Are the Romans too Powerful?

[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.

[Caius]

Sorry if i go off-topic, BUT

Is Egypt overpowered?

He talk as how Romans are overpowered, but we never talk about the egyptians, who are powerful, sooner or later they arrive near the Pontus zone.

They have chariots, and those pharaoh bowman and those who have pikes.They are supertroops also!

[econ21]

Is Egypt overpowered?

I'm too historically minded when it comes to TW to think about "overpowered" except in terms of "unrealistically powerful". As the RTW Egyptian army is almost entirely ahistorical, to me asking if they are overpowered is a non-question. It's like asking if a Space Marine with a dual hyperblaster from planet Zargon is overpowered...

But yes, you are right: Egypt has always struck me as the number 2 faction after the Romans (at least until you get to a late game Seleucia - by which time the game is almost over). Egyptian chariots seem to combine the annoyance factor of horse archers with a pretty devastating shock capability. And their large archer units, nasty axe infantry etc are not too shabby either.

Although I don't know how they would fare against Parthia, as I can't bear to look at RTWs Egyptians and I don't have the patience to play horse archers. The match up almost sounds like how foxhunters in the UK were described - the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.

[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

[econ21]

The point i was trying to make is that if you want to show proof ...

I was illustrating - not attempting a proof. I have better things to do with my time, especially as it seems you don't actually disagree with me on the point.

In RTW there is no need for micromanagement of HAs ...

That's too strong - eventually you will trap AI horse archers, and the AI will trap yours, thanks to the inability of the skirmish function to cope with map edges.

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.

Yes, you can do it but against horse archer armies you need a lot of foot archers (a historical Roman army with few missiles, like the one in my PBM story, will just die). The Cantabrian circle is one thing that aids horse archers against foot archers in RTW/M2TW; another is that they are not automatically outranged by foot archers (depends on the quality of the foot). I suspect there are other factors, but a foot archer vs horse archer duel in RTW/BI is more even than in STW/MTW.

The "Parthian Shot" is a hideous implementation ...

As I said, I agree it may be overpowered, but you may be going over the top here. At least in M2TW, I think units doing the Parthian shot are much less accurate than shooting conventionally. I'd rather see a watered down (M2TW style?) Parthian shot than just having horse archers neutralised by enemy cav. Bearing in mind TW battles are compressed over real life battles, I think it models say knight vs Mongol engagements better than no Parthian shot.

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.

We are probably talking at cross purposes here. You are talking about recreating STW/MTW gameplay, which might have been exquisite RPS gameplay for you. I'm talking about modelling historical warfare. The Mongols, Huns etc never needed other "light cavalry" or "light spears" to go with their horse archers. (Heavy cavalry, yes.) I think RTW probably has better potential to model historical army styles (barbarian, legion, horse archer, phalanx, mixed). I think it is one strength of the game that it represented these different styles rather than the MTW/STW generic armies.

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.

Not known is not the same as not existing. My armchair observation is that missiles and cavalry (esp. flanking) are very valuable for their morale penalties. You see it more in realism mods where kill rates are nerfed. Frontal engagement is a waste of arrows and expensive troops - get behind them and use the horse archers to distract/disrupt, and you will get your money back.

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.

Again move speed and kill rates are moddable.

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).

Again moddable. And please, don't tell a veteran of multi-hour MTW/STW battles about no aftergame. The older engine was plagued by having to fight repeated battles against second and third reinforcing waves, which were predetermined once you had killed the general and smashed the first wave.

4. Fatigue is not a factor in 99.999% of the battles IMO and so the superior stamina tactoical factor is useless.

Could be true for the player but unfortunately fatigue cripples the AI as the attacker in RTW. Better to switch it off IMO.

5. Any other cavalry does the chasing router job just as well.

Horse archers are usually fast cav and so particularly useful for pursuing other cav. I'm not convinced by the STW/MTW convention of making them slower than light cav. Good RPS, I guess - dodgy history.

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.

If you kill rates are lowered (as in RTR etc), then getting rear shots are very important in RTW to get behind those hefty shields.

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. ....

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.

"Hideous"? "sell out"? Sounds like another bout of RTW bashing. I'm not sure I want to get into that argument; it's been done to death. I'm not defending the vanilla RTW game - I lost interest in playing it solo after one campaign (sorry you endured multiple hideous ones). But with modding (RTR/EB etc) it can get much closer to the MTW model than it is to a game based on "RTS principles". And it does improve on the model in a number of ways usually overlooked by the anti-RTW crowd.

[Noir]

I was illustrating - not attempting a proof. I have better things to do with my time, especially as it seems you don't actually disagree with me on the point.

Yes, and i actually agreed with you well before you posted the illustration, so, and following your argument, why waste your time on it at all?

That's too strong - eventually you will trap AI horse archers, and the AI will trap yours, thanks to the inability of the skirmish function to cope with map edges.

Exactly, the fact that the map edges are corners also helps to less depth and more exploits. In the older maps they were rounded in order to help avoid that.

Yes, you can do it but against horse archer armies you need a lot of foot archers (a historical Roman army with few missiles, like the one in my PBM story, will just die). The Cantabrian circle is one thing that aids horse archers against foot archers in RTW/M2TW; another is that they are not automatically outranged by foot archers (depends on the quality of the foot). I suspect there are other factors, but a foot archer vs horse archer duel in RTW/BI is more even than in STW/MTW.

Partially agreed, didn't notice the duel being more even though; i guess i shouldn't take your word for it though, since you haven't played more than one vanilla campaign?

As I said, I agree it may be overpowered, but you may be going over the top here. At least in M2TW, I think units doing the Parthian shot are much less accurate than shooting conventionally. I'd rather see a watered down (M2TW style?) Parthian shot than just having horse archers neutralised by enemy cav. Bearing in mind TW battles are compressed over real life battles, I think it models say knight vs Mongol engagements better than no Parthian shot.

Horse archers are usually fast cav and so particularly useful for pursuing other cav. I'm not convinced by the STW/MTW convention of making them slower than light cav. Good RPS, I guess - dodgy history.

Sorry, i haven't played M2 long enough to properly judge how it is implemented there. I never said that the Parthian shot is a bad idea - i said that it is a hideous implementation. Also yes since TW battles are a real life comression, the same can be said for a light cavalry/horse archer unit combination that exists as convention in STW/MTW.

In real life as you say the "HAs" and the "light cavalry" would be one and the same thing most likely. The older engine doesn't account for that but neither does really the new one - all it does is gives the HAs more self stading while they exist simultaneously with the light cavalry, that is one or the other becomes redundant? The difference IMO in the older engine there was more interesting gameplay as less things were redundant gameplay wise.

The distinction between spears and swords is also a false one in all probabilities a true unit would have used spears and swords with the spearmen in front and the swrodsmen behind, but all working as one unit.

Not known is not the same as not existing. My armchair observation is that missiles and cavalry (esp. flanking) are very valuable for their morale penalties. You see it more in realism mods where kill rates are nerfed. Frontal engagement is a waste of arrows and expensive troops - get behind them and use the horse archers to distract/disrupt, and you will get your money back.

Again move speed and kill rates are moddable.

Again moddable. And please, don't tell a veteran of multi-hour MTW/STW battles about no aftergame. The older engine was plagued by having to fight repeated battles against second and third reinforcing waves, which were predetermined once you had killed the general and smashed the first wave.

As moddable as they are (and i say this after having played RTR and EB for quite some time) they do not recreate the fine line for keeping up morale of an army, neither the fine balance between match ups and flanking meneuvers because many other parameters such as fatigue are beyond the moders' direct control, and all modders are doing are finding workarounds to "better them".

So is modding the asnwer then and should the game be sold on that basis? Because if it is why the battle engine workings are not revealed as well as the main parameters be made moddable? Let me guess: protecting CA's commercial interests and not confusing new players? So is the game as moddable as it is advertised to be?

Battle parameters are way less moddable than the game is advertised to be IMO. On top of this fatigue, ammo, morale were three different switches in the older engine, in the new engine they are only 1, in the game menu.

Yes, not known is not the same as the none existing - but then again i never said that they didn't exist i said precisely that we don't know if they do, since CA tells nothing on how the battles engine works anymore.

On top of that i talk about morale penalties that existed in the older engine to enemy units for being thretened/outnumbered by the presence of enemy units and not relative to morale penalties for being shot and by being charged by cavalry - this i observed that it existed - i also was moving move units such as peltasts and slingers from the flanks and rear to do damage.

The "aftergame" i talk about refers to 1 full stack versus 1 full stack and not in the endless reinforcements armies of MTW, that as a veteran you should know were the result of too many troops to burn due to very high profits in the campaign and maps of too large a size relative to the fatigue rates of units. In STW the fatigue rates work better as the maps are more fine-tuned to that.

That aftergame happens in MTW - not as much as it should - but more than in RTW that it never statistically does - it follows that fatigue plays a part in the game.

"Hideous"? "sell out"? Sounds like another bout of RTW bashing. I'm not sure I want to get into that argument; it's been done to death. I'm not defending the vanilla RTW game - I lost interest in playing it solo after one campaign (sorry you endured multiple hideous ones). But with modding (RTR/EB etc) it can get much closer to the MTW model than it is to a game based on "RTS principles". And it does improve on the model in a number of ways usually overlooked by the anti-RTW crowd.

Do all these "numbers of ways" that the game has been according to you improved, make the game more challening? Do they keep the tactical standard and so replayability high, asuming that you leave all the mods out? Because all i see is complains about bugs, and about how easy the game is on the campaign and in the field - hence the huge AI issue, that ironically although an issue previously it was actually more up to it. In fact some of these complains about challenge i heard them precisely from you.

Many Thanks

Noir

[econ21]

Well, I think we are getting rather far away from the original topic of whether Romans are overpowered or not. That's probably my fault as much as anyone's.

But a last off-topic word:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Do all these "numbers of ways" that the game has been according to you improved, make the game more challening? Do they keep the tactical standard and so replayability high, asuming that you leave all the mods out? Because all i see is complains about bugs, and about how easy the game is on the campaign and in the field - hence the huge AI issue, that ironically although an issue previously it was actually more up to it.

I am not sure exactly which game you are talking about.

If it is vanilla RTW, the answer is no. It's fatally flawed by lack of challenge - at least as Romans (Carthies were rather fun in the early game, but I am mainly drawn to the Romans). But it does not have many bugs.

RTW/BI is quite replayable and challenging, but I am biased as I like the premise (Rome under attack).

If you are talking about the latest version of the new engine, M2TW, then yes there's been a lot of talk of bugs but the big ones are now squashed. Personally I think several of the changes do make it more challenging - for example, I find the economy better balanced than MTW where it was frankly broken (sea trade network = teh win).

There is still a fundamental problem with challenge, IMO, and that is the strategic AI has not coped with the new campaign map freedom. I started an English AAR to try to refute the argument that the game lacks challenge:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83785

But as the tables in that AAR show, the surprising thing was the proportion of battles in which I had an advantage from the start. It wasn't that I was winning against the odds due to poor tactical AI; it was that the AI was poor at setting up good odds battles due to poor strategic AI. Ironically, I think it would be something CA could fairly easily fix - just by programming the AI to be more cautious in giving battle, ie only attack at 2:1 or higher; stay out of contact with armies that can attack you at 1:1 or higher.

On the other hand the reason why I have paused the campaign was because it was getting rather hard - I lost all my generals in the Middle East!

In fact some of these complains about challenge i heard them precisely from you.

Indeed. But then I am a grognard and complaining is what grognards do best. But I am an old enough grognard to have found no realistic historical wargame on a computer challenging. But it sure beats trying to play board wargames solitaire, which is what I had to do in my pre-PC youth.

i guess i shouldn't take your word for it though, since you haven't played more than one vanilla campaign?

I said completed, not played. TW has always suffered from a tipping point problem - you get so big, you can't be beat. And then it's just hard work. When I am going to win, I typically quit. One reason why I like doing PBMs is that I get to see the mid and end-games, which I often burn out on when playing solo.

Back on topic, what might be fun would be to compare Romans in RTW with those in the big realism mods, RTR and EB. e.g. just match up hastati and cohorts with Gaulish warbands and chosen warriors, or something. I have not done the necessary legwork, but I suspect you might find RTW does not overpower the legion that much compared to these "realism" benchmarks. Principes are pretty uber in RTR; Romans are probably weaker in EB but still are formiddable.

[Noir]

Originally posted by econ21
e.g. just match up hastati and cohorts with Gaulish warbands and chosen warriors, or something.

Hmmm... how about pit them against... Gaesatarae then?

Many Thanks

Noir

*edit* That is Gaesatae - its really been a long time since i last played RTW...