Roman troops are too strong at the beginning.

[Caelus]

Hmm, I’ve been thinking a bit about the balance for Rome myself lately, although I have drawn different conclusions.

First, I think it should be taken into account that the true conditions that existed during the starting period and particularly the second Punic war cannot be accurately represented in the RTW game engine no matter how brilliant the modders are.

We could argue endlessly about the history; however I think we should consider the nations and societies that Rome bordered, and the political, military and social conditions that existed within them. Rome was unique in that it had amazing economic power, huge manpower and a political and social system which was perfectly suited for expansion and war. In addition they were not directly bordered by powerful, highly expansionistic powers. As stated by Cyclops Carthaginian society was trade based. They were not primarily interested in expansion.

The other two societies that bordered Rome were the Gauls and Hellenic nations. The Gauls were not going to form into a highly organized nation (not a tribal confederacy), assemble a professional force and then invade Italy with the purpose of subjugating entire cultures. Even so they were a horrible terror feared by the Romans for centuries.

The Hellenistic nations (I’m over simplifying things, I know) were busy with each other (which is certainly represented in the game).

These factors (which I have done a horrible job of describing) are the reason I believe Rome became the greatest power in the region, not any innate military superiority.

In the game as Rome you start off with a very versatile and flexible force, however if you pit them up against any high quality force from any of the surrounding nations they will lose (that is excepting all tactical factors i.e. you have them fight head to head).

Your advantages are 1) You have no strong expansionistic neighbors 2) you are in an extremely fertile/economically wealthy area.

Thus you:

a) are in no danger of destruction
b) can expand at any pace you like
c) have plenty of time to build up your forces and your economy

This is why it is relatively easy to play as Rome. Transfer Rome to the starting position of say, Koinon Hellenon, and then see what would happen!

I have used both Koinon Hellenon and Epeiros to utterly destroy Rome. Roman military forces are excellent (perhaps my favorite) but objectively they are not as good as the military of Carthage, Epeiros, Makedonia, AS, Ptolemaioi and maybe others (these are the factions I have played as and fought).
I love Rome, both in game and in history, but they were in no way supermen, and they did not have an invincible military. There were many factors that contributed to their rise.

However they are not supermen in the game. They will lose to an equally powerful and well lead army from any other nation, all else being equal. This was true in history. However all things were almost never equal. And so to in the game; as the player I will always see to it that all things are never equal.

Ok, my badly worded rambling rant will now end. Welcome Livius Andronicus, I hope this discussion doesn’t chase you off.

[Burns]

One of the things I like about Rome's design is the fact that Reform units are not greatly different from their predecessors.

I'd also like to take the time to talk about something thats been on my mind over the past few months. That is the case of the Polybian reforms. I really don't know what role this particular historian and general played in the development of Rome's military force but I do know that his practical contribution was describing these certain changes (armor types, tactics, weapons, organanization). Somehow I keep thinking that, from a historical perspective using the term for the reform is appropriate. Yet it appears innaccurate in the sense that it is misnamed. The Romani Polybius was describing were from his own time of writing ( after 146 BC). In the time frame of when the reforms are possible it seems that they are meant to reflect changes taking place when the gens Scipiones were making a name for themselves. In other ways it matters less because it happened to be a long run process.

[pezhetairoi]

Livius Andronicus, I wish to say that any and every faction can be overpowered or underpowered depending on what skill you have as a player to handle its challenges. The Romani are neither overpowered, nor underpowered. I have come close to defeat many times before the enemy routed first, by a hair. I have actually had to refight battles because if I had played it out to the end I would have lost the entire legion, or more than half of it. They are most certainly not overpowered, not if they are faced with determined opponents, like that fullstack and a half of Arverni I fought as the Romani who came at me with 8 Gaesatae and no unit less than 2 chevrons against my completely green and newly-recruited legion. And at the same time I have won battles with the same inexperienced legions with a single line charge well-coordinated enough that they crumpled the flanks even as the fronts and rears caved in. Anything is possible, the challenges can be met with practice.

As to why you are on the brink of getting hammered (you aren't yet because we're making the allowance that you're new, if you want to see hammering, go read Rycalawre's threads, now that's hammering) is because you haven't been reading the older threads in the forum and immersing yourself in the culture. It's always wiser to send in your agents to illuminate unfamiliar territory before moving in, get what i mean? When I first came across the RTW forums (not even EB yet) I spent two months just reading threads daily before even registering myself and commenting on the faction threads.

If you would just see the sheer amount of this overpowered, that underpowered, sometimes even this same faction-overpowered-and-underpowered-at-the-same-time threads, and if you've seen the effort those of us who've been with EB from the start have put in trying to get it across to people who posted like you that EB is already as balanced as it can be and definitely far more balanced than any other mod, then you would understand why we respond the way we do. It isn't for no reason, or because we're a bunch of unfriendly, stuck-up, snobbish louts who prefer the company of our papyrus scrolls and dusty shelves and tweed coats to real life society. It's because ironically for a historically-grounded forum, newcomers don't learn from past history and the mistakes which their predecessors made. Which, I guess, is why they make the same mistakes, over and over again, with the same responses, predictable to us, but seemingly totally unwarranted to the newcomers.

From Boyar Son: 'Sir, if you had joied a couple months ago you would never want to post another "over powered/underpowered" thread EVER again.'

From you: 'I apologize for my ignorance, but acting like condescending Romans doesn't increase your E-reputation. If you don't want to respond, then don't.'

You responded to a polite post with a lashing out to retaliate against no affront at all, but you also generalised and called by implication all posters here condescending. If Boyar called you 'sir', maybe that's the way he speaks. You're being selfish and judging people by your own standards here. And besides, forums are about responses. People -will- respond in different ways to what you say. It's a risk you took by registering and posting. And if I really wanted to get personal, you called my personal favourite faction condescending too, but that would be being very silly. :P

You're new here, so this is just a heads-up. Don't get me wrong, it's good to see a new face presenting some cogent arguments in a civilised manner, and I welcome you most heartily to the Org. I'm looking forward to seeing you post more on the forums. But don't be so quick to anger. Yup.

[mrtwisties]

As to why you are on the brink of getting hammered (you aren't yet because we're making the allowance that you're new, if you want to see hammering, go read Rycalawre's threads, now that's hammering) is because you haven't been reading the older threads in the forum and immersing yourself in the culture.

Steady on! The Rycalawre thread reflected poorly on a lot of those people who posted in it, and threatening Livius Andronicus with similar treatment... well, it's embarrassing for the rest of us.

I agree with your last paragraph Pez. But all Livius Andronicus did was offer measured criticism of the mod on a historical basis, something that's generally welcomed by the members of the mod team. He seems like a pretty intelligent guy, and he's entitled to object to some of the condescending responses he received. Suggesting that he ought to read months of our postings before contributing himself is an example of what he's objecting to, not a refutation.

[pezhetairoi]

Steady on! The Rycalawre thread reflected poorly on a lot of those people who posted in it, and threatening Livius Andronicus with similar treatment... well, it's embarrassing for the rest of us.

I agree with your last paragraph Pez. But all Livius Andronicus did was offer measured criticism of the mod on a historical basis, something that's generally welcomed by the members of the mod team. He seems like a pretty intelligent guy, and he's entitled to object to some of the condescending responses he received. Suggesting that he ought to read months of our postings before contributing himself is an example of what he's objecting to, not a refutation.

A fair enough point, fair enough indeed. Perhaps I was a bit too hard on him. But hey, I don't disagree with you, L. Andronicus has made historical points, more importantly, CORRECT historical points. :) But I guess therein lies the difference between him and me, maybe I've been here too long or something, but I've learned to take things not quite so hard, and to discern true condescension with what is essentially harmless Victorian mannerisms, which Boyar's was. Though his later post did provide Andronicus with justification had he wanted it.

And I wasn't threatening Andronicus, at least, I hope I wasn't appearing to be so. I was merely pointing out the stakes involved, because he's shooting himself in the foot had he persisted in going down that path of reasoning.

One thing though, that perhaps you'll agree with me: Andronicus really was quite harsh, overly so. It's like someone going 'ooh, what a nice little kitty!' only to have your petting hand clawed into shreds. Apart from that blip on the radar, I didn't find his attitude at all objectionable. Rather liked it, in fact.

I would object to being -forced- to read for months before I posted, myself. Anyone's free to join and post, but by going public you have to accept some people accidentally toeing the border of your personal space and take it in stride, not lash out at them first time, first thing. It's not very...community-minded. Reading the forum was the only way that came to mind that could minimise such friction if you were the touchy sort.

And I don't think the Rycalawre thread was all that bad, really, had it just stayed at the banning vote and not further on, to the picture thing, which I did not like one bit. I think the banning thing was quite justified, actually, because this guy has made baseless accusations and made an asshole of himself trying to smear EB. Which is terrible considering we have some fervent EB lovers here. I make no apologies for that, because I read every single one of Rycalawre's posts and was responding to them in general, rather than just that one post, though it would already have been quite enough on its own.

Alright, back to topic!

Early Romans are just fine and balanced, I say! Pit them against the Gauls and Makedonians, and heck, you might even say they are -under-powered!

EDIT: You're right, the E-reputation paragraph DID sound pretty harsh. I have excised it, and hope not too many people have read it. But frankly, there isn't a -nice- way of getting the message I had in that paragraph across. You don't challenge a pistol marksman to pistols at ten paces. It's downright foolish. His objections would have had more force and generated less indignation had he not mentioned 'E-reputation'.

[Livius Andronicus]

Wow...Thanks for all the replies everyone. It has been a pleasure reading your ideas and I think I understand things a little more clearly now.

As I think about the past campaigns that I've played, it does seem that in general the AI is fairly easy to exploit. The difficulties in employing certain moves by an AI led factions make much more sense to me now.

I apologize for coming off a bit aggressively at first as almost an attack on the mod. So far I have enjoyed playing the campaigns and the fact that a human player with the right moves is able to be successful with any of the factions is really an amazing part to this game.

I have been currently reading "The fall of Carthage" by Adrian Goldsworthy. So far it seems, especially in the 2nd Punic War, that Rome easily could have fallen if a few events would have had a different outcome.

From all of your great input I think I will try another Romani campaign and add some house rules. I have seen a few posts about adding house rules to make a campaign a bit more realistic.

Any thoughts on possible house rules for the Romani to recreate the Punic Wars to some degree?

The first that I will employ is sticking to dates as closely as possible. So for instance I will not invade Sicily until 264, etc...

[pezhetairoi]

No sweat, Andronicus. Great to see you back.

For house rules directed against the Poeni, perhaps you could limit yourself to 20 units in the field at any one time as long as you do not expand beyond Italia. That may help, and perhaps you could also mandate that only 10 could be in the south, in Sicily, while the remaining 10 campaign in the north. Furthermore, if the First Punic is what you had in mind, you could even besiege cities, not build any rams, and conquer Sicily that way. Though that might not actually prove too much challenge unless you manually create units for Carthage in Sicily to oppose yourself. The SSbQ AI does not come across as being remarkably amphibious, even on BI.exe, so it's pretty much cut off as is.

House rules aren't actually meant to make campaigns more realistic, not in all cases anyway. They seem to me to rather be meant to make things more challenging by setting restrictions to slow yourself down. Sorta like savouring good food through small nibbles. As I see it, the only way you're ever going to have any challenge with Carthage is to challenge them in Spain and Africa. No other place will do.

I actually made my Romani campaign more challenging by only winning new settlements by siege for the first 20-30 years. Thus my development was slow while I built my infrastructure, while by the virtue of the money scripts, the neighbouring AI factions would grow faster. The real challenge to the Romani only begins, as I see it, at around 200BC. But even then, no matter how you look at it, the enemy is still more tenacious than challenging.

The dates house rule will put enough on your hands as it is.

[Tiberius Nero]

From all of your great input I think I will try another Romani campaign and add some house rules. I have seen a few posts about adding house rules to make a campaign a bit more realistic.

Any thoughts on possible house rules for the Romani to recreate the Punic Wars to some degree?

Try very hard to lose battles or don't build an army :P

Seriously the AI is pathetic, you cannot get a challenge out of it unless playing some hopeless faction like Hayasdan, or possibly if you play on Very Hard battle difficulty, which is not a recommended setting for the mod as it makes battles very bizzare, with slingers beating legionaries in melee and that sort of thing.

[CirdanDharix]

I have been currently reading "The fall of Carthage" by Adrian Goldsworthy. So far it seems, especially in the 2nd Punic War, that Rome easily could have fallen if a few events would have had a different outcome.

I disagree. In terms of manpower and resources, Rome had a large advantage at the time of the First Punic War; during the Second, a Carthie victory would have been a major miracle. Hannibal gave the Senatus Populusque Romanus a good scare, but really, for all the losses he caused them, they had replacements aplenty without even recalling the armies sent to other fronts. There's always the numismatic argument, but then, if we look at the other major Mediterranean powers, they were also devaluing their currencies at about the same time, so we can assume that the value of precious metals was declining throughout the Mediterranean bassin. This may have had something to do with the fact that Rome and Carthage weren't the only powers to be engaged in a heated war at the time; but nevertheless it is a Mediterranean-wide phenomenon, and if it did help the SPQR pay for more troops, it was hardly a desperate measure, since Roman money wasn't trashed and the Roman economy wasn't imperiled by a financial crisis.

Hannibal failed to really shake Roman hegemony in Italy, despite all his political genius. His only chance would have been to take the Urbs herself by storm, but that would have been dicey at best.

[Pharnakes]

Look, come on people, you are being rediculous. All I can say is I'm damn glad I joined 9months ago, when these boards were always polite and welcoming to new members. Now, I know you all don't mean any harm, but these last few weeks, this forum has been rapidly down hill. If I was a junior member today, I'm not sure I would want to make the effort to learn the petty little grudgies and mannerisms that make the rest of us behave in such a unfriendly fashion.

Cut the poor guy a bit of slack, can't you? If you are the mature, logical, polite characters that you are demanding he be, then you wouldn't have responded to him as you did. Maybe he touched a nerve, well its not his fault, it should be the duty of a long standing member to ease a new chap in as smothly as possible, not all just jump on top of him, when he rases a perfectly vallid question, in polite and reasonable language.

Honestly, get your acts together. Your treatment of Rycalawre was bad, but at least there was a reason for that. If this is how you now treat polite new members, well, I'm disgusted.