|
Is there a website where people upload their replays, like gamereplays? Couldn't find one. Even gamereplays doesn't have a section for TW.
|
On September 07 2013 09:45 Tula wrote:
Yeah if your level 8 General gets killed by a Spy because you've simply ignored them the entire game (so you don't have even mid level champions to counter it you'll be pissed). Generally I have one champion (or equivalent) in my main army for exp (moving him to my "newest" army when appropriate, 1 spy running ahead of my main force to scout around, and one dignitary following up to make the culture penalty go down faster. If the game goes late (frankly I usually stop playing once I have 70 provinces or so, nothing can stop you from that point onwards so why bother) and I have 3 plus armies working a front i'll go up to 2 of each in that area.
Only Agents I usually have the maximum of are Champions for military training. The experience alone is gamechanging, and once he levels up I usually invest the 3 points into zeal for campaign movement speed.
The "kill their Spies" minigame on the other hand is basically a waste of money against the AI. Somehow they always have new agents even if their settlements are built in such a way that they should be flat out broke.
Btw, regarding my Rant on Carthage and their weakness earlier, in my newest game on hard they got broken by punic rebels. Not by Lybia or anything, simply rebels rule in all Carthagian provinces. Wonder how that happened.
Possibly civil unrest. In Shogun 2, if you successfully incite a revolt in a settlement, a rebel army will pop up about the same size as the army + garrison of said region. Pretty sure they're weaker units than that of any army worth its weight, but it's still a sizable impediment for any faction.
Slave uprisings have their own cinematic in this game. I would imagine they carry more weight than the pushovers of TWs past.
|
god the more I have played R2tW the more I am totally agreeing with the criticisms on the AI. However the more I can see how AMAZING this game will be only with a handful of tweaks!!
|
In the majority of videos before release, the game showcased units with soldiers fit in varied garb, like differently-colored helmets and differently-shaped shields for examples. What setting makes that so? I have Unit Details on max and it doesn't look like that's changed anything.
|
On September 07 2013 08:50 masterbreti wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 08:32 Sermokala wrote:On September 07 2013 08:30 iokke wrote:
Is it possible to sync save files from RTW2 on two comps? Basically half the time I can play on my pc, other half only on laptop. So far it seems like saves are only kept locally, as I couldn't continue prologue that I started on my pc when I launched the game on the laptop.
Also when attacking cities, it seems like my troops refuse to go through an open gate for a long time even if there are few enemy troops blocking the way. Is it part of the game, as in you have to "capture" gate first? When you press save game on the campaign map check the cloud button thats right there. On September 07 2013 08:21 masterbreti wrote:On September 07 2013 08:14 floor exercise wrote:On September 07 2013 07:49 Derez wrote:
There's literally nothing in this game that's an improvement on shogun 2.
The AI is worse, its unstable (even worse after the latest patch), the iOS icons only hide the actual tech tree, army control/recruitement/reinforcement are all dumbed down to the point where you can barely make any meaningful choices. I know its CA so they'll provide patches, but overall the direction they took the series really disappoints me. Someone will invariably come along and tell you "unit variety" even though more than half the factions seem completely unfinished, especially the barbarian tribes. This really is a bad game, even the battles look bad somehow. I went back to Shogun 2 and was amazed at how much better the animations were, how units actually made contact with eachother. This game is a mess not just from a technical perspective with bugs and performance, everything is just poor. The exception being the campaign map looks kind of nice. Yeah, even something i noticed is that with Egypt, the units for the most part don't even look egyptian. Although the game is the best looking out of all the TW games, it feels the least complete. beacuse thats historically accurate, Theres this guy named alexander the great who took over the whole area and modeled it after his own. then when he died the guy who took over the area was one of alexanders generals and modeled the whole army after the hellenic style. Its one thing to model the army after the hellenic style, but the units themselves don't look Egyptian. They look Roman. Their skin colour is what more I'm talking about.
Well basically all of the tier 1 units Egypt fields are "Egyptian" aesthetically. Problem is they use the same models for their "Greek" units as the actual Greeks do, I think maybe having mixed models with Greek and Egyptian skin would be the best solution, but it's extra work for not much gain. (so likely mods)
Egypt in fact uses some fairly strong Celts with their tier 2 barracks as well. The Galatian Royal Guard and Galatian Swordsmen(basicly Celtic warriors) are Celtic units unique to the Egyptian faction.
Also not sure if posted yet dsi0fanyw80ls.cloudfront.net/ is a web version of the in game encyclopedia. Repost from Reddit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1lupoa/webbased_rome_2_encyclopedia/
|
When I open up/refresh the list of games on multiplayer, it is always empty. Could someone tell me a way to fix this problem please?
|
On September 07 2013 08:35 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 06:37 aXa wrote:On September 07 2013 05:35 Scip wrote:On September 06 2013 20:54 DonKey_ wrote:
Well so far I have about 50 turns into a Rome, Egypt, and Carthage. With a bit played on Macedon, and Suebi as well.
The order of difficulty so far from easiest to hardest has been: Rome >>>>>> Egypt >> Macedon > Carthage > Suebi.
Rome is expectantly CRAZY broken with the most efficient and elite units at every point in the game so far, as well as having a very nice starting position.
Egypt was much stronger than I expected due to the fact that starting turn 1 with a province is REALLY strong, and everyone around you is a nomadic nobody with no allies. Another fun thing with Egypt is just how much easier it is to trade with others since you start with a province that has 2 wheat, and an iron(and 2 wonders...), plus they actually have good units when you hit their tier 2 barracks. Being Hellenic is nice too.
Macedon felt like you could have a nice set up, but I lost 2 cities in Macedon to Sparta who was my ally, and pretty much everyone around me hated me.
Carthage was kind of annoying with it feeling like your client sates hurt you more than help you. I love their hoplite shields though.
Suebi felt kinda fun with the confederation mechanic, but then I realized when I got powerful I had basically 2 units(beserkers and swordmasters) to look forward too.
I really want balance mods to come out fast. >< I don't know nearly enough about ancient warfare to be confident, but wouldn't it make sense that roman soldiers pre-marian reform would be somewhat weaker than that of other nations? IIRC, they weren't used to the chain of command and things like that, so you couldn't pull off crazy maneuvers in battles and stuff. Their armament wasn't any more technologically advanced than that of their enemies (leather/iron chainmail, etc.). They really won mostly through their numbers, no? After Marian reforms legions did start owning all other infantry, but they were still kinda weak against heavy cavalry and horse archers, as shown by unsuccessful wars against Parthia and surrounding areas. Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said please :3 Roman won most of their battle due to a combination of factors, number wasn't particularly one of them. The use of formation and discipline should be listed at the top one reason. They could out manoeuvre their ennemy because legions were heavily trained to accomplish a certain number of formations, the most famous being testudo. Logistic is another aspect, and the formidable speed of roman legion was a decisive factor in most war (up to 40km per day !). They had a great chain of commands: -The consul or pro-consul was leading the army -A legatus was in charge of a legion, that is between 4000 to 6000 men -Centurion were in charge of 10 decurions -Decurion were in charge of ten mens They had a banner and cor system to communicate, also their general wasn't busy fighting: he was busy giving orders, which was a great advantage over hellenic style of leadership. To me the most interesting argument in Roman militaristic superiority is to be found in their political system during the republic. The fact that patricians were seeking for glory and honour is the main explaining factor to roman expansion at that time, and the same can be said about citizens who formed the core of the Roman war machine. To gain gravitas, or credibility in public life, you had to serve your time. Up to 20 years of military service ! The financial aspect of roman militaristic history is also a topic on its own. Note that I agree with the parts I've removed from your post, but I do have some small quibbles with this post. You are mixing and matching a number of different periods of the roman army here. The famous 40km a day (point of order, 40km was a forced march, 30km was the goal Caesar set, and he was considered a harsh disciplinarian in that aspect) was only achievable after Marius removed 90% of the baggage train with his reforms. Any prior army was exactly as slow as any other ancient army (with the exception of Nomadic cultures, one of the reasons they had such problems with the Cimbri). At the start of the republic the chain of command was indeed very clear, One consul would be sent out with an army (usually around 2 Legions maximum) the other would mind the fort at home. The title of proconsul (properly put imperium pro consule) was invented at the time when rome started to field more armies than they had consuls or praetors they could send away (some disagreement here, but usually people cite the creation of the pronvinces as this point so sometime during the punic wars). The individual chain of command varied a lot depending on how the general wanted to use his legates. Some of the most famous Roman blunders happened when two senior dignitaries did not agree with each other (Aurasia, Cannae to name the most famous examples). Until the second Punic War Rome fielded their legions in a pseudo phalanx formation (haestati in the first two lines, followed by 2 lines of principes and a line of triarii was considered the ideal formation 1000man wide 5 ranks deep, if I wasn't on vacation I could cite you a latin source for that). They were actually very inflexible tactically and won their wars against the other latin tribes through a combination of good diplomacy, attrition and pure grit. After Hannibal wrecked them twice Cornelius Scipio (later called Africanus) reformed the Army around the maniple and Centuriae and instituted many of the things you list (chain of command, Centurions, Standards to orient the men, Horn signals to name a few). Before that point few Historians actually considered Rome anything special military wise. The difference between them and their neighbours was that they simply didn't know how to quit, most guesses as to why that was, indeed list the idea of long military service as a "standard" to become a good Roman. While 20 years would be exceptional if the sources can be believed (they are rather scarce for that time period) Almost anyone did at least 5 Campaigns in the Legions. More if you wanted to become a politician (Military Tribune and later Legate was one of the few ways to get noticed as a Youngish Man if you were not an outstanding orator/lawyer). Anyway, back on topic. At the start of the game the Romans probably should be weaker, but frankly it's kinda difficult to code that. You'd need to include at least 3 distinct steps and it would make the game flow much stranger (with the barracks system it already feels artificial enough, but at least does are linked to research, imagine if you simply had to wait and hold out for 60 turns before you could deploy your units in the typical Rome formation...). They kind of gimped Carthage heavily with the two 2 client states. I can understand why they did so, because by rights they should rule 2 entire provinces to start which would overpower them, but the First Punic War can be described best as "Superpower against the annoying gnat who just won't quit and accept peace". The Romans simply kept fighting until Carthage went bankrupt because their entire military was set up around hiring mercenaries (until Hamilcar barcas came around after this specific loss and had to fight 3 years of Rebellion). Since Carthage can recruit units normally in this game, they had to nerf them harshly in some other way  One last comment from the historian, the one area where Rome truly outshone all their opponents was Siegecraft. Both the mobile artillery and their construction to siege cities was unmatched until the Trebuchet was reinvented in the late middle ages. Edit: after watching the extra credit episode, I must give those guys credit they actually condensed the first punic war down well for a 5 minute clip. Guess I'll show that episode to my students in the review session at some point
Well, Gaius Claudius Nero clearly didn't know that, as he force-marched north some 500-600 km in 10 days before the battle of Metaurus in order to defeat Hasdrubal Barca  although to be fair, he -wasn't- burdened with the baggage train as he was supplied by the local italian socii, but i had to point out that occurence still, that's an incredible feat anyways,so if the roman army was somewhat as slow as any other civilized force when burdened with baggage, it could be much faster even in pre-marian time, given the right circumstances.
The manipular legion invention is traditionally attributed to Marcus Furius Camillus, during the Samnite wars; besides only the triarii fight in a fashion vaguely resembling hoplites,both hastati and principes fight much more like iberian mercenaries (scutarii, to be more precise, which were the specific inspiration for their redesign of both their sword (gladius) and their shield/pila in the first punic war) so i have to disagree with your statement on "pseudo-phalanx legion" in the early game.
The Pyrrhic wars are a perfect example of the differences between those 2 army systems.
I fear there isn't really a way to make Rome challenging without making the AI and/or have a friend manning an opposing faction, Rome is nerfed enough by the absence of manpower/population in the game (and the italian provinces aren't really much richer than say, german ones as historically true) so Carthage needed a nerf too
|
i suck so hard in total war games at anything besides combat (which im not that great with either).
takes away the fun quite a bit :/
is there something like a guide of how to manage the map? (buildings,army,finance etc..)
|
On September 07 2013 14:13 Caryc wrote:
i suck so hard in total war games at anything besides combat (which im not that great with either).
takes away the fun quite a bit :/
is there something like a guide of how to manage the map? (buildings,army,finance etc..)
the key is only build units that you can support. It's pretty much what the advisor says.
|
On September 07 2013 14:13 Caryc wrote:
i suck so hard in total war games at anything besides combat (which im not that great with either).
takes away the fun quite a bit :/
is there something like a guide of how to manage the map? (buildings,army,finance etc..)
Yea is there a guide for sieges? I dont use any siege machines(maybe i should...) and just charge my entire army at the door -.- and get stupid looking victories
|
On September 07 2013 14:18 KezseN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 14:13 Caryc wrote:
i suck so hard in total war games at anything besides combat (which im not that great with either).
takes away the fun quite a bit :/
is there something like a guide of how to manage the map? (buildings,army,finance etc..) Yea is there a guide for sieges? I dont use any siege machines(maybe i should...) and just charge my entire army at the door -.- and get stupid looking victories
Sieges are easy in this game, the ai is so retarded it doesn't put any units at the walls or ranged units and runs around the town like a headless chicken splitting up constantly. On top of that units that are routed no longer go into the middle of the town and become immune to fleeing like in previous games.
Just make some ladders, take the towers near a gate, let your army in with no casualties and the rest is easy.
|
Just take 3 ballistae (or whatever the cheapest siege unit is) with your armies. You can attack any walled city without having to build siege equipment. Plus, ballistae are pretty decent in the field. They are much more accurate than in Rome I.
|
meh ! the AI really is a problem. should have started with legendary and not very hard. i mean open field battles are kinda OKish but sieges.....of course can you charge with cheap spearmen and cavalry into my spartan pikemen phalanx, mr. AI ! makes playing spartans really excitiing -.- . although my conquest were only going east so far and the east troops i faced the first 60 turns were really shitty against my spartans phaalanx tactics. i dont understand why the eastern forces dont use their cavalry archers/skirmishers more often. they only have 2 at max. thats why i love Medieval 2 so much. when you marched east there with a slow infantry-based army they would punish you so hard with 5-6 units ranged cavalry.(i mean that was what the eastern empires where famous for anyway).
im setting up an invasion fleet for rome now. 1 full fleet and 3 full armies should be enough. i hope the roman and german forces can put up a fight against my phalanx juggernaut. and if not im going straight legendary and play german barbarians. and if thats as easy as spartans on very hard, i just wait and hope for patches 
|
On September 07 2013 13:28 Skirmjan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 08:35 Tula wrote:On September 07 2013 06:37 aXa wrote:On September 07 2013 05:35 Scip wrote:On September 06 2013 20:54 DonKey_ wrote:
Well so far I have about 50 turns into a Rome, Egypt, and Carthage. With a bit played on Macedon, and Suebi as well.
The order of difficulty so far from easiest to hardest has been: Rome >>>>>> Egypt >> Macedon > Carthage > Suebi.
Rome is expectantly CRAZY broken with the most efficient and elite units at every point in the game so far, as well as having a very nice starting position.
Egypt was much stronger than I expected due to the fact that starting turn 1 with a province is REALLY strong, and everyone around you is a nomadic nobody with no allies. Another fun thing with Egypt is just how much easier it is to trade with others since you start with a province that has 2 wheat, and an iron(and 2 wonders...), plus they actually have good units when you hit their tier 2 barracks. Being Hellenic is nice too.
Macedon felt like you could have a nice set up, but I lost 2 cities in Macedon to Sparta who was my ally, and pretty much everyone around me hated me.
Carthage was kind of annoying with it feeling like your client sates hurt you more than help you. I love their hoplite shields though.
Suebi felt kinda fun with the confederation mechanic, but then I realized when I got powerful I had basically 2 units(beserkers and swordmasters) to look forward too.
I really want balance mods to come out fast. >< I don't know nearly enough about ancient warfare to be confident, but wouldn't it make sense that roman soldiers pre-marian reform would be somewhat weaker than that of other nations? IIRC, they weren't used to the chain of command and things like that, so you couldn't pull off crazy maneuvers in battles and stuff. Their armament wasn't any more technologically advanced than that of their enemies (leather/iron chainmail, etc.). They really won mostly through their numbers, no? After Marian reforms legions did start owning all other infantry, but they were still kinda weak against heavy cavalry and horse archers, as shown by unsuccessful wars against Parthia and surrounding areas. Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said please :3 Roman won most of their battle due to a combination of factors, number wasn't particularly one of them. The use of formation and discipline should be listed at the top one reason. They could out manoeuvre their ennemy because legions were heavily trained to accomplish a certain number of formations, the most famous being testudo. Logistic is another aspect, and the formidable speed of roman legion was a decisive factor in most war (up to 40km per day !). They had a great chain of commands: -The consul or pro-consul was leading the army -A legatus was in charge of a legion, that is between 4000 to 6000 men -Centurion were in charge of 10 decurions -Decurion were in charge of ten mens They had a banner and cor system to communicate, also their general wasn't busy fighting: he was busy giving orders, which was a great advantage over hellenic style of leadership. To me the most interesting argument in Roman militaristic superiority is to be found in their political system during the republic. The fact that patricians were seeking for glory and honour is the main explaining factor to roman expansion at that time, and the same can be said about citizens who formed the core of the Roman war machine. To gain gravitas, or credibility in public life, you had to serve your time. Up to 20 years of military service ! The financial aspect of roman militaristic history is also a topic on its own. Note that I agree with the parts I've removed from your post, but I do have some small quibbles with this post. You are mixing and matching a number of different periods of the roman army here. The famous 40km a day (point of order, 40km was a forced march, 30km was the goal Caesar set, and he was considered a harsh disciplinarian in that aspect) was only achievable after Marius removed 90% of the baggage train with his reforms. Any prior army was exactly as slow as any other ancient army (with the exception of Nomadic cultures, one of the reasons they had such problems with the Cimbri). At the start of the republic the chain of command was indeed very clear, One consul would be sent out with an army (usually around 2 Legions maximum) the other would mind the fort at home. The title of proconsul (properly put imperium pro consule) was invented at the time when rome started to field more armies than they had consuls or praetors they could send away (some disagreement here, but usually people cite the creation of the pronvinces as this point so sometime during the punic wars). The individual chain of command varied a lot depending on how the general wanted to use his legates. Some of the most famous Roman blunders happened when two senior dignitaries did not agree with each other (Aurasia, Cannae to name the most famous examples). Until the second Punic War Rome fielded their legions in a pseudo phalanx formation (haestati in the first two lines, followed by 2 lines of principes and a line of triarii was considered the ideal formation 1000man wide 5 ranks deep, if I wasn't on vacation I could cite you a latin source for that). They were actually very inflexible tactically and won their wars against the other latin tribes through a combination of good diplomacy, attrition and pure grit. After Hannibal wrecked them twice Cornelius Scipio (later called Africanus) reformed the Army around the maniple and Centuriae and instituted many of the things you list (chain of command, Centurions, Standards to orient the men, Horn signals to name a few). Before that point few Historians actually considered Rome anything special military wise. The difference between them and their neighbours was that they simply didn't know how to quit, most guesses as to why that was, indeed list the idea of long military service as a "standard" to become a good Roman. While 20 years would be exceptional if the sources can be believed (they are rather scarce for that time period) Almost anyone did at least 5 Campaigns in the Legions. More if you wanted to become a politician (Military Tribune and later Legate was one of the few ways to get noticed as a Youngish Man if you were not an outstanding orator/lawyer). Anyway, back on topic. At the start of the game the Romans probably should be weaker, but frankly it's kinda difficult to code that. You'd need to include at least 3 distinct steps and it would make the game flow much stranger (with the barracks system it already feels artificial enough, but at least does are linked to research, imagine if you simply had to wait and hold out for 60 turns before you could deploy your units in the typical Rome formation...). They kind of gimped Carthage heavily with the two 2 client states. I can understand why they did so, because by rights they should rule 2 entire provinces to start which would overpower them, but the First Punic War can be described best as "Superpower against the annoying gnat who just won't quit and accept peace". The Romans simply kept fighting until Carthage went bankrupt because their entire military was set up around hiring mercenaries (until Hamilcar barcas came around after this specific loss and had to fight 3 years of Rebellion). Since Carthage can recruit units normally in this game, they had to nerf them harshly in some other way One last comment from the historian, the one area where Rome truly outshone all their opponents was Siegecraft. Both the mobile artillery and their construction to siege cities was unmatched until the Trebuchet was reinvented in the late middle ages. Edit: after watching the extra credit episode, I must give those guys credit they actually condensed the first punic war down well for a 5 minute clip. Guess I'll show that episode to my students in the review session at some point Well, Gaius Claudius Nero clearly didn't know that, as he force-marched north some 500-600 km in 10 days before the battle of Metaurus in order to defeat Hasdrubal Barca although to be fair, he -wasn't- burdened with the baggage train as he was supplied by the local italian socii, but i had to point out that occurence still, that's an incredible feat anyways,so if the roman army was somewhat as slow as any other civilized force when burdened with baggage, it could be much faster even in pre-marian time, given the right circumstances. The manipular legion invention is traditionally attributed to Marcus Furius Camillus, during the Samnite wars; besides only the triarii fight in a fashion vaguely resembling hoplites,both hastati and principes fight much more like iberian mercenaries (scutarii, to be more precise, which were the specific inspiration for their redesign of both their sword (gladius) and their shield/pila in the first punic war) so i have to disagree with your statement on "pseudo-phalanx legion" in the early game. The Pyrrhic wars are a perfect example of the differences between those 2 army systems. I fear there isn't really a way to make Rome challenging without making the AI and/or have a friend manning an opposing faction, Rome is nerfed enough by the absence of manpower/population in the game (and the italian provinces aren't quite as rich as opposed to say, german ones as historically true) so Carthage needed a nerf too
German provinces were rich historically? I thought it was just massive jungles and swamps. Thats why noone ever bothered holding onto territory in Germany.
|
On September 07 2013 17:43 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 13:28 Skirmjan wrote:On September 07 2013 08:35 Tula wrote:On September 07 2013 06:37 aXa wrote:On September 07 2013 05:35 Scip wrote:On September 06 2013 20:54 DonKey_ wrote:
Well so far I have about 50 turns into a Rome, Egypt, and Carthage. With a bit played on Macedon, and Suebi as well.
The order of difficulty so far from easiest to hardest has been: Rome >>>>>> Egypt >> Macedon > Carthage > Suebi.
Rome is expectantly CRAZY broken with the most efficient and elite units at every point in the game so far, as well as having a very nice starting position.
Egypt was much stronger than I expected due to the fact that starting turn 1 with a province is REALLY strong, and everyone around you is a nomadic nobody with no allies. Another fun thing with Egypt is just how much easier it is to trade with others since you start with a province that has 2 wheat, and an iron(and 2 wonders...), plus they actually have good units when you hit their tier 2 barracks. Being Hellenic is nice too.
Macedon felt like you could have a nice set up, but I lost 2 cities in Macedon to Sparta who was my ally, and pretty much everyone around me hated me.
Carthage was kind of annoying with it feeling like your client sates hurt you more than help you. I love their hoplite shields though.
Suebi felt kinda fun with the confederation mechanic, but then I realized when I got powerful I had basically 2 units(beserkers and swordmasters) to look forward too.
I really want balance mods to come out fast. >< I don't know nearly enough about ancient warfare to be confident, but wouldn't it make sense that roman soldiers pre-marian reform would be somewhat weaker than that of other nations? IIRC, they weren't used to the chain of command and things like that, so you couldn't pull off crazy maneuvers in battles and stuff. Their armament wasn't any more technologically advanced than that of their enemies (leather/iron chainmail, etc.). They really won mostly through their numbers, no? After Marian reforms legions did start owning all other infantry, but they were still kinda weak against heavy cavalry and horse archers, as shown by unsuccessful wars against Parthia and surrounding areas. Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said please :3 Roman won most of their battle due to a combination of factors, number wasn't particularly one of them. The use of formation and discipline should be listed at the top one reason. They could out manoeuvre their ennemy because legions were heavily trained to accomplish a certain number of formations, the most famous being testudo. Logistic is another aspect, and the formidable speed of roman legion was a decisive factor in most war (up to 40km per day !). They had a great chain of commands: -The consul or pro-consul was leading the army -A legatus was in charge of a legion, that is between 4000 to 6000 men -Centurion were in charge of 10 decurions -Decurion were in charge of ten mens They had a banner and cor system to communicate, also their general wasn't busy fighting: he was busy giving orders, which was a great advantage over hellenic style of leadership. To me the most interesting argument in Roman militaristic superiority is to be found in their political system during the republic. The fact that patricians were seeking for glory and honour is the main explaining factor to roman expansion at that time, and the same can be said about citizens who formed the core of the Roman war machine. To gain gravitas, or credibility in public life, you had to serve your time. Up to 20 years of military service ! The financial aspect of roman militaristic history is also a topic on its own. Note that I agree with the parts I've removed from your post, but I do have some small quibbles with this post. You are mixing and matching a number of different periods of the roman army here. The famous 40km a day (point of order, 40km was a forced march, 30km was the goal Caesar set, and he was considered a harsh disciplinarian in that aspect) was only achievable after Marius removed 90% of the baggage train with his reforms. Any prior army was exactly as slow as any other ancient army (with the exception of Nomadic cultures, one of the reasons they had such problems with the Cimbri). At the start of the republic the chain of command was indeed very clear, One consul would be sent out with an army (usually around 2 Legions maximum) the other would mind the fort at home. The title of proconsul (properly put imperium pro consule) was invented at the time when rome started to field more armies than they had consuls or praetors they could send away (some disagreement here, but usually people cite the creation of the pronvinces as this point so sometime during the punic wars). The individual chain of command varied a lot depending on how the general wanted to use his legates. Some of the most famous Roman blunders happened when two senior dignitaries did not agree with each other (Aurasia, Cannae to name the most famous examples). Until the second Punic War Rome fielded their legions in a pseudo phalanx formation (haestati in the first two lines, followed by 2 lines of principes and a line of triarii was considered the ideal formation 1000man wide 5 ranks deep, if I wasn't on vacation I could cite you a latin source for that). They were actually very inflexible tactically and won their wars against the other latin tribes through a combination of good diplomacy, attrition and pure grit. After Hannibal wrecked them twice Cornelius Scipio (later called Africanus) reformed the Army around the maniple and Centuriae and instituted many of the things you list (chain of command, Centurions, Standards to orient the men, Horn signals to name a few). Before that point few Historians actually considered Rome anything special military wise. The difference between them and their neighbours was that they simply didn't know how to quit, most guesses as to why that was, indeed list the idea of long military service as a "standard" to become a good Roman. While 20 years would be exceptional if the sources can be believed (they are rather scarce for that time period) Almost anyone did at least 5 Campaigns in the Legions. More if you wanted to become a politician (Military Tribune and later Legate was one of the few ways to get noticed as a Youngish Man if you were not an outstanding orator/lawyer). Anyway, back on topic. At the start of the game the Romans probably should be weaker, but frankly it's kinda difficult to code that. You'd need to include at least 3 distinct steps and it would make the game flow much stranger (with the barracks system it already feels artificial enough, but at least does are linked to research, imagine if you simply had to wait and hold out for 60 turns before you could deploy your units in the typical Rome formation...). They kind of gimped Carthage heavily with the two 2 client states. I can understand why they did so, because by rights they should rule 2 entire provinces to start which would overpower them, but the First Punic War can be described best as "Superpower against the annoying gnat who just won't quit and accept peace". The Romans simply kept fighting until Carthage went bankrupt because their entire military was set up around hiring mercenaries (until Hamilcar barcas came around after this specific loss and had to fight 3 years of Rebellion). Since Carthage can recruit units normally in this game, they had to nerf them harshly in some other way One last comment from the historian, the one area where Rome truly outshone all their opponents was Siegecraft. Both the mobile artillery and their construction to siege cities was unmatched until the Trebuchet was reinvented in the late middle ages. Edit: after watching the extra credit episode, I must give those guys credit they actually condensed the first punic war down well for a 5 minute clip. Guess I'll show that episode to my students in the review session at some point Well, Gaius Claudius Nero clearly didn't know that, as he force-marched north some 500-600 km in 10 days before the battle of Metaurus in order to defeat Hasdrubal Barca although to be fair, he -wasn't- burdened with the baggage train as he was supplied by the local italian socii, but i had to point out that occurence still, that's an incredible feat anyways,so if the roman army was somewhat as slow as any other civilized force when burdened with baggage, it could be much faster even in pre-marian time, given the right circumstances. The manipular legion invention is traditionally attributed to Marcus Furius Camillus, during the Samnite wars; besides only the triarii fight in a fashion vaguely resembling hoplites,both hastati and principes fight much more like iberian mercenaries (scutarii, to be more precise, which were the specific inspiration for their redesign of both their sword (gladius) and their shield/pila in the first punic war) so i have to disagree with your statement on "pseudo-phalanx legion" in the early game. The Pyrrhic wars are a perfect example of the differences between those 2 army systems. I fear there isn't really a way to make Rome challenging without making the AI and/or have a friend manning an opposing faction, Rome is nerfed enough by the absence of manpower/population in the game (and the italian provinces aren't quite as rich as opposed to say, german ones as historically true) so Carthage needed a nerf too German provinces were rich historically? I thought it was just massive jungles and swamps. Thats why noone ever bothered holding onto territory in Germany.
they were excelent craftsmen and therefore had alot of great trading goods
|
Wealth in the Germanic and Gallic provinces were insignificant in comparison to Italy, Greece, North Africa, and Egypt. The various peoples in those regions had advanced metalworking capabilities and crafted quality goods, yes, but there was little wealth to be found in lieu of slaves and trade goods. The reason the Romans never conquered the rest of Germany was because there wasn't anything there (okay, there are a million and one other reasons, but in large part taking control of more fucking forests doesn't really appeal to anyone).
Egypt alone provided more revenue to the Empire than all other provinces combined (circa 3rd century AD to be sure, but it's indicative of the wealth of the area). Carthage had some 20 times the trade revenue of Athens at its peak.
|
Just wondering guys... They took away Heroic Victory from Rome 2? Just played a battle in that l killed over 1000 units and lost 0 units, but still after the battle it said just "Decisive Victory" if you played a battle like that in Shogun 2 it would definetly say that its heroic =/.
|
On September 07 2013 18:32 QueenMortis wrote:
Just wondering guys... They took away Heroic Victory from Rome 2? Just played a battle in that l killed over 1000 units and lost 0 units, but still after the battle it said just "Decisive Victory" if you played a battle like that in Shogun 2 it would definetly say that its heroic =/.
Heroic depends on the balance of forces, though. If you're slaughtering peasants with royal-guard units, you're not going to get heroic no matter how many you kill
|
I dont understand how they managed to make the Siege AI dumber from Shogun 2 to Rome 2. I just dont get it
|
On September 07 2013 13:28 Skirmjan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 08:35 Tula wrote:On September 07 2013 06:37 aXa wrote:On September 07 2013 05:35 Scip wrote:On September 06 2013 20:54 DonKey_ wrote:
Well so far I have about 50 turns into a Rome, Egypt, and Carthage. With a bit played on Macedon, and Suebi as well.
The order of difficulty so far from easiest to hardest has been: Rome >>>>>> Egypt >> Macedon > Carthage > Suebi.
Rome is expectantly CRAZY broken with the most efficient and elite units at every point in the game so far, as well as having a very nice starting position.
Egypt was much stronger than I expected due to the fact that starting turn 1 with a province is REALLY strong, and everyone around you is a nomadic nobody with no allies. Another fun thing with Egypt is just how much easier it is to trade with others since you start with a province that has 2 wheat, and an iron(and 2 wonders...), plus they actually have good units when you hit their tier 2 barracks. Being Hellenic is nice too.
Macedon felt like you could have a nice set up, but I lost 2 cities in Macedon to Sparta who was my ally, and pretty much everyone around me hated me.
Carthage was kind of annoying with it feeling like your client sates hurt you more than help you. I love their hoplite shields though.
Suebi felt kinda fun with the confederation mechanic, but then I realized when I got powerful I had basically 2 units(beserkers and swordmasters) to look forward too.
I really want balance mods to come out fast. >< I don't know nearly enough about ancient warfare to be confident, but wouldn't it make sense that roman soldiers pre-marian reform would be somewhat weaker than that of other nations? IIRC, they weren't used to the chain of command and things like that, so you couldn't pull off crazy maneuvers in battles and stuff. Their armament wasn't any more technologically advanced than that of their enemies (leather/iron chainmail, etc.). They really won mostly through their numbers, no? After Marian reforms legions did start owning all other infantry, but they were still kinda weak against heavy cavalry and horse archers, as shown by unsuccessful wars against Parthia and surrounding areas. Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said please :3 Roman won most of their battle due to a combination of factors, number wasn't particularly one of them. The use of formation and discipline should be listed at the top one reason. They could out manoeuvre their ennemy because legions were heavily trained to accomplish a certain number of formations, the most famous being testudo. Logistic is another aspect, and the formidable speed of roman legion was a decisive factor in most war (up to 40km per day !). They had a great chain of commands: -The consul or pro-consul was leading the army -A legatus was in charge of a legion, that is between 4000 to 6000 men -Centurion were in charge of 10 decurions -Decurion were in charge of ten mens They had a banner and cor system to communicate, also their general wasn't busy fighting: he was busy giving orders, which was a great advantage over hellenic style of leadership. To me the most interesting argument in Roman militaristic superiority is to be found in their political system during the republic. The fact that patricians were seeking for glory and honour is the main explaining factor to roman expansion at that time, and the same can be said about citizens who formed the core of the Roman war machine. To gain gravitas, or credibility in public life, you had to serve your time. Up to 20 years of military service ! The financial aspect of roman militaristic history is also a topic on its own. Note that I agree with the parts I've removed from your post, but I do have some small quibbles with this post. You are mixing and matching a number of different periods of the roman army here. The famous 40km a day (point of order, 40km was a forced march, 30km was the goal Caesar set, and he was considered a harsh disciplinarian in that aspect) was only achievable after Marius removed 90% of the baggage train with his reforms. Any prior army was exactly as slow as any other ancient army (with the exception of Nomadic cultures, one of the reasons they had such problems with the Cimbri). At the start of the republic the chain of command was indeed very clear, One consul would be sent out with an army (usually around 2 Legions maximum) the other would mind the fort at home. The title of proconsul (properly put imperium pro consule) was invented at the time when rome started to field more armies than they had consuls or praetors they could send away (some disagreement here, but usually people cite the creation of the pronvinces as this point so sometime during the punic wars). The individual chain of command varied a lot depending on how the general wanted to use his legates. Some of the most famous Roman blunders happened when two senior dignitaries did not agree with each other (Aurasia, Cannae to name the most famous examples). Until the second Punic War Rome fielded their legions in a pseudo phalanx formation (haestati in the first two lines, followed by 2 lines of principes and a line of triarii was considered the ideal formation 1000man wide 5 ranks deep, if I wasn't on vacation I could cite you a latin source for that). They were actually very inflexible tactically and won their wars against the other latin tribes through a combination of good diplomacy, attrition and pure grit. After Hannibal wrecked them twice Cornelius Scipio (later called Africanus) reformed the Army around the maniple and Centuriae and instituted many of the things you list (chain of command, Centurions, Standards to orient the men, Horn signals to name a few). Before that point few Historians actually considered Rome anything special military wise. The difference between them and their neighbours was that they simply didn't know how to quit, most guesses as to why that was, indeed list the idea of long military service as a "standard" to become a good Roman. While 20 years would be exceptional if the sources can be believed (they are rather scarce for that time period) Almost anyone did at least 5 Campaigns in the Legions. More if you wanted to become a politician (Military Tribune and later Legate was one of the few ways to get noticed as a Youngish Man if you were not an outstanding orator/lawyer). Anyway, back on topic. At the start of the game the Romans probably should be weaker, but frankly it's kinda difficult to code that. You'd need to include at least 3 distinct steps and it would make the game flow much stranger (with the barracks system it already feels artificial enough, but at least does are linked to research, imagine if you simply had to wait and hold out for 60 turns before you could deploy your units in the typical Rome formation...). They kind of gimped Carthage heavily with the two 2 client states. I can understand why they did so, because by rights they should rule 2 entire provinces to start which would overpower them, but the First Punic War can be described best as "Superpower against the annoying gnat who just won't quit and accept peace". The Romans simply kept fighting until Carthage went bankrupt because their entire military was set up around hiring mercenaries (until Hamilcar barcas came around after this specific loss and had to fight 3 years of Rebellion). Since Carthage can recruit units normally in this game, they had to nerf them harshly in some other way One last comment from the historian, the one area where Rome truly outshone all their opponents was Siegecraft. Both the mobile artillery and their construction to siege cities was unmatched until the Trebuchet was reinvented in the late middle ages. Edit: after watching the extra credit episode, I must give those guys credit they actually condensed the first punic war down well for a 5 minute clip. Guess I'll show that episode to my students in the review session at some point Well, Gaius Claudius Nero clearly didn't know that, as he force-marched north some 500-600 km in 10 days before the battle of Metaurus in order to defeat Hasdrubal Barca although to be fair, he -wasn't- burdened with the baggage train as he was supplied by the local italian socii, but i had to point out that occurence still, that's an incredible feat anyways,so if the roman army was somewhat as slow as any other civilized force when burdened with baggage, it could be much faster even in pre-marian time, given the right circumstances. The manipular legion invention is traditionally attributed to Marcus Furius Camillus, during the Samnite wars; besides only the triarii fight in a fashion vaguely resembling hoplites,both hastati and principes fight much more like iberian mercenaries (scutarii, to be more precise, which were the specific inspiration for their redesign of both their sword (gladius) and their shield/pila in the first punic war) so i have to disagree with your statement on "pseudo-phalanx legion" in the early game. The Pyrrhic wars are a perfect example of the differences between those 2 army systems. I fear there isn't really a way to make Rome challenging without making the AI and/or have a friend manning an opposing faction, Rome is nerfed enough by the absence of manpower/population in the game (and the italian provinces aren't quite as rich as opposed to say, german ones as historically true) so Carthage needed a nerf too
Wasn't thr manipular system created exactly because the greek phalanx style they used was not fit for the hills Samnium? Since thr manipal system gave them a lot of added mobility which was a huge advantage against the phalanx which would get decimated when out flanked. Also a centurio commanded 80 troops instead of 100.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
