalanx is an exploit and the way to play the legion is also an exploit, and that is all the more so because the AI is largely unaware of how to do these properly and how to defend against these properly leaving the player always on top.

I also said that "if it was in MTW" as i had no clue wether the command stars affect valour and what valour means in RTW - thanks for enlightening me.

The point i was trying to make is that if you want to show proof then you ideally want to connect with another computer or on the net, choose two units for each army (one general and one the one you test), pit them in flat ground with the generals way behind so they don't interfere and see what happens. This would be entirely objective and undisputable exhibit/evidence, way more than battles that you outnumber the opponent, have a better general and hold the high ground.

Originally posted by econ21
On horse archers, I think RTW and M2TW have got them just about right (maybe RTWs Parthian shot is overpowered). They are now a real force to be reckoned with - the one unit type (apart from generals) you are going to take significant losses fighting. You can see how the Romans and Greeks would struggle against them. In STW, they took too much micro-management and in MTW, they were just fodder for foot archers.

Disagree. In RTW there is no need for micromanagement of HAs (it used to be called: control army skill) because if there was, no man or god for that matter would be able to do it: the action is way too fast to control armies at the height of the battle even to control the main infantry action; let alone horse archers unless you pause all the time and sorry, but if that's the case with you, pausing in TW isn't my idea of fun by any means. This is probably why we get all those flashy buttons with special abilities and the unit having higher lethality: because if these were out, the HAs would be entirely uncontrollable IMO, and so useless.

The "Parthian Shot" is a hideous implementation as is all missiles in the game: men from the diagonally opposite side of the unit to the enemy shoot and actually just as well as men that face the enemy in front and on top of this for HAs while they move. Moreover the formation shape matters not in how many men areshooting and how well are shooting. Also HAs, muchlike all other cavalry in the game, are able for... amazing turning radiouses that defy belief IMO entirely and detract tactical depth - a unit of cavalry needs space and time to turn around or change course.

Horse archers in the older engine had 4 important functions: 1 was to offset key enemy missiles (and if possible melee units) by sneaking from the flanks; 2 was to distract the enemy in reploying (for example change a tight formation to a dispersed line formation) in order to create tactical gaps, 3 was after remaining out of harms way until the main melee was joined as after that they were tremendously more important with their remaining ammo and small charge and lowly melee as they were less tired and could rout better opponents. Last but not least they were importnant in cutting down the morale of enemy armies in pieces by sneaking in between spaces(in the older engine men get serious bonuses/penalties by the presence absence of enemy/friendly units in the area), by doing the same for one piece depleted armies by sneaking from the rear and by tactically ambushing routers or escort routers out of the map to make sure that they won't come back and still come in strong to join the finishing stages.

Also HAs needed support ie an anti light cavalry unit (that is another light cavalry) and some light (and so fast and able to join the cavalry match) spears in order to skirmish succesfully and it took skill and combination to do that. Now as you say you just "leave them to it" - we should request perhaps that in future titles the player needs to do even less so we can watch undistracted those finishing moves.

The HAs were never meant to skirmish head on and single handendly at the opening stages - they would be slaughtered by enemy missiles of course - their proper use is very different and way more complex than that as far as i know. In fact if the enemy has foot missiles, HAs get slaughtered in RTW/BI as well, so i fail to see why in MTW they were fodder and in RTW/BI are not. I took out several happy hordes in BI with the lowly Roman Archers as WRE.

In RTW, all these tactical functions are gone as:

1. We dont know how morale penalties work and if there are morale penalties for outnumbering/threatening (at least i dont) and spatially cutting off.
2. The action is way too fast to allow any kind of maneuver as the player is probably busy trying (and not always succeeding) to match up and flank with cavalry - let alone manage the HAs.
3. There is no aftergame after the main melee - enemies simply rout and never reform or come back - no need to manage fatigue as an important morale factor and no need to keep tactical reserves (bum rushing with everyone is always your best bet in RTW).
4. Fatigue is not a factor in 99.999% of the battles IMO and so the superior stamina tactoical factor is useless.
5. Any other cavalry does the chasing router job just as well.
6. Cavalry is so fast, that there is no need to prepare to cut down the routers, by moving/deploying behind the enemy - you'll reach them anyway from any point of the map.

Well if that for you is "getting it right" - that's fine - its just not for me.

The game needed skill and dedication to play but once you got there it was a thing of beauty to play and watch (i would happily provide replays to anyone that requests for the truth of this statement). The tactical depth was enormous and admitedly that was a problem for exploiting it commercially. IMO, this is what has been done in RTW: apply RTS principles and simplify controls and sacrifice depth for the sake of selling the game. Some would call that selling out.

Perhaps happily in Kingdoms, that the ex-generals, now "Heros" will have special abilities they won't be any need for tactics at all - winning levels for your Hero and his abilities might prove more useful - and if someone doesn't want to play like this, CA has provided the answer in the Kingdoms FAQ at the .com: "just don't push the (hero ability) button". Having a business policy is one thing - having a business policy without openly admiting it is another.

Many Thanks

Noir

[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

[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?

[guineawolf]

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

i learn my history along with history base games,after playing those games you will have good mood to continue the search of the answer for your curiousity......hmmm