Are the Romans too Powerful?

[Noir]

Stuperman,

I recently managed to reach as closely as the engine of MTW would allow to the game i am describing, campaign wise, by making a home mini-mod of the MedMod IV by Wes Whitaker. The mod had already taken out many of the redundant units, simplifying the rosters and giving a decent dedicated unit in each role (shooters, cavalry, melee) at every faction, that makes the battles way more interesting IMO as they are challenging and fun, for me at least.

The result is that every faction plays to its potential and that superempires are very very difficult to form. Faction petentials are not the same ie larger factions such as France and the HRE have more potentialthrough having more homelands. Smaller factions such as for example Serbia or Sweden have less and they present a different challenge. It is not published, however it is available privately on request and i would be more than happy for anyone to try it and see whether its "simulating" to the point of boredom or not.

This is of course the gameplay i personaly like and i don't expect anyone else to follow through.

Note that i also mention nowhere the word "scripted" and that it is you that mentions it instead.

I dislike superempires contrary to you, especially in TW, because in my experience the game has little point past the stage that you struggle to establish yourself. The ideal situation would be that you stay in that stage for the entirety of the game as then every decision and battle matters. If you reach in TW the well known mid-game, that is you have conquered the local chalenge then the game is over - you have so much resources that you can swarm the opponents and the rest is IMO a futile and vain megalomanic exercise. All the changes i propose are relative to that.

Making a game about the Roman Empire and its era or one relative to Medieval Europe, while all the whilst largely ignoring most other things rather than the military aspect, is simplistic IMO and it ends with RTW and M2 being what they are, which is close to AoE, TW version. If this is what you enjoy fine - its just not what i do enjoy, and the reason i was attracted originaly to TW is because it offered strategy and tactics in depth rather than the candy in front of the donkey better units RTS principle. The fact that CA made the decision to follow the route it did does not make the gameplay necessarily better. Neither all other ways to do things, that now seem impossible for many would have been rejected as much as they are now if CA has walked another path IMO.

I will avoid the cliche that goes for "its all a matter of opinion" for the simple reason that if CA had chosen another way to do things, people would probably react also like "that was the only viable good thing to do" and just take it for granted, as i feel they did with RTW and now M2.

Originally posted by Stuperman
I'm also a bit confused, you critisize RTW for having too many 'micromanaged jingles' then ask for more?

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

Not at all, i ask for detail if you read back where is needed in the campaign game and not in order to remember to do this or do that in an ineconsequestional click frenzy that characterises the vanilla RTW/M2 campaign as it stands.

The changes i propose would affect the way the campaign progresses, as well as strategic choices while playing it, and not how many little things you need to remember to do - that have no real effect actually- such as moving around retinues and the like.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Stuperman]

Admitedly I've never played STW or MTW, only Rome and on, and I supose I can only comment on how I interpert what you are describing.

The scripted thing was about KingdomsTW..It's looking like a map/mission pack instead of an expansion to me, I'm very disappointed.

I do know what you mean though about RTW, after 12-14 provinces are yours, the game can get very easy, especailly if you are rome, as one of your flanks(fronts?) is covered until the civil war. I like to 'turtle' my campaigns a bit to avoid this, Large factions (20+ provinces) can turn out full stacks way too easy IMHO

Making a game about the Roman Empire and its era or one relative to Medieval Europe, while all the whilst largely ignoring most other things rather than the military aspect, is simplistic IMO and it ends with RTW and M2 being what they are, which is close to AoE, TW version

Cheap arguement ON:

it is called Total War for a reason....

Cheap arguement OFF.

The mod had already taken out many of the redundant units, simplifying the rosters and giving a decent dedicated unit in each role (shooters, cavalry, melee) at every faction, that makes the battles way more interesting IMO as they are challenging and fun, for me at least.

Don't all the factions 'feel' the same then? (it's a genuine question, not trying to be an ass)

As you said, as cliche as it is it's all down to a matter of opinion, I for one think the Mundus Magnus (sp) map with 197 provinces adds TONS to the game, but it sounds like you would disagree with me.

[caravel]

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?

Roman Cavalry are ridiculously overpowered, most of their infantry are also overpowered, especially the post Marian units. Archers are also overpowered and available early on despite the Romans not being noted for archers in that period. This has been covered before too many times to go into it again.

The phalanx units are quite blatant. My ageing grandmother could probably win a campaign as the Greek Cities using nothing but phalanx. Also the AI neither knows how to utilise nor how to counter phalanxes, often throwing it's cavalry and especially chariots straight at them. There is no challenge there. IIRC RTR removed the phalanx formation from most if not all units for this reason. Also the player can always beat the AI phalanxes with ease, due to them constantly breaking formation and being easily flanked when they're in formation. The whole mechanics of the phalanx in RTW is fatally flawed.

Horse Archers are pretty much self explanatory. Besides arrows having nothing even resembling true physics in RTW and their being grossly overpowered, horse archers simply transfer what is in essence a mass killing machine to a highly mobile platform. I have often fought battles with horse archers where they surprised me in just how quickly they could despatch the enemy units with minimal intervention by the player. I could concentrate on other parts of the field and leave the horse archers to it.

So in fact I mentioned two other types of units besides the Roman units that are overpowered, namely Horse Archers and Phalanx units. I did not mention sword infantry units, peltasts, non phalanx spears or the rest of the cavalry units. I could also include Archers, for very good reason, though at least there is a chance that they can be chased down and routed.

[Noir]

Stuperman
first please receive my thanks for making this very nice and rich if i may say debate possible.

May i also suggest that you try the older games - for the simple reason that they are great fun - and not for comparison pusposes or anything else.

IMO they are more than worth it and at the time it stroke the market as something radical with their gameplay, style and depth, to the point that i guess the game industry didn't knew where to categorise them and CA how to make the best commercial use of them IMO, which led to RTW that comes accross as a more "conventional" RTS.

While M2 doesn't appeal to me, i would suggest not to judge Kingdoms from the size of the campaign, but by the actual gameplay.

STW started as a "restricted" scenario by today's standards with only 11 units. All of them were generic and almost all other units with few exceptions that we saw in later TW games are more or less variances of those 11 basic units:

a cheap, low morale, anticavalry only spear
a higher morale, half melee, anticavalry spear
a cheap shock attack, vulnerable to missiles, low defense, sword
an expensive good all around,vulnerable to missiles, best melee sword
a moderate price slow, well armoured, high defense, decent melee sword
a moderate price archer, moderate morale, no armour, moderate melee
cheap gun, with very low morale and melee
better gun, with better missile damage, better morale

a fast anti cavalry, high charge, moderate morale moderate melee cavalry
a fast missile cavalry, moderate morale, low melee, cavalry
a slow, high morale, high charge, high melee, well armoured heavy cavalry

These were available to all factions. Contrary to common belief the battles were better by far as the AI army composition and the AI unit use was better, and what mattered was army use through match ups and flanking maneuvers while accounting for terrain and the weather effects and not any sort of uber unit winning the day. All units had their counter and to win you would have to use them in combination.

Do not believe that making a skin x10 or x20 skins give better gameplay - at least i dont. They are basically the same thing, the nly added extra is the capturing of the imagination through graphical means. This is fine and nice, however, if the game is poor or just a "enjoy the view" thing then it has little value as a game other than an interactive phantasy projection.

As for factions feeling all the same, then i would say this: not necessarily - in the MedMod IV that i mentioned all factions have peculiarities in their roster and specific styles, for example the Byzantines are professional but expensive and few, the Catholics are tough to kill but slow and impetuous, the Muslims have better morale and attck and are faster. However and despite their styles nobody lacks in any area as many faction do by a lot in MTW vanilla or in RTW vanilla - everyone has strengths and weaknesses but nobody has gaps in their rosters.

The baeuty of TW games IMO is in this relative to the battles and in the way that the battles interact with the strategic choices you make in the campaign. IMO this beauty was abandined to a certain extent once attention to graphics and to the "more factions/more units" princple was introduced.

And yes it is called Total War which is the principle to waging war between countries with a countries full resources. However, if the setting of the game is to be expressed properly and capture the era that is supposed to be portraying then additional things in the campaign may only add to the warmaking.

*edit* by additional things i mean things that affect the strategic choices not little micromanegement/role playing games.

There is a circle that needs to be expressed in the campaign game that is defend, attack, expand, consolidate and this is repeated. There are blank points in that circle that may cause you set backs such as civil wars for example, or such that other local factions resist your expansion or put you under pressure.

If its Total War all the time, then the gameplay ends up with the linear result that exists in RTW, that says: "rich becomes richer, poor becomes poorer" end of the day. This is neither realistic neither good for the gameplay as you have also observed.

The Mundus Magnus map is great and i agree that it adds to the game - it is the fast conquest rates that accelerate even more the ascention of few faction to the state of "superempire" that i dislike and the fact that game mechanics do not allow factions on the up to descend or factions on the low to ascend. The map is very good - however is how the games on it progress that matters to me.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Stuperman]

@Caravel
OK, but

Roman units being too powerful makes the 3(or4) roman factions overpowered.

Phalanx makes the seleucids, Greeks, Maks, Germans, Thracians, Pontics, Armenians, Egyptians and Carthiginians over powered.

HA makes the Parthians, Armenians, and Scythians over powered.

so are you saying that only the Numidians, Gauls, Dacians, Britons, and Spanish are 'fair'?

did I miss anyone?

[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]

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

[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...

[Primus_Pilus]

Guys, I think your overlooking the fact that the Romans in history WERE the super-powers. It's not so much that the units are over balanced; CA actaully did alot of research in to the tactics and unit strengths of the time to insure that they had realism.

For the original poster: You took Spartan Hoplites from 500BC and compared them to troops, the 1st Cohort, of 200 AD or so. That's 700 years of tactical advancement as well as material enhancement. The spartans had a certain tactic that they used and the Romans had, by far, surpassed them in their use of weapons and shields.

This goes for almost any other empire they faced. Rome didn't start loosing battles until close to their fall, and that's only because of the decline of the economy and the leadership. The thing the romans had to their advantage was their ability to absorb different ideas.

So, no, I'm not surprised to see a couple cohorts moe through a phalanx of Spartan Hoplites. I would be surprised to see Hastati do it, though.

[Laman]

Rome did loose battles, it was not an odd occurence. However they never acknowledged they had been beaten. One reason they could conquer most of their enemies was that for the Hellenistic powers, if one battle was lost, then they would sue for peace (it was not easy to replace losses for them). Rome on the other hand would raise yet another army and continue the war (like after Cannae).

[Ludens]

Guys, I think your overlooking the fact that the Romans in history WERE the super-powers. It's not so much that the units are over balanced; CA actaully did alot of research in to the tactics and unit strengths of the time to insure that they had realism.
(...)
This goes for almost any other empire they faced. Rome didn't start loosing battles until close to their fall, and that's only because of the decline of the economy and the leadership.

During the first Punic war the Romans suffered appaling loses and it was only their ability to recover from these that won them the war. The Second Punic War started even worse, with Hannibal Barca annihilating the Romans at Tictinus, Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae, while his fellow countrymen pushed back Roman power in Iberia and Sicily. Only when the Roman legions obtained a decent degree of field experience did they manage to turn the tide. Then did the Roman empire turn into an unstoppable behemoth that trashed the Hellenic powers. Yet as soon as these experienced soldiers became too old for active service, the Romans started losing again. The start of the Third Punic war was a catalogue of incompetence and disaster for the Romans, despite the fact that Carthage was only a shadow of it's former power. In Iberia things weren't much better, and it was the Scipio Africanus the younger who saved Roman pride on both continents. The Numidian war didn't go quite as badly, but it hardly was a walk-over, nor did the Marius and his reforms make much difference. Then the German tribes migrated into Italy and inflicted several crushing defeats on the Romans, including one where casualties may well have rivaled that of Cannae.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. The Romans did lose battles. Quite frequently actually, and more frequently the further you go back in their history or the Republic. However, this does not mean that the Romans of the late Republic or early empire were invincible either: take Carrhae and Teutoberger Forrest, for example. These weren't isolated defeats either, as the continued treat of the Germans and the Parthians/Sassanids proves. Even Julius Ceasar suffered a defeat at Gergovia, although it did not prove a permanent one.

Rome became a world power not because they did not lose battles, but because they did not lose wars.

[Afkazar]

Is this in a single battle or a series of battles? Is it against a particular set of players or against random unconnected players? How often those opponents have fought an all phalanx army? How experienced are they and how experienced are you? Just a few curiosity questions.
Noir

1. This was a second battle in a series. Though in the first battle my ally took heavy elephants and cav while I took the sacred bands.

2.They seems to know each other somewhat.

3.I dont know It doesnt really say how often your opponents fought all phalanx.

4.Again i dont really know how experienced they are or my ally. Im somewhat of a veteran and Ive been playing for about 9 months. Most of my victories against rome has come by using the Half cataphract-Half chariot army. I have had alot of victories against greeks. The biggest weakness with the greeks is no cav. I picked apart spartan armies using bowmen without using any regular infantry. Backshots work well...

One thing i learned about warfare is even an archer with a shank can drastically change the outcome of close combat. I Recognize the morale penalty of rear charges.

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.

If you can't realize when your horse archers are getting to close to the Map edge then horse archers arent for you.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Afkazar
One thing i learned about warfare is even an archer with a shank can drastically change the outcome of close combat. I Recognize the morale penalty of rear charges.

Agreed and Thanks for clarifying - 9 months is quite some time - definitely not new player (depending how often you were playing). I find that elephants add very little for multiplayer but that's another issue.



Noir

[econ21]

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

Fine, you can have your Gaesatae if I can have my Camillan triarii.

We would be in for a long night.

OK, after such a feeble offering of mine, I feel I must redeem it by providing some data:


If kill chances depend on the attack-defence differential, as in STW/MTW (and further assuming one point =10% change in kill chances), I make that:

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

[Noir]

Originally posted by econ21
Fine, you can have your Gaesatae if I can have my Camillan triarii.

We would be in for a long night.

We would, indeed!

Originally posted by econ21
OK, after such a feeble offering of mine, I feel I must redeem it by providing some data:

Unit Attack Defence Morale Swing Lethality

RTW hastati 7 14 6 25 1

RTW Gallic warband 7 10 4 25 0.73

RTW early cohort 9 17 10 25 1

RTR PE hastati 10 25 18 0 0.3

RTR PE Gallic warband 8 21 16 25 0.4

RTR PE early cohort 12 36 18 0 0.3

EB hastati 11 21 13 0 0.13

EB Gallic warband (Lugoae) 9 13 8 0 0.125

EB early cohort 12 23 15 0 0.13


If kill chances depend on the attack-defence differential, as in STW/MTW (and further assuming one point =10% change in kill chances), I make that:

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% more lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

Undoubedly the balance of forces is much better in modifications. (As i posted earlier) RTR PE with Naval&Metro mob and EB are IMO the choices for RTW SP.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Kobal2fr]

So...You complain that vanilla post-Marian Rome is woefuelly overpowered in terms of stats... he proves that Gauls are even MORE underpowered compared to even lower-end Roman troops in the supposedly better balanced acclaimed historical mods, and by huge margins too... and you conclude that thus these mods are the choice for balanced RTW SP ?

Am I being dense here and missing an obvious but unspoken logical step ?

EDIT :

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As an aside, I do agree with you that most of MTW/RTW/M2TW units are just tweaks to the basic STW archetypal units, but what you acclaim as proper balance (ie : STW's "purity" through giving everyone exactly the same troops) is not balance at all. It's, specifically, avoiding the whole balancing idea alltogether. Besides, even back in STW the different clans weren't balanced at all anyway. You can't expect me to believe that "can field cheaper ashigaru" can possibly be construed as even remotely equivalent to "can zoom through the whole tech tree because castles are 25% cheaper". Or even "can field archers at the price of spearmen". But I digress.

I also agree that RTW's tentative to recreate the great cultural differences in warfare techniques (ie phalanx, legion, warbands, HAs, chariots etc...) was on the whole a bit of a failure, mostly because the AI used a "one size fits none" tactical decision process. i.e. it couldn't play their strengths or counterbalance their weaknesses worth a damn. It was a good idea that sadly didn't work out that well in it's application.

But I disagree on the fact that it's all because of the evil new engine, the new graphics or CA selling out and dumbing it down to a more "generic" RTS crowd.

Proof being that, as of version 1.2 and a bit of tweaking on the part of Lusted's LTC "mod" (which is less of a mod and more of a fine tuning of the vanilla game) M2TW battles, using the selfsame evil new engine, are very close in feel to STW/MTW ones, without suffering from many of their most annoying properties, like the aforementionned hour-long marathon battles against Egyptian triplestacks, with the reinforcements getting sent in peacemeal, exhausted and half-broken before they even reach your battleline. Or losing a battle because ONE enemy samurai yari wasn't dead or routed off the field before the clock runs out (no kidding. Happened to me when I ran the ol' Shoggy again while I was waiting for M2TW to be properly patched up. Needless to say I got a little... miffed at the time.)

And on a more global scale, M2TW factions are much closer to each other in terms of rosters than those of RTW, most having a common core (though wildly diverse in appearances) with a few faction-specific units that are in essence upgraded versions of said common core, emphasizing this or that tactical field for said faction - or, in STW terms, "can recruit +1 honour No-Dachi". Only, you know, with different unit models as well.

[Laman]

...

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% more lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

Well one thing, Lugoae in EB are not really exactly the same type of troop as the vanilla Warband, the Warband is a basic military unit like Hastati, while Lugoae is a garrison unit (like vanilla Town Watch). I can't say anything about RTR, but for EB, a better unit to compare to might be Gaeroas.

[guineawolf]

Well one thing, Lugoae in EB are not really exactly the same type of troop as the vanilla Warband, the Warband is a basic military unit like Hastati, while Lugoae is a garrison unit (like vanilla Town Watch). I can't say anything about RTR, but for EB, a better unit to compare to might be Gaeroas.

i got only 1 thing to say,you guys should consider about the weapon they using,swords and spear,sound like Age of Empire system,cavalry got bonus against archers,spearmen got bonus against cavalry and swordsmen got bonus against spearmen,something like that...

[Noir]

Originally posted by Kobal2fr
... and you conclude that thus these mods are the choice for balanced RTW SP ?

Am I being dense here and missing an obvious but unspoken logical step ?

You are indeed missing the unspoken logical step - and that is that i do not wish overloading this thread with more hiijacking and almost one man argument.

I haven't concluded anything from econ21's post - i simply bowed and repeated my own previous conclusions.

Many Thanks

Noir

[guineawolf]

Fine, you can have your Gaesatae if I can have my Camillan triarii.

We would be in for a long night.

OK, after such a feeble offering of mine, I feel I must redeem it by providing some data:


If kill chances depend on the attack-defence differential, as in STW/MTW (and further assuming one point =10% change in kill chances), I make that:

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% more lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

Where do i gonna check out the lethality of RTW units???
many thanks if you would kind enough to tell me....

i want to find out which unit most cheapest to recruit as my main light infantry,i oredi use militia hoplites as my regulars in my Thrace campaign,just wanna see if egyptian Nubian spearman would be second choice?town watch ?town militia?eastern infantry?

[Kobal2fr]

You are indeed missing the unspoken logical step - and that is that i do not wish overloading this thread with more hiijacking and almost one man argument.

I haven't concluded anything from econ21's post - i simply bowed and repeated my own previous conclusions.

Many Thanks

Noir

Haaaah, I see. So quoting him extensively was merely an elaborate way to dismiss anything anyone might say that goes against a preconceived conclusion.

Carry on !

[Aradan]

Lethality is the last entry in the stat_pri and stat_sec line of a unit, in the export_descr_unit.txt.

This one:

stat_pri         8,6, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0, 0.78

i got only 1 thing to say,you guys should consider about the weapon they using,swords and spear,sound like Age of Empire system,cavalry got bonus against archers,spearmen got bonus against cavalry and swordsmen got bonus against spearmen,something like that...

As guineawolf rightly points out, there are many factors that you haven't considered in the equation. Starting from unit type (swordsman, spearman, etc) and going even to the skeleton of the model... Everything plays a part in combat.

[guineawolf]

Lethality is the last entry in the stat_pri and stat_sec line of a unit, in the export_descr_unit.txt.

This one:

stat_pri         8,6, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0, 0.78

As guineawolf rightly points out, there are many factors that you haven't considered in the equation. Starting from unit type (swordsman, spearman, etc) and going even to the skeleton of the model... Everything plays a part in combat.

thank you,now at least i understand why my 3000 town watch with 10 star general can't kill a unit(161men) of armored hoplites in 30minutes.Even auxilia can't take them down in 10 minutes,i think i will list auxilia as defensive units,and libyan spearmen too.What a waste of my time,still the swordarms works.Militia hoplites sure can kill faster than auxilia.....the cheapest,cost effective units and coolest unit in RTW!
thanks a lot....