|
On September 07 2013 18:54 Skilledblob wrote:
I dont understand how they managed to make the Siege AI dumber from Shogun 2 to Rome 2. I just dont get it
First siege defense I had the AI had no siege engines so I thought "oh it'll be like Shogun, they'll all have ladders". The AI charged his spearmen at my gate, so I thought "ahhh it'll be like the first Medieval, melee units can damage the gate slowly". The units sat at the gate and did nothing, so I finally submitted to "ahhh the AI is terrible as usual".
Then I tried to speed the game up but on 3x it went at exactly the same speed just utterly unresponsive. Yes I have an old computer, but the game is just as broken as ever.
I wasn't going to get Rome as I am a sceptical person and haven't thought much of TW since M2 (Fall of the Samurai was good though) but some genorous bugger went and bought it for me, against my will :/
|
On September 07 2013 19:14 3Form wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 18:54 Skilledblob wrote:
I dont understand how they managed to make the Siege AI dumber from Shogun 2 to Rome 2. I just dont get it First siege defense I had the AI had no siege engines so I thought "oh it'll be like Shogun, they'll all have ladders". The AI charged his spearmen at my gate, so I thought "ahhh it'll be like the first Medieval, melee units can damage the gate slowly". The units sat at the gate and did nothing, so I finally submitted to "ahhh the AI is terrible as usual". Then I tried to speed the game up but on 3x it went at exactly the same speed just utterly unresponsive. Yes I have an old computer, but the game is just as broken as ever. I wasn't going to get Rome as I am a sceptical person and haven't thought much of TW since M2 (Fall of the Samurai was good though) but some genorous bugger went and bought it for me, against my will :/
Sitting at the gate has to do with the buggy attack gate mechanics atm >< I've had it with my own units aswell that they just stand there and you have to give the order several times before they attack the gate.
What people mostly mean with he bad siege AI is that they will not react at all to your movements when they are defending. Archers on the walls dont move and armies inside the city dont react until your already well inside.
It really is a lot worse then the Shogun 2 AI which reacted pretty well to what the player was doing.
|
Israel2209 Posts
Just picked up this game, and I played a lot of TW in the past, but haven't touched it in years so I'm a pretty big noob at this point.
Unfortunately I chose the British tribe for my campaign (Iceni) and I'm really not feeling their units at all. My TW memories are of epic Triarii formations, not these unruly barbarians, so I am AI'ing most battles 
And the entire building tech tree is also fairly annoying. There are too many options and somehow it still feels limiting instead of interesting.
After 70 turns, starting a new campaign seems silly...
Any ideas how to enjoy this game?
|
On September 07 2013 08:32 Sermokala wrote:
the province system is an improvement on shogun. the art style is better. The battles actaly have more then one faction (instead of one faction with different recolors and bonus's to different troops). The recruitment style is literaly no different then any other total war game. back with rome you just had to spend one turn in a city that had the recruitment and your entire army instantly came back. in empire your army only needed 2 turns in somewhat friendly territory. in shogun you didn't even need to spend money and they just magically replenished. I mean shit guys if you're going to complain about shit at least give coherent reasons other then "factions appear unfinished to me". apparently the balance in multiplier is pretty good past rome being 1a masters. Its far better that every province has an actual faction now instead of rome 1 and m2tw where everywhere there was random rebel provinces for you to easymode take for the first dozen turns or so.
I don't get what people are seeing so wrong about the game. are my standards really this low? after a really substandard season of games this year (outside of EU4 I guess) I guess I'm just willing to
Perhaps.
Many people complain about intented features that work fine. But there is alot of stuff thats not well thought out. And there is a lot of stuff thats simply not working which should be working because its so easy to spot. The game has potential as many people said, but the state they released it in is just two steps back for every step forward.
To my taste the battles are too fast, and there is lack of tactical and strategical depth. The interface is not very useful and frankly a bit confusing.
The campaign however is where the real mess begins... Many things about internal and external diplomacy are just not properly fleshed out (i mean the trading empire of carthage cant get a trading agreement with anyone...). Theyre good ideas but right now most of them dont work or are not worth it, or are not clear how they work. The info providing piece is flawed in many ways and cumbersome, as the rest of the campaign. Turns take ages, not only to process but also to do stuff. A turn is a year, but movement in no way resembles this. Im aware its a game, but when you limit armies, but also take away walls in minor settlements and do not put a proper garrison in place (cmon... Capua defended by a garrison of Mob Soldiers??!??!?! Where are the splendid citizen militias) and when on top of that it takes ages to move armies around (even on forced march) it just becomes very frustrating to hold your empire together. Specially since the small nations no one ever heard of (which is a good implementation) spam 20/20 stacks as if there is no tomorrow and then run them all across the map in fleets and what not. Agents atm arent that useful, and many of their overexpensive actions are bugged. Has anyone already succeeded in converting an enemy agent to your cause? Because so far even with 95% succes rate, i havent succeeded. The way land armies get transported out on to sea needs to be balanced. Right now there is too little drawback, and land armies are apparantly also formidable marines. There needs to be a drawback.
The worst part is, i dont see them fixing it because hundreds of thousands of people are enjoying the game apparantly and there is just so much that needs to be rebalanced that I think we really need a golden generation of modders to make this right. Because, it can be so... so awesome.
|
On September 07 2013 19:14 3Form wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 18:54 Skilledblob wrote:
I dont understand how they managed to make the Siege AI dumber from Shogun 2 to Rome 2. I just dont get it First siege defense I had the AI had no siege engines so I thought "oh it'll be like Shogun, they'll all have ladders". The AI charged his spearmen at my gate, so I thought "ahhh it'll be like the first Medieval, melee units can damage the gate slowly". The units sat at the gate and did nothing, so I finally submitted to "ahhh the AI is terrible as usual". Then I tried to speed the game up but on 3x it went at exactly the same speed just utterly unresponsive. Yes I have an old computer, but the game is just as broken as ever. I wasn't going to get Rome as I am a sceptical person and haven't thought much of TW since M2 (Fall of the Samurai was good though) but some genorous bugger went and bought it for me, against my will :/
was that the tutorial? Speeding up doesnt work in tutorial, but works in campaign for me.
|
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
Just want to say, this sort of stuff is wonderful!!!! I love when someone drops in and schools us on some (relatively) finer points.
|
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
Yes if they abandoned the baggage train they could force march amazingly in the right circumstances (so could the Spartans or any other army for that matter as long as the general in command had the right authority to make it happen).
We are talking about two different things with the manipular legion there. You are talking about organisation while I was talking about tactics. Yes their marching order sorted stuff by maniples (also to make it easier to break off small units, in the Samnite wars 1 Legion was considered an army by itself), but for battle the "standard plan" was to line up in the 5 lines to create a disciplined shield wall, anchored by the most experienced men possible. Yes I can also list a few battles where they tried to do things differently, but by and large that was the way they approached battles.
And the reason I said pseudo phalanx was precisely because they had little in common with hoplites, even from the earliest points. To my knowledge they never used overreaching spears or anything similar even with their trarii, but they still lined up in similar formations at that point in time.
|
On September 07 2013 19:52 TSORG wrote:
Agents atm arent that useful, and many of their overexpensive actions are bugged.
we're playing different games then, my spies are ridiculously useful with inciting revolts, can i ask if when your trying to turn an agent if your "maxed" on that agent type already? if so then thats probably the reason its not working
also champions provide veteran ranks if you merge them with your army, it can get ridiculous very quickly
|
On September 07 2013 18:13 Elegy wrote:
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.
Gaul was by far one of the richest land at that time. The Gallic tribes were craftsmen, traders and farmers, they had pretty much everything, compared for example to egypt, which was mainly a giant wheat granary. When Caesar conquered Gaul, he came back with an amazing loot that allowed him to pay for his army long enough to seize the power, and that was not a small thing.
|
On September 07 2013 21:01 SCkad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 19:52 TSORG wrote:
Agents atm arent that useful, and many of their overexpensive actions are bugged. we're playing different games then, my spies are ridiculously useful with inciting revolts, can i ask if when your trying to turn an agent if your "maxed" on that agent type already? if so then thats probably the reason its not working also champions provide veteran ranks if you merge them with your army, it can get ridiculous very quickly
im not maxed. I used a spy to turn a dignitary, but even with 95% succesrate prediction, it didnt work. I kept burning money on it... but nothing.
I havent used spies to incite revolt yet, perhaps theyre useful for that.
|
On September 07 2013 20:02 sc4k 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 Just want to say, this sort of stuff is wonderful!!!! I love when someone drops in and schools us on some (relatively) finer points.
Indeed, it is one of the reasons i like this kind of games, awakens a lot of curiosity over historical stuff.
|
Israel2209 Posts
On September 07 2013 21:12 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 21:01 SCkad wrote:On September 07 2013 19:52 TSORG wrote:
Agents atm arent that useful, and many of their overexpensive actions are bugged. we're playing different games then, my spies are ridiculously useful with inciting revolts, can i ask if when your trying to turn an agent if your "maxed" on that agent type already? if so then thats probably the reason its not working also champions provide veteran ranks if you merge them with your army, it can get ridiculous very quickly im not maxed. I used a spy to turn a dignitary, but even with 95% succesrate prediction, it didnt work. I kept burning money on it... but nothing. I havent used spies to incite revolt yet, perhaps theyre useful for that.
I've had a spy maxed out on poisoning and it killed literally any other agent I encountered, as well as many generals.
|
On September 07 2013 20:12 Tula 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 Yes if they abandoned the baggage train they could force march amazingly in the right circumstances (so could the Spartans or any other army for that matter as long as the general in command had the right authority to make it happen). We are talking about two different things with the manipular legion there. You are talking about organisation while I was talking about tactics. Yes their marching order sorted stuff by maniples (also to make it easier to break off small units, in the Samnite wars 1 Legion was considered an army by itself), but for battle the "standard plan" was to line up in the 5 lines to create a disciplined shield wall, anchored by the most experienced men possible. Yes I can also list a few battles where they tried to do things differently, but by and large that was the way they approached battles. And the reason I said pseudo phalanx was precisely because they had little in common with hoplites, even from the earliest points. To my knowledge they never used overreaching spears or anything similar even with their trarii, but they still lined up in similar formations at that point in time.
This 5 line maniple system you seem to have in mind does not correspond to either of the major sources for the Punic Wars (Livy and Polybius) or the Samnite Wars (Livy).
If I may quote Livy XIII, 8, 3-8
'[3] The Romans had formerly used small round shields; then, after they began to serve for pay, they made oblong shields instead of round ones; [4] and what had before been a phalanx, like the Macedonian phalanxes, came afterwards to be a line of battle formed by maniples, with the rearmost troops drawn up in a number of companies. [5] The first line, or hastati, comprised fifteen maniples, stationed a short distance apart; the maniple had twenty light —armed soldiers, the rest of their number carried oblong shields; moreover those were called “light —armed” who carried only a spear and javelins. [6] this front line in the battle contained the flower of the young men who were growing ripe for service. behind These came a line of the same number of maniples, made up of men of a more stalwart age; these were called the principes; they carried oblong shields and were the most showily armed of all. [7] this body of thirty maniples they called antepilani, because behind the standards there were again stationed other fifteen companies, each of which had three sections, the first section in every company being known as pilus. [8] The company consisted of three vexilla or “banners”; a single vexillum had sixty soldiers, two centurions, one vexillarius, or colourbearer; the company numbered a hundred and eighty —six men. The first banner led the triarii, veteran soldiers of proven valour; the second banner the rorarii, younger and less distinguished men; the [p. 33]third banner the accensi, who were the least dependable, and were, for that reason, assigned to the rear most line.'
Livy goes on to talk of how the three lines would engage, the hastati first, followed by the principes, and then if all else failed the triarii (literally meaning the thirds, or third line) however I shant quote that because I have already quoted a large chunk of words, it is however Livy XIII, 8, 9-13 if you are interested in reading up on it.
This is written as taking place in 340BC as it happens, before the first Punic war of 264BC as you seem to have it dated.
As well as this the Romans prior to this did fight as a phalanx, a mode of fighting they had inherited from the Etruscans including the use of small round shields extremely similar to those of a phalanx.
|
On September 07 2013 21:18 Noam wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 21:12 TSORG wrote:On September 07 2013 21:01 SCkad wrote:On September 07 2013 19:52 TSORG wrote:
Agents atm arent that useful, and many of their overexpensive actions are bugged. we're playing different games then, my spies are ridiculously useful with inciting revolts, can i ask if when your trying to turn an agent if your "maxed" on that agent type already? if so then thats probably the reason its not working also champions provide veteran ranks if you merge them with your army, it can get ridiculous very quickly im not maxed. I used a spy to turn a dignitary, but even with 95% succesrate prediction, it didnt work. I kept burning money on it... but nothing. I havent used spies to incite revolt yet, perhaps theyre useful for that. I've had a spy maxed out on poisoning and it killed literally any other agent I encountered, as well as many generals.
killing works fine, but you can also convert them to your side. which so far i have had no succes with even when having higher succes predictions for the action than with killing.
|
On September 07 2013 18:13 Elegy wrote:
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.
yea that's what i meant, but since it was pretty late i had a wording failure i guess gonna edit it
Gaul was rich when compared to Germany, but until the invention of the heavy plow northern europe was pretty scarcely populated due to low agricultural output when compared with softer mediterranean terrain...
Tbh, having played a lot of Rome 1 multiplayer and some Shogun2 i'd say that multiplayer balance is a step back (although rome 1 worked the same way), with only the strongest units appearing to be viable (so rome will only bring praetorian guards, macedon will only bring pezetairoi ecc) i'd say that's due to overpricing of the weaker units, for example hastati costing half as much as praetorians is probably just too expensive, why would i take them?
|
On September 07 2013 21:25 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 21:18 Noam wrote:On September 07 2013 21:12 TSORG wrote:On September 07 2013 21:01 SCkad wrote:On September 07 2013 19:52 TSORG wrote:
Agents atm arent that useful, and many of their overexpensive actions are bugged. we're playing different games then, my spies are ridiculously useful with inciting revolts, can i ask if when your trying to turn an agent if your "maxed" on that agent type already? if so then thats probably the reason its not working also champions provide veteran ranks if you merge them with your army, it can get ridiculous very quickly im not maxed. I used a spy to turn a dignitary, but even with 95% succesrate prediction, it didnt work. I kept burning money on it... but nothing. I havent used spies to incite revolt yet, perhaps theyre useful for that. I've had a spy maxed out on poisoning and it killed literally any other agent I encountered, as well as many generals. killing works fine, but you can also convert them to your side. which so far i have had no succes with even when having higher succes predictions for the action than with killing.
yes converting works fine for every class of agent. I had additional agents of every kind despite being on my limit. Like 4/3 spies and stuff. Really useful. (Playing as arverni on legendary in case thats important)
|
On September 07 2013 19:47 Noam wrote:Just picked up this game, and I played a lot of TW in the past, but haven't touched it in years so I'm a pretty big noob at this point. Unfortunately I chose the British tribe for my campaign (Iceni) and I'm really not feeling their units at all. My TW memories are of epic Triarii formations, not these unruly barbarians, so I am AI'ing most battles And the entire building tech tree is also fairly annoying. There are too many options and somehow it still feels limiting instead of interesting. After 70 turns, starting a new campaign seems silly... Any ideas how to enjoy this game?
Multiplayer?
In all honesty, with the A.I. being utter trash, getting together with some friendly folks and going back and forth in matches is probably the best way to enjoy this game right now, unfortunately. And I say "unfortunately" because the single-player and co-op campaigns need massive tweaking and optimizing to surpass the MP of this game. :-\
Pro Tip: This different camera view may help some a ton of y'all. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=175484631#-1
On September 07 2013 21:25 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 21:18 Noam wrote:On September 07 2013 21:12 TSORG wrote:On September 07 2013 21:01 SCkad wrote:On September 07 2013 19:52 TSORG wrote:
Agents atm arent that useful, and many of their overexpensive actions are bugged. we're playing different games then, my spies are ridiculously useful with inciting revolts, can i ask if when your trying to turn an agent if your "maxed" on that agent type already? if so then thats probably the reason its not working also champions provide veteran ranks if you merge them with your army, it can get ridiculous very quickly im not maxed. I used a spy to turn a dignitary, but even with 95% succesrate prediction, it didnt work. I kept burning money on it... but nothing. I havent used spies to incite revolt yet, perhaps theyre useful for that. I've had a spy maxed out on poisoning and it killed literally any other agent I encountered, as well as many generals. killing works fine, but you can also convert them to your side. which so far i have had no succes with even when having higher succes predictions for the action than with killing.
It might depend on which Manipulation option you choose, as well as what kind of a person the target is (I bet this is where Zeal, Authority, and Cunning come in...). I've run into the same problem; 95% success, but the enemy is only "hindered." Try a different option even though there's a smaller chance of success and see if you get a different result.
|
|
|
On September 07 2013 19:53 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 19:14 3Form wrote:On September 07 2013 18:54 Skilledblob wrote:
I dont understand how they managed to make the Siege AI dumber from Shogun 2 to Rome 2. I just dont get it First siege defense I had the AI had no siege engines so I thought "oh it'll be like Shogun, they'll all have ladders". The AI charged his spearmen at my gate, so I thought "ahhh it'll be like the first Medieval, melee units can damage the gate slowly". The units sat at the gate and did nothing, so I finally submitted to "ahhh the AI is terrible as usual". Then I tried to speed the game up but on 3x it went at exactly the same speed just utterly unresponsive. Yes I have an old computer, but the game is just as broken as ever. I wasn't going to get Rome as I am a sceptical person and haven't thought much of TW since M2 (Fall of the Samurai was good though) but some genorous bugger went and bought it for me, against my will :/ was that the tutorial? Speeding up doesnt work in tutorial, but works in campaign for me.
Nah it was the campaign. Remeniscent of the old days when Medieval 2 was released and I was trying to play it on a 667MHz pentium. CPU just can't handle doing everything at speed. I'm on a dual core at 3.3GHz right now so that's probably my issue
|
On September 06 2013 12:59 julianto wrote:http://imgur.com/kq77LGRWhat does the green haze/aura around my unit mean? At first I couldn't attack anything, and it had spikes protruding from it, which I didn't order. I think this was an effect of agents, but I don't know how to get rid of the effect.
Is in not disease? I've seen it a few times along with attrition and disease in the city nearby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/kq77LGR)
