Rome: Total War questions

[Eldan]

So, I didn't want to clutter up the Let's Play thread with this.

I saw the Let's Play and got a desire to play, since I haven't played any strategy games in a few months. Found it in a bargain bin.

My first question: how do you play the non-Roman factions? It was mentioned in the LP that it's possible, and it's done there, but the campaign only lets me select the Romans. A text edit was mentioned, how does this work?

[gathro]

Yes it works. I did it a long time ago, not exactly sure how. I think you go into program files-whatever folder you have it installed in. You find it, and there's a folder called gamedata or something. I think that's the right one. Once you're there, there's some file that you edit. I'd recommend looking on google for it. You could also try this (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php) site.

[Kzickas]

Data\world\maps\campaign\imperial_campaign
there's a file called descr_strat.txt, cut the factions you want from unlockable and nonplayable and paste them in playable.

Oh, and thanks for reading

[Coidzor]

I hear that there's some highly popular mods of the game as well. Anyone favor any in particular?

[Eldan]

Europa Barbarorum is famous, of course. I might try it later. Apparently, a few people thought the game was not accurate enough (I can't really judge it, my understanding of history comes from reading documentaries and a few books) and changed it, adding new factions (several gauls) and changing units to be more accurate (no lorica segmentata on early legionaries, Greek Egyptians) and so on. According to their site, they have several archaeologists and historians in their team.

And thanks for the advice, Kzickas.

[SurlySeraph]

Usually new factions become playable after you've defeated them in a campaign, but what's mentioned above is the non-grind-requiring way to make them playable.

[Eldan]

Ah, that actually makes sense. My version didn't come with a manual, so I didn't really know that. Still, I prefer the way the other games do it, all playable from the start.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I hear that there's some highly popular mods of the game as well. Anyone favor any in particular?

2 mods over all others.

Europa Barborum, and Roma Surrectum 2.


Europa Barborum started out as an attempt to give SOME historical basis to the game. (I mean, non-Greek Egypt? Pink Parthians? Roman Ninjas?) It also ended up extending the map into the Indus valley and area, farther East. The factions are:
the Romans (Start only Central Italy, not the far south, nor the Far North)
the Carthaginians (Start with most of North Africa, a base in Sicily, and a good amount of Spain)
Macedon (Most of Greece and the southern tip of the Balkans
Seleucid Empire (From Central-ish-Anatolia to Antioch to the far East)
Ptolemaic Empire (Which is Egypt, effectively, only it was never Pharaonic egypt like the base game shows, this is the real egypt as it was, greek. They also have most of the Holy Land)
Epirus (With the great general Pyrrhus, who gave us the phrase "Phyrric Victory". He was considered at the time to be the greatest general since Alexander. They have the Albania/Epirus area, as well as part of Southern Italy, and start able to sack the Macedonian capital on the first turn!)
The Aitolean League (Rhodos, Athens, and Crete)
the Bactrians (Part Greek, Part Eastern in culture, They start in Afghanistan-ish area)
the Parthians (They start just to the east of the Caspian)
The Saka Rauka (Far eastern steppe warriors. Start in far North-East corner of the map)
the Sarmatians (not the scythians, the scythians were weak by now, the Sarmatians ruled the Russian steppes)
the Getae (A Dacian tribe, start just south of the Carpathian Mountains)
Pontos (They're Graeco-Persian in culture, start on the Northern shore of Anatolia)
the Sweboz (A German tribe, start just south of Denmark)
The Casse (A British tribe, start with just Essex/Kent/Sussex area)
The Lusitanians (A Spanish tribe, start with Portugal area)
The Sabae (in modern day Yemen)
And the Auduie and Averni, two Gallish tribes, pretty much equally splitting France, with the Auedui also getting Milan area of Italy.
Hayasdan (Basically Armenia)


Generally, it's a muuuuch harder campaign, but also much more in depth. It's amazing fun.


Also amazing fun is Roma Surrectum II. It starts a good coupla years after the normal start, it starts with Hannibal about to fight a battle in Italy. Rome starts at war with Carthage. It boasts the prettiest graphics yet for a Rome game. Almost as pretty as Empire, no lie. They completely redid all the terrain on battle-maps too. It's wonderful. However, it's more than slightly focused towards the Romans, who are given much more polish and detail than the other factions. The other factions are still fun, but it's not like EB where every faction got the same amount of detail. But the amount of detail RSII goes into... they also go later in the timeframe, and have 28 individually named Legions you can recruit, as well as 2 different civil wars scripted, one to represent the rebellion of Southern Italy against Roman rule if Carthage starts to win at all, the other to represent the civil war once the Empire has expanded enough.
The factions are:
The Romans (Part of Sicily, all but Northern Italy, and one province in Spain
The Roman Rebels
Carthage (Pretty much same as before)
Macedon (Pretty much same as before)
Ptolemy(Pretty much same as before)
Seleucids(Pretty much same as before)
Parthians(Pretty much same as before)
The Belgae (Belgian/British faction. May seem like an odd combination, but historically the Belgians did invade Britain)
The Boii (A Celto-German people based in Austria. Famed for being the fiercest warriors around)
Cimbri (German people based in Denmark)
Averni(Yay Gauls!)
Gallaeci (Northern Spain)
Pergamon (greek City state on west coast of Anatolia)
Sarmatia (Same as before)
Pontus (Still the same)
Scythia (They're actually part greek now, a mix of steppe and greek culture, on the west coast of the black sea.)
Armenia (Yaaay, Armenia!)
Dacia (did I mention the word 'same' yet?)
SPARTA!
and the Free Greeks, a faction that includes just about ALL the greek colonies, from colonies in the Crimea, to Crete, to Syracuse, to Massilia on the southern coast of France


I would recommend both. Just a warning though, RSII over-writes your base game files, so create a copy of all your files before installing it.

[Rustic Dude]

I recommend getting Europa Barbarorum ASAP, and getting RSII only if you are a Roman nut. Then it is perfect.

[Flickerdart]

Hm, what are the system requirements on RSII? I can't even run Medieval 2 on this thing (integrated video card makes me sad) but enough compatibility mode shenanigans and Windows 7 shouldn't be a problem for Rome.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Hm, what are the system requirements on RSII? I can't even run Medieval 2 on this thing (integrated video card makes me sad) but enough compatibility mode shenanigans and Windows 7 shouldn't be a problem for Rome.

I dunno. Changing the settings isn't hard, it CAN run on the lowest-end computers, it'll just be ugly as anything, which sorta defeats the point.

[Eldan]

So I got Europa Barbarorum. You can tell they had historians on their team: they love to dump pages and pages of text on you :smallwink:
So far, I've read eight of 20 faction descriptions, and I have no idea who to play. I'll probably just go with the less hard ones, so Rome, most likely.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

So I got Europa Barbarorum. You can tell they had historians on their team: they love to dump pages and pages of text on you :smallwink:
So far, I've read eight of 20 faction descriptions, and I have no idea who to play. I'll probably just go with the less hard ones, so Rome, most likely.

Play Rome your first time. Everyone else will make you cry at first.

And yeah, I've learned so much from EB, and RSII too, to a lesser extent. They both like flaunting history knowledge. I don't mind, I learn a lot!

[Eldan]

Okay, so, perhaps I should have played the Tutorial first. But it all seemed so much like in Medieval, I thought I could manage. But there's so many menus...

Anyway. Started as rome, attacked a province to the north, found out they outnumbered me 2:1 and my general was crap, got beaten. I think next time Ill actually recruit an army first:smallbiggrin:

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

With Rome, Generally the south is a better bet. Take all the troops you can out of your cities, just for now, and use them to capture the south of Italy. Once you have that, You can probably get Liguria. After that, your decision on whether finish off North Italy, head either way along the coast, or take on Carthage.
No matter what you choose, you WILL need more men, and some garrisons. Don't bother with a navy at first, it's just a waste of money. Use it to get your spies on to the mainland, then disband it: it takes a lot of investment to be able to beat the Carthaginian, Epirote, Macedonian, or Greek navies, just as it was historically.

[gathro]

...has no one mentioned Rome:Total Realism yet? RTR 6 is a great mod for either the first version or BI. It's a great one to try out, I've always heard it mentioned along with EB. There's also an extended realism version of it, and I feel this is one of the best Grand Campaigns. (Full map of original or more) The new version RTR VII, is definitely something to watch out for as well. There's a small scale version of it available now, Fate of Empires. It doesn't have anything east of the western shore of Greece, but it has a lot of changes, and is actually a huge map. (You won't be able to conquer Spain in 5 turns with this mod) You should check those both out. (They're modfoldered!)

Also, I have a technical question of my own: I recently got a new computer and installed R:TW on it. However, during installation, my computer went crazy and I had to exit the installation by pressing 'end now' with windows task manager. Now, when I try to start the game, it acts as though the game is installed (Install is grayed out and Play Now is available) but the game does not appear on my list of installed programs and when I press play it doesn't a start. So, I can't uninstall it, can't install it, and can't use it. Any ideas?

[Spiryt]

Personally I found Total Realism to come a little short....

Just on the example of Germanic faction - few extremely similar units, differing with some details, one simply better than another, while coting less.... Other being the same as 4th, only by 1 point of defense, or whatever...

Of course, I can appreciate attempt to create some historically inspired, historically dressed units in place of screaming ladies, berserkers, two handed axeman and other stuff straight from Asterix that was "Germanic" in normal version....

But they just failed to make it really interesting game wise - choice between different units etc.

I didn't play it really though, don't really have mood for games like this for quite a long time. :smallwink:

[Eldan]

Well, Europa Barbarorum seems interesting so far. I'm still getting the hang of all the Roman units (they seem to consist of skirmishers, other skirmishers, more skirmishers, heavy infantry, other heavy infantry and cavalry, and I'm not sure of the differences yet), but I think I got the basic tactics down. Took three cities to the south, so that tip was useful.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Well, Europa Barbarorum seems interesting so far. I'm still getting the hang of all the Roman units (they seem to consist of skirmishers, other skirmishers, more skirmishers, heavy infantry, other heavy infantry and cavalry, and I'm not sure of the differences yet), but I think I got the basic tactics down. Took three cities to the south, so that tip was useful.

I'm not sure what the BEST way to fight with them is, but the HISTORICAL way is to have a Hastati first rank, and then throw in the Principes if the Hastati can't take on the enemy (They probably can't). Then you would throw in the Rorarii, and lastly, if the battle is REALLY not going well, the Triarii, your elites. Your various ranged units, the Leves and dudes, they go in the front, and then once melee is initiated, the flanks. Your cavalry kinda sucks, but it can be used to, well, attempt to fight other cavalry and fail, or hunt down skirmishers.

Once you hit the first army reforms, and get you some sweet red-clothed romans, pretty much same, only it's Velites as your skirmishes, and you have no more crappy Rorarii reserves and suchlike. Generally, I rely on mercenaries for my cavalry.

[Eldan]

So far, my generals supplied enough cavalry.

But I dislike having some of my troops hang back while others fight. It feels like throwing them away. So I usually make a broad two-line formation of the infantry with the cavalry in the flanks and some skirmishers in the front. Some shooting first, then throw the entire infantry in.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

So far, my generals supplied enough cavalry.

But I dislike having some of my troops hang back while others fight. It feels like throwing them away. So I usually make a broad two-line formation of the infantry with the cavalry in the flanks and some skirmishers in the front. Some shooting first, then throw the entire infantry in.

I do that if I ever have a breather in my battle to reorganize. Getting my forces into the checkerboard pattern is damn tricky in the middle of a battle.

EB Alexander keeps crashing on me. It's saddening.

[Eldan]

So far, I've been attacked once and had two sieges and both times, I had plenty of time to drop siege engines and change formation, so that wasn't a problem. All three times the enemy came to me, too.

Still, the only TW game I played before this was medieval 1. And they really improved the combat. I doubt I could just throw blocks of "very good charge" infantry at everything and then set the timer to full speed like I did back then.

[Gaius Marius]

Hello there.

I am interested in picking up the Total War serie, and I want to experience most of the various gameplay potentials. Am not that interested in Shogun, but I'd love to pick up all three Medieval, Rome and Empire.

Obviously, i won't play Medieval 1, as there is a 2 available. But I want to know from the community what is the bet Empire-era game experience.Napoleon or Empire? What mod, what expansions?

Should I pay for all Rome's expansions, or some mods give a better game experience anyway?

In short, all there is to know to optimize my fun/hour ratio for all time period. I thank thee for any help you provide :-)

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

For Rome, there are great mods that use all expansions. You CAN run happily just off of the base game, but the AI improvements are enough to get the expansions. Add on the fact that some of the best mods, such as Aristeia, require Alexander, which is the crappiest expansion they made... yeah. I bought Alexander just so I could get the Aristeia mod. Worth it. That, on top of running other mods through Alex for the AI, I have 42 hours clocked of playing that, and 179 of Rome+Barbarian Invasion.

As for Medieval, get the expansion, if only for the fact that just about ALL the mods use it. I can only think of 2 mods I play that don't: For King or Country, the English Civil War mod, and Broken Crescent, the Muslim mod.

As for Empire vs Napoleon, Napoleon is by far better. It has the best AI of any of the games yet. However, I have yet to really play either, as my computer can barely handle Empire, and not at all Napoleon.

[The_JJ]

So far, I've been attacked once and had two sieges and both times, I had plenty of time to drop siege engines and change formation, so that wasn't a problem. All three times the enemy came to me, too.

Still, the only TW game I played before this was medieval 1. And they really improved the combat. I doubt I could just throw blocks of "very good charge" infantry at everything and then set the timer to full speed like I did back then.

I dunno about mods but my 'bring as much of the heaviest cav you've got, and focus on the edges'* has seen me well through Rome, Med II, and even Napoleon (though my experiments have not always ended well.) Infantry exists only to get people to hold still, and occasionally get shot.

*Mass horse archer's or horse javelins is almost as fun, especially once you realize exactly how effectively javelins munch through heavy infantry armor.

My last vanilla Rome game I ran H/H and was regularly fielding armies of almost all mercs. Usually because in Barbarian land's (Gaul, Iberia) I'd be running ahead of my infantry with cav, grab some mercs for the sieges (and they can stand up well enough to early game barbarian infantry) then dump them on garrison duty and run ahead with my cav again. Fun way to play, if often desperate when you run to far out ahead. Got lucky too, Germania allied with me and gacked the Gauls armies, then got distracted by the Brits before taking any cities.

Over in Greece, meanwhile, I feel you have to run on mercs. Well, hiring Cretan archer's is always a priority no matter what, but the Roman infantry just can't stand up to even militia hoplites. You need range (Baeleric Slingers, Peltasts, Illyrian's, Cretans) and phalanxes of your own (Mercenary Hoplites.)

Still, my favortite faction is the Seleucid's, despite their awful starting position.

[Tavar]

Over in Greece, meanwhile, I feel you have to run on mercs. Well, hiring Cretan archer's is always a priority no matter what, but the Roman infantry just can't stand up to even militia hoplites. You need range (Baeleric Slingers, Peltasts, Illyrian's, Cretans) and phalanxes of your own (Mercenary Hoplites.)

I don't know. Going head on is a losers proposition, yes, but hit them on a flank and they crumple like no one's business. Plus, do it right, and they enemy will keep trying to reorient it's phalanx, letting you slaughter them much more efficiently. Heavy casualties on the blocking forces, but that's what Hastati are for.

[Gaius Marius]

For Rome, there are great mods that use all expansions. You CAN run happily just off of the base game, but the AI improvements are enough to get the expansions. Add on the fact that some of the best mods, such as Aristeia, require Alexander, which is the crappiest expansion they made... yeah. I bought Alexander just so I could get the Aristeia mod. Worth it. That, on top of running other mods through Alex for the AI, I have 42 hours clocked of playing that, and 179 of Rome+Barbarian Invasion.

Thanks! I was interested in the two mods mentionned above, Europea Barbarum and also Roma Surrectum 2 (for a roman-centric game and a nonroman game, respectively). Are they compatible with the expansions?

Also, the expansion Barbarian Invasion sounds a lot of fun. Having european people being unrooted by the invading mongols, and having the former attacking me.. it sounds like quite the challenge!


As for Medieval, get the expansion, if only for the fact that just about ALL the mods use it. I can only think of 2 mods I play that don't: For King or Country, the English Civil War mod, and Broken Crescent, the Muslim mod.

These seem to be very specific. Do you have a genral overhaul mod of the like of Europa Barbarum?


As for Empire vs Napoleon, Napoleon is by far better. It has the best AI of any of the games yet. However, I have yet to really play either, as my computer can barely handle Empire, and not at all Napoleon.

Thanks! Somebody hear of any mod?
If you had to pick a single thing Empire has better than Napoleon, what'll be?

[Eldan]

I dunno about mods but my 'bring as much of the heaviest cav you've got, and focus on the edges'* has seen me well through Rome, Med II, and even Napoleon (though my experiments have not always ended well.) Infantry exists only to get people to hold still, and occasionally get shot.

*Mass horse archer's or horse javelins is almost as fun, especially once you realize exactly how effectively javelins munch through heavy infantry armor.

My last vanilla Rome game I ran H/H and was regularly fielding armies of almost all mercs. Usually because in Barbarian land's (Gaul, Iberia) I'd be running ahead of my infantry with cav, grab some mercs for the sieges (and they can stand up well enough to early game barbarian infantry) then dump them on garrison duty and run ahead with my cav again. Fun way to play, if often desperate when you run to far out ahead. Got lucky too, Germania allied with me and gacked the Gauls armies, then got distracted by the Brits before taking any cities.

Over in Greece, meanwhile, I feel you have to run on mercs. Well, hiring Cretan archer's is always a priority no matter what, but the Roman infantry just can't stand up to even militia hoplites. You need range (Baeleric Slingers, Peltasts, Illyrian's, Cretans) and phalanxes of your own (Mercenary Hoplites.)

Still, my favortite faction is the Seleucid's, despite their awful starting position.

A lot of that changed, actually. Rome starts out with more historical troops, which means that in 270BC, half your troops basically have no armour at all. Your heavy infantry is basically a hoplite, and you have no phalanxes. On the other hand, the Gauls are gleefully slaughtering each other, as are the various greeks, and the Sweboz (Germans) start out pretty small and have to conquer half a dozen independent tribes instead. So, there's no massive threat at the start to the Romans.

[Flickerdart]

Thanks! Somebody hear of any mod?
If you had to pick a single thing Empire has better than Napoleon, what'll be?
Napoleon does away with Preacher agents entirely, which means you have to suck up the religious unrest penalty. It also amps up the assassination chances, so expect your generals knifed on a routine basis. The aggressive AI will backstab you much more often. Most infantry units now take two turns to build instead of one. The Indian and American theatres no longer exist, and neither do the trade theatres. Scandinavia, Africa and Asia are also truncated, which means the Ottoman Empire loses most of its land. There are less factions available, and the mods that you can use to get those factions playable leave you with no special units and god-awful ministers and generals.
But really, none of these change that it's a far superior game.

[Storm Bringer]

Thanks! Somebody hear of any mod?
If you had to pick a single thing Empire has better than Napoleon, what'll be?

Empire gets the "world spanning Empires" part better. Nap is entirely European, while fighting in Empire can range the whole globe, with you losing ground in India, but gaining in the Americas and so on. this means that Navies and naval battles are more improtant.

I think they made a mistake when they cut out those areas in Napoleon. britain was dependant on its forgin trade to fund itself, and the french were able to dispute control of india, the carrbian, and many other areas during the 25 odd years of warfare.

[Gaius Marius]

Empire gets the "world spanning Empires" part better. Nap is entirely European, while fighting in Empire can range the whole globe, with you losing ground in India, but gaining in the Americas and so on. this means that Navies and naval battles are more improtant.

I think they made a mistake when they cut out those areas in Napoleon. britain was dependant on its forgin trade to fund itself, and the french were able to dispute control of india, the carrbian, and many other areas during the 25 odd years of warfare.

Sounds interesting.. But if I had to guess, they'll probably release an expension for Napoleon that will expand the world, or some mod will come upon..

If, overall, Napoleon is the better game gameplay-wise, but inferior content-wise, I'll go Napoleon. easier for modders to add contents than rehaul gameplay... I think?

[Eldan]

I've actually only now tried core Rome. Love how EB expands the world map. It's more interesting this way. Now if only I could actually go all the way to India and China, instead of stopping just before them...

[Gaius Marius]

Is it possible to roleplay a roman faction that tries its best never to make the Senate disapear?

I mean.. is it inevitable that the Senate think I am too powerful? Or I can manage to distribute my dominions between my fellow Roman factions?

If the Senate asks me to fall upon my sword, is there a possibility for me to do so, and start up again weakened? Or am I forced to fight unless it's game over?

If the Senate and the other 2 factions declare war on me, can I pacify them without killing them? Can we all become a happy family Republic again?

What happens if you let an AI become "the" powerful faction that is asked to commit suicide, and you fight the war on the Senate's behalf? Are you left with only 2 roman factions + the senate? What happens if one more becomes too powerful, will the senate turn upon that last faction? (proving the senate has no interest in self-preservation) What if the last loyalist faction wins the war, will the Senate turn upon it?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

EB runs primarily on Vanilla R:TW, but there are submods that get it to run on Alex and BI.
RSII has this amazing launcher setup that allows you to choose from Alex, BI, or R:TW exe's. I personally run EB on Alex, but have had trouble getting RSII working with steam on anything other than base R:TW exe.

If anybody wants, I can do a quick review of all mods for, mostly, Rome and Medieval 2. I've been in the modding and mod-using community for years, even tried my hand at modding for a month, that didn't work out, but yeah. I KNOW the mods really well. I also have a passing familiarity with the Empire mods, and know VAGUELY of the Napoleon ones.

[Eldan]

Ah, well. Can't help you on that, EB only included one "Romani" faction.

[Gaius Marius]

Ah, well. Can't help you on that, EB only included one "Romani" faction.

So they did away with the Brutii, Julii and the Scipii? Just Romanii?

[Eldan]

Mhm. You start in 272 as Manius Curius Dentatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dentatus) and his four sons in law and only rule four cities in central Italy, instead of the entire peninsula. There's still Greeks in Sicily and Gauls and Greeks in the north.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Not to mention the Greeks in the south of Italy Proper.
But yeah, I've never played that far in a vanilla game, so I couldn't help you either. :smallsigh::smallredface:

[Eldan]

Just checked the world map and it actually does include a small part of India. Still, sending the Seleukids against Maurya or Qin would have been interesting.

[Gaius Marius]

Mhm. You start in 272 as Manius Curius Dentatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dentatus) and his four sons in law and only rule four cities in central Italy, instead of the entire peninsula. There's still Greeks in Sicily and Gauls and Greeks in the north.

Okay, so you speak about Europa Barbarum, right?

A single roman faction. Is there still a Senate to contend with?

[Kiero]

Okay, so you speak about Europa Barbarum, right?

A single roman faction. Is there still a Senate to contend with?

Nope, there's no Senate faction, that slot was taken up by an actual working faction in EB. Saba to be precise.

If you're playing the Romans in EB, have a butchers at this (http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?101787-Quintus-Sertorius-Guide-to-Conduct-Becoming-of-a-True-Roman-(Redux-for-EB))I wrote under another pseudonym.

The Camillian infantry you start with as the Romans aren't anywhere near as tough as the Polybian ones who follow in about 240BC, or the Marian ones much later. Go south with them, take Magna Graecia and Sicily as well as the islands. By the time you've done that you'll be ready to face tougher opponents.

[Gaius Marius]

If you're playing the Romans in EB, have a butchers at this (http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?101787-Quintus-Sertorius-Guide-to-Conduct-Becoming-of-a-True-Roman-(Redux-for-EB))I wrote under another pseudonym.


Meh. Why should I follow the advice of a rogue Roman general who fancied himself King of Iberia but got defeated by a young pup of the likes of Pompey? :smalltongue:

[Kiero]

Meh. Why should I follow the advice of a rogue Roman general who fancied himself King of Iberia but got defeated by a young pup of the likes of Pompey? :smalltongue:

That boy (nor that old woman) never defeated Sertorius (nor any other competent general he came up against), a traitor within his own camp did.

[Gaius Marius]

That boy (nor that old woman) never defeated Sertorius (nor any other competent general he came up against), a traitor within his own camp did.

Meh. Only a fool accept as a Legate somebody who has the potential of betraying thee for a bag of Punic-minted outdated gold coins.

Trusting Perpenna to even be remotely close to a position of power was your doom. That, and having an unhealthy affection for white fawn.


(But I guess being betrayed by a greedy roman beats going bat**** crazy and rampaging through Rome with an army of slaves to get oneself elected Consul for a 7th time)

[Flickerdart]

To be fair, Napoleon still has overseas trade. Gaining ground in the African trade points as Russia against the Ottomans and French is rather important if you want to be able to afford anything, and Britain literally swims in money despite having so few regions because of it (and is thus very vulnerable to blockades).

[Gaius Marius]

Can I ask you a question? I hope you will be honest with me! :smallamused:

I was watching the Medieval 2 Total War - The English Campaign Let's Play!, and the only thing I was thinking of is how incompetent that player was at manoeuvering and using his armies.

All right, I know how easy it is to be a couch commander, and criticising without having actually played the game beforehand. However, I have some experience in wargames (I had quite successful strategies in Mark of Chaos, for example). I know the games aren't similar... but tell me, how hard the tactical aspect of this game is, compared to what you pictured it'd be? Is it more complicated than you initially planned?

I want to know if I should expect to be schooled by the AI... :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

Well, in any kind of big, open battle, be prepared to have the game paused half of the time while you command. If you have ten, twelve units, and the enemy has the same, and there's three sub-battles going on...
These games have a lot of maneuvering, even in the older ones. And the degree of detail is very high. Terrain, weather, fatigue, morale, facing, ammo. All implemented well, usually. And a lot to keep track off.

That said, I'm talking mainly Medieval 1 here. I'd assume the others are different here. I haven't seen any weather effects so far in Rome. No "It's raining, do you want to wait for better weather" prompts before attacking.

[Storm Bringer]

Sounds interesting.. But if I had to guess, they'll probably release an expension for Napoleon that will expand the world, or some mod will come upon..

If, overall, Napoleon is the better game gameplay-wise, but inferior content-wise, I'll go Napoleon. easier for modders to add contents than rehaul gameplay... I think?

They already done the expansion for Napoleon, which was the Paniuslar campgain (in itself a intresting and worthy piece of DLC. added high stealth units.... and units that can deploy out of the deployment zone. wicked sick)

I'd aggree that napoleons battles are much better. Empires armies felt....cloned. everybody used the same unit pool, with generic "line infantry" being omnipresent, and if often boiled down to "red coated clones vs white coated clones", whereas Napoloen makes each armies units look and feel different. prussia line infantry are not the same as french line infantry, who are different form russian or english infantry. Every army has its authentic uniforms (or, at least, close enough that a history nut like me can't spot any huge flaws.)


on the other hand, Empire lets you play some quite minor powers, and bring them to glory, like taking the Dutch to control of the americas, or fighting off the birtish as a indian prince. it also allows brings to into conflict with radically different foes, who don't fight according to the rules of european warfare. frist time a indian horde charges down form the hills straight though your massed musket fire and routs your line, or the indian lancers catch your men out of square, you realise just how incredible the conquest of the world by europe was.

both are good games, in thier own way. I'd suggest getting Napoleon, but don#t just gloss over Empire.




Well, in any kind of big, open battle, be prepared to have the game paused half of the time while you command. If you have ten, twelve units, and the enemy has the same, and there's three sub-battles going on...
These games have a lot of maneuvering, even in the older ones. And the degree of detail is very high. Terrain, weather, fatigue, morale, facing, ammo. All implemented well, usually. And a lot to keep track off.


to add to that, thier is a slight case of Interface Screw, as your viewpoint is never enough to keep track of every unit, yours or thiers. Often in Empire or Napoleon, the AI is able to sneak a unit of cav into a arty battery without you seeing it until the game tells you the gunners are routing. the unit card markers at the bottom of the page in theory tell you thier in combat, but your always much to busy with the action on the screen to look at that or the Mini Map

[Eldan]

That happened to me just yesterday in Rome. That sneaky bastard I was besieging had a second smaller gate in his walls I didn't see and suddenly I was all "Aaah! Where did those 80 cataphracts in my back come from!"

[Storm Bringer]

in its own way, it's quite "realistic", for a given value of realistic. a general on the battlefeild had only a limited view of the field and the goings on, so being suprised by events enemy movments is quite realistic.


I was all "Aaah! Where did those 80 cataphracts in my back come from!"

for me, its "I'll just get my cannons to fire on.....hang on, why are they routing?!?"

[Gaius Marius]

That happened to me just yesterday in Rome. That sneaky bastard I was besieging had a second smaller gate in his walls I didn't see and suddenly I was all "Aaah! Where did those 80 cataphracts in my back come from!"

I see...

But, let's see, if you look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0OZTjk7u1k), I am practically grasping at the screen, wondering exactly how bad this guy is at the whole "military command" thing. The man always forget to do X and Y, while completely missing some obvious tactical opportunities and haven't even noticed he had troops behind the ennemy until they came marching close to the ennemy's army.

Please know, however, that I can't say I don't enjoy this man's battles, as the way he comments his whole campaign is utterly entertaining (even if he does stupid things).

However, I am more than aware than actually doing the battle is much different than nitpicking at a video. I never played this game, so I can't actually know how hard it is to command armies.

My question is: am I being unjustly harsh to this Let's Player, and I shouldn't expect to do better, or he really isn't that good of a tactical mind?

[Storm Bringer]

the units that came form behind were a reinforcing army that marched on after the battle started. his commentry makes it clear he rushed the pre-battle campgain map screen, which tells you things like what the foe is using and any reinforcments you might get. However, if you watch, the unit cards appear pretty much the moment the battle starts, and thier are normally accompanied by a audio diologue line saying something along the lines of "Good News, Sire! Our Reinforcements are here!".

In short, he didn't know he had them until the battle started, didn't factor thier arrival into his pre battle planning, and he was too busy doing other things then to spot that they had turned up.

but, I must say, form what i have seen, he does not stike me as a master player (no offence ment. I don't think i am any good either)

[Thorcrest]

Yeah, he doesn't seem all that great from that video there... then again, I tend to be highly aggressive using tactics that entirely crush enemy armies by routing them with one big old charge, unless I am playing someone that uses phalaxnes, then I like to draw them into chraging my spear points.

Don't know what difficulty he was playing, but it seemed like the enemy was less competant than usual, but that's nothing too uncommon. Personally I think he should have softened up those dismounted knights of the French before charging, as well as placing his calvary to their Flanks earlier to prevent the enemy from committing it's cavalry anywhere, then while softening up the French, move the infantry into a position that would envelop the enemy troops rather than a simple frontal charge... As the English though, he needs more Archers! :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

I haven't played Med II, but let's see as I go along...

Deployment: sensible. I usually put my archers in the front and then withdraw them when the battle gets hot, but putting them behind the spears isn't bad. Perhaps putting the horses a bit farther out wouldn't be bad. However, he starts his archers in the forest, where they can't really shoot. Bad idea. If that happens to me, I usually put my entire army somewhere to the margins of the deployment zone. It means that there will be some strange maneuvering later, but archers are worth it.

After that, I'm mainly wondering what the French are doing, but the AI is often a bit strange. Why are they marching across the field a few times first? Warming up?

Also, I think he's letting his troops running around too much in the beginning. Letting htem wait and conserve their strength is usually better.

Of course now, he's sending the archers in front. He should have put them there from the beginning and saved himself the marching.

He had, for some reason, Town Watch coming in at the flanks. I don't know what Town Watch can do in that game, but if the enemy wants to send his cavalry against twice the number of infantry, I'd gladly use them to bog the cavalry down instead of tiring them for no reason by running across the field.

I'm also wondering what exactly fire arrows are supposed to do in this game.

Mainly, I'm wondering why the french are just standing there instead of attacking.

[Kiero]

Can I ask you a question? I hope you will be honest with me! :smallamused:

I was watching the Medieval 2 Total War - The English Campaign Let's Play!, and the only thing I was thinking of is how incompetent that player was at manoeuvering and using his armies.

All right, I know how easy it is to be a couch commander, and criticising without having actually played the game beforehand. However, I have some experience in wargames (I had quite successful strategies in Mark of Chaos, for example). I know the games aren't similar... but tell me, how hard the tactical aspect of this game is, compared to what you pictured it'd be? Is it more complicated than you initially planned?

I want to know if I should expect to be schooled by the AI... :smallbiggrin:

Don't expect the battle AI to seriously challenge you. It uses really stupid rules, like matching units off against each other, so is incapable of simply holding a line.

Even if you don't try to exploit that by splitting your forces up, it's still fairly easy to pin them and roll up their flanks. Not to mention it often suiciding its cavalry generals on the toughest part of your line.

[Gaius Marius]

Don't expect the battle AI to seriously challenge you. It uses really stupid rules, like matching units off against each other, so is incapable of simply holding a line.

Even if you don't try to exploit that by splitting your forces up, it's still fairly easy to pin them and roll up their flanks. Not to mention it often suiciding its cavalry generals on the toughest part of your line.

What should I do to increase the challenge faced in order to even the odds, then? Increasing difficulty for tactical battle, or strategic map?

In GalCiv2, I like to play against the computer while it's at its best without overly cheating. What'd you recommend for difficulty setting?

[Storm Bringer]

After that, I'm mainly wondering what the French are doing, but the AI is often a bit strange. Why are they marching across the field a few times first? Warming up?


"reacting" to his army movments. they deploy "blind", like the player, then at the start, they see the english, and redeploy in light of knowing where he is. then, when the english move to face them, the AI decides that a new spot is needed, so moves them thier.



Of course now, he's sending the archers in front. He should have put them there from the beginning and saved himself the marching.

gernerally, i just accept the range loss and keep them behind my men, as i have lost too many archers to cav charges when they are in front of the line.


Mainly, I'm wondering why the french are just standing there instead of attacking.

dumb AI fighting as a "defender", not as an "attacker". the Ai scripts don't really stretch to switching between the two mid battle, at least at the lower levels.




He had, for some reason, Town Watch coming in at the flanks. I don't know what Town Watch can do in that game, but if the enemy wants to send his cavalry against twice the number of infantry, I'd gladly use them to bog the cavalry down instead of tiring them for no reason by running across the field.


they were reinforcements, most likey the garrison of a town that the french were attacking (note they came form behind the french line). I would have to see the campgain map section immidatly before the battle, but i think what must have happened is the french army attacked a town, and the player brought his main army in behind the french besiegers, and attacked them. the town garrison sorties to support him, but because he didn't look at the pre-battle match up screen, he forgot they were involved until he saw them on the main screen mid battle.

english town watch are pretty poor, mostly just shock absorbers, but the Itallian factions (namely venice and Genoa) have militia that are as good as most early game foot troops. I'd rate well led itallian town guard agianst sargents any day of the week.

[Eldan]

I'd go for at least hard. But even then, it's mostly just the computer getting bigger armies.

Usually, after you've put up a good economy and have enough troops, you can pretty reliably beat armies twice your size, and it only gets worse if your troops gain experience.

[dgnslyr]

Mainly, I'm wondering why the french are just standing there instead of attacking.

What's there to be surprised about?

[Storm Bringer]

What's there to be surprised about?

now, now, french armies have repeatedly been so strong that it took pretty much the whole rest of europe to stop them.

their is a reason that the Lingua Franca of history was french, and that it was lingua franca, not italian, or german.

[Gaius Marius]

now, now, french armies have repeatedly been so strong that it took pretty much the whole rest of europe to stop them.

their is a reason that the Lingua Franca of history was french, and that it was lingua franca, not italian, or german.

Amen to that!

If I remember right, the French were the main force behind the only successful crusade (right?).

[Storm Bringer]

for a given value of success, yes. most of the others were lunached to prop up the "crusader states" that occupied the area of modern isreal, Palastine and lebanon.

One, which i think was the Fouth, never even got as far as the Holy Land, instead becomming bogged down in besieging, storming and pillaging Constantinople!

partly, the crusades were a method of directing the violent urges of the feudal christian nobility in a 'safe' direction, rather than onto thier christian neighbours.

[Eldan]

Well, they couldn't have had a city full of those orthodox buggerers just sitting there, could they? :smalltongue:

[Gaius Marius]

Well, they couldn't have had a city full of those orthodox buggerers just sitting there, could they? :smalltongue:

I thought the whole initial point of the Crusades was because the Byzantines already lost to the Turks at that point?

Or maybe they lost the Post-Turkey part of the Empire, and they kept the Balkans and Greece?

I am fuzzy on that part of history..

Oh, and tell me, was the Siege of Constantinople that much of a big deal?

[Eldan]

They pretty much burned the city down, so yes...

Edit: from Wikipedia:

The Crusaders inflicted a savage sacking on Constantinople[6] for three days, during which many ancient and medieval Roman and Greek works were either stolen or destroyed. The famous bronze horses from the Hippodrome were sent back to adorn the facade of St Mark's Basilica in Venice, where they remain to this day.

The Library of Constantinople was destroyed.[7] Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared.

It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks. The Venetians received 150,000 silver marks that was their due, while the Crusaders received 50,000 silver marks. A further 100,000 silver marks were divided evenly up between the Crusaders and Venetians. The remaining 500,000 silver marks were secretly kept back by many Crusader knights. Latin residents of Constantinople, meanwhile, took revenge for the Massacre of the Latins of 1182.[8]

[Storm Bringer]

bear in mind that Constantinople, and the Byzantines empire, had been holding back the arab and turkish armies for hundreds of years, and had kept islam out of the balkans, up to that point. until this, they were in a position to stop or manybe even drive back the ottoman advance, but the siege put an end to that. this map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LatinEmpire2.png) shows roughly what lands constanitinople ruled when the siege ended (the purple and red areas. the browish state in turky is what became the ottoman/turkish empire.)

afterwards, they were fighting a losing battle for time, and were eventually defeated in 1453, when the city, and the balkans, fell to the ottoman empire, that ruled it until 1918

[Kiero]

What should I do to increase the challenge faced in order to even the odds, then? Increasing difficulty for tactical battle, or strategic map?

In GalCiv2, I like to play against the computer while it's at its best without overly cheating. What'd you recommend for difficulty setting?

All that increasing difficulty does is add static bonuses to the AI. On the campaign map they get extra money (and even more ridiculous anti-human diplomacy) which means they can spam elites, on the battlefield they add to their skill, defense and morale. I don't agree with either of those, myself, I always play on M/M.

There are some things you can do, though. Play on Huge unit size (in the Video options) so that every unit you recruit costs you a lot in population and money. Also makes for much more satisfying battles, and I think there are some buggy vagaries on smaller sizes that benefit the human player.

Never, ever play on arcade mode (which turns off limited ammo, and removes fatigue and morale).

Secondly, house rules. I aim for historical/realistic army compositions. That means no all-elite armies, no more than two or three units of cavalry, no half-stacks of slingers, no all-horse-archer armies. Balanced forces comprising line infantry, skirmishers and cavalry, and no more than 12-14 units in a stack. That's so the AI can outnumber you.

[Gaius Marius]

Thanks for the feedbacks! (Both historical and gameplay wise!)

It's just that something I always wondered; in Shogun, Blackthorn reflects that the Siege of Constantinople (or its fall?) held the key to take the massively fortified city of Osaka. I always wondered what he meant

[Demon 997]

On the subject of Shogun, I've just downloaded the demo, but it won't let me play. It brings up the preparing to launch thing, then just takes me to the store page. Any advice?

[Eldan]

Thanks for the feedbacks! (Both historical and gameplay wise!)

It's just that something I always wondered; in Shogun, Blackthorn reflects that the Siege of Constantinople (or its fall?) held the key to take the massively fortified city of Osaka. I always wondered what he meant

Constantinople, apparently, had enormously impressive walls. The crusaders took it by smuggling in a dozen or so of theirs in by ship, who then proceeded to hack holes in the walls from inside, until their army could crawl in one at a time. And by venetians scaling the walls from the sea-side.
The turks, later, took some of the biggest artillery ever built:


Instrumental to this Ottoman advancement in arms production was a somewhat mysterious figure by the name of Orban (Urban), a Hungarian (though some suggest he was German.[36]) One cannon designed by Orban was 27 feet long, and able to hurl a 1,300 lb projectile over a mile.

...

Orban's cannon had several drawbacks however: it took three hours to reload; cannon balls were in very short supply; and the cannon is said to have collapsed under its own recoil after six weeks (this fact however is disputed,[2] being only reported in the letter of Archbishop Leonardo di Chio[32] and the later and often unreliable Russian chronicle of Nestor Iskander).[38] Having previously established a large foundry about 150 miles away, Mehmed now had to undergo the painstaking process of transporting his massive artillery pieces. Orban's giant cannon was said to have been accompanied by a crew of 60 oxen and over 400 men.[36]

[Klose_the_Sith]

now, now, french armies have repeatedly been so strong that it took pretty much the whole rest of europe to stop them.

They've also repeatedly been so weak that one tiny island off of mainland Europe can repeatedly crush them in land battles irrespective of numbers or expectations :smalltongue:

Admittedly the French have performed quite well in wars, but I can't come up with multiple times all of Europe was needed to stop them. Napoleon I'll grant, that guy was t3h pwnage, but I can't remember any other instance of sheer French might that had the continent in arms.


their is a reason that the Lingua Franca of history was french, and that it was lingua franca, not italian, or german.

You so sure about that? :smallamused: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca)

Please note ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks)

[Eldan]

Also note who the franks where on to be later.

[Gaius Marius]

Also note who the franks where on to be later.

Actually, the Franks were the barbarian tribes who invaded and conquered the Gaul provinces. During the French Revolution, the French population (of Gaul descent) purge their noble cast, who were the source of historical military power through the Middle Age.

Effectively, it was some sort of genocide.

[Eldan]

Well, sure. But the nobles were Normans, much like in England.

[Dienekes]

They've also repeatedly been so weak that one tiny island off of mainland Europe can repeatedly crush them in land battles irrespective of numbers or expectations :smalltongue:

Admittedly the French have performed quite well in wars, but I can't come up with multiple times all of Europe was needed to stop them. Napoleon I'll grant, that guy was t3h pwnage, but I can't remember any other instance of sheer French might that had the continent in arms.

There's also some evidence that Napoleon's forces were roughly 40-50% foreign mercenaries, largely German.

[Gaius Marius]

There's also some evidence that Napoleon's forces were roughly 40-50% foreign mercenaries, largely German.

Napoleon's genius were in his military reforms, the same way Gaius Marius's reforms reshaped the Book of War of his time.

But he had an incredible cadre of French officers, no?

[Dienekes]

Napoleon's genius were in his military reforms, the same way Gaius Marius's reforms reshaped the Book of War of his time.

But he had an incredible cadre of French officers, no?

No one denies Napoleon's genius. I think a few of his strategic decisions were questionable, but then no one's perfect.

As to his officers, it's been awhile since reading about old Napoleon, but I remember 1 of his generals, I think his name was Guy that always seemed to either be gaining the ground through randomly charging without orders or getting screwed over for randomly charging without orders. Bother, that name will be taunting me for awhile.

Anyway, how about that Total War?

[Gaius Marius]

Anyway, how about that Total War?

you got a question?

This is the generic Total War thread, apparently :-D

[Eldan]

Yup.

You said you wanted to play them chronologically? Don't forget Viking Invasion, then. Its map is only the british isles and part of Scandinavia, and it starts in 793. I always liked it a lot.

Edit: is it just me or are all expansions for Total Wars called "X invasion"?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Yup.

You said you wanted to play them chronologically? Don't forget Viking Invasion, then. Its map is only the british isles and part of Scandinavia, and it starts in 793. I always liked it a lot.

Edit: is it just me or are all expansions for Total Wars called "X invasion"?

They were, for a while. Shogun had Mongol Invasion, Medieval had Viking Invasion, and Rome had Barbarian Invasion. Then they decided to make M2's expansion Kingdoms, and they stopped. Napoleon was originally portrayed as a semi-expansion for Empire, a stand-alone, and in a way it is, in that it's practically identical, but yeah. And Napoleon's DLC expansion, the Peninsular War. I personally hope the Shogun 2 expansion is all of China. That would be amazing.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Also note who the franks where on to be later.

You mean the Dutch? :smalltongue:


Edit: is it just me or are all expansions for Total Wars called "X invasion"?

Kingdoms. Check mate. :smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

See the list. (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Total_War_(series))

After Barbarian Invasion, there are no more invasions. There's Alexander, Kingdoms, the Peninsular Campaign, and the Warpath Campaign.

[Astrella]

No one denies Napoleon's genius. I think a few of his strategic decisions were questionable, but then no one's perfect.

As to his officers, it's been awhile since reading about old Napoleon, but I remember 1 of his generals, I think his name was Guy that always seemed to either be gaining the ground through randomly charging without orders or getting screwed over for randomly charging without orders. Bother, that name will be taunting me for awhile.

Anyway, how about that Total War?

Michel Ney? Famous for always leading the charges and having multiple horses killed underneath him, but not very bright tactically apparently.

[Storm Bringer]

They've also repeatedly been so weak that one tiny island off of mainland Europe can repeatedly crush them in land battles irrespective of numbers or expectations

thats because you are confusing strenght of armies with strenght of navies.
apart form at sea, i am not really aware of many major battles were a purely british force beat a french force.


There's also some evidence that Napoleon's forces were roughly 40-50% foreign mercenaries, largely German.

and wellingtons armies in the Punisular and at Waterloo had large numbers of spanich and dutch troops in them. if you count the prussians at waterloo as well, then the engliish were a minority of the allied troops on the field.


I can't remember any other instance of sheer French might that had the continent in arms.

let me see:

war of Spanish Succession (1701–1714) and outlying conflicts (like Queen Annes War in the americas)

War of the Austrian Succession (1740–48) and outlying conflicts (the '45 jacobite rebellion (Bonnie Prince Charlies), King George's War in North America, etc)

the french intervention in the american Revlutionary War (which tipped teh scales in your favour, i must add)

the Seven Years war (1756–1763)

and so on. most of these wars were not france fighting alone, but france was a major player in all of them.


You so sure about that?

Please note ...

yhea, i was kinda hoping you would not notice that.:smallredface::smallredface:

but please, do note form about the mid 17th century to the frist world war, most diplomacy was carried out in french.

[Coidzor]

Wow. I don't know why but I can't really stop watching that Medeival 2 LP someone posted here a bit ago. :smalleek:

[Gaius Marius]

Wow. I don't know why but I can't really stop watching that Medeival 2 LP someone posted here a bit ago. :smalleek:

Thanks, that was the goal! :smallbiggrin: I am failing my Will save on a regular basis.

I cling regulary at the screen because of the guy's bad tactical and strategic actions. But he's entertaining ennough that I accept it as pure entertainment..

Would you believe there is apparently more than 200 videos?

[Coidzor]

Just fired up Barbarian Invasion for the first time, started as the Goths. Was kind of interesting except that I seem to start hemorrhaging money just by taking the roman rebel cities to the west and south of me.
Thanks, that was the goal! :smallbiggrin: I am failing my Will save on a regular basis.

I cling regulary at the screen because of the guy's bad tactical and strategic actions. But he's entertaining ennough that I accept it as pure entertainment..

Would you believe there is apparently more than 200 videos?

Well, a game can run a long time. But yargh. What's his goal, world domination?

And, yeah I had to stop watching at one point during a siege in... 70-something because he let his troops get surrounded and then thought he was sending some horsemen to attack some enemy forces off by themselves when really he had selected the spearmen that were engaged in battle and were covering his general/the other side of the defense of his sabotaged gate.

But now I wanna start up again. x,x

[Gaius Marius]

Well, a game can run a long time. But yargh. What's his goal, world domination?

Until he tires. But I think he finished it. Thing is, he leave some important decisions in the hands of his viewers' vote, who often make him do stupid decisions (like trying to cleave a kingdom in the Middle-East), so that kinda impedes him...

Also, I know that at one point, he starts making the different characters of his faction be role-played by his forumgoers, so decisions of what to build (if one role-player happens to be a governor), what to recruit or what to conquer was left out of his hands.. so he probably had fun making stupid stuff!


And, yeah I had to stop watching at one point during a siege in... 70-something because he let his troops get surrounded and then thought he was sending some horsemen to attack some enemy forces off by themselves when really he had selected the spearmen that were engaged in battle and were covering his general/the other side of the defense of his sabotaged gate.

But now I wanna start up again. x,x

I agree. Sometimes, I just bang my head on the wall at the stupidity of his strategy or tactics, and that ruins the fun for me...

...

Until I pick it up again, 'cause he's such a nice fella in the way he describes the game and his emotions, and he's entertaining. Stupid strategist, brillant entertainer.

[Premier]

I'm also wondering what exactly fire arrows are supposed to do in this game.

Upsides:

- Hurt the enemy morale more than normal arrows.
- Have a chance to set siege equipment on fire.
- I think a direct hit with one is more likely to kill a well-armoured unit. This is just personal observation, though, so I might be wrong.

Downsides:

- Less accurate.
- Goes through your ammo reserves faster.

[Gaius Marius]

I'd like to know if putting catapults on towers while defending a settlement is a good idea?

If so, should one use it to target the ennemy's troopers, or siege equipment?

[Klose_the_Sith]

thats because you are confusing strenght of armies with strenght of navies.
apart form at sea, i am not really aware of many major battles were a purely british force beat a french force.

Well there were your 100 Years War slaughters (Crecy, Poiters, Agincourt are the most notable, I think) but when do you ever have a *purely* etc. force?

Every major force has made extensive use of auxiliaries, mercenaries and the like, generally because fielding an extensive regular army is costly as all pants and the kingdom will go broke if you aren't too careful.

Also, yes, the Royal Navy was the mainstay of the British Empire. But to overlook one branch of the armed forces because another performed superbly is a cruel form of favouritism indeed.


and wellingtons armies in the Punisular and at Waterloo had large numbers of spanich and dutch troops in them. if you count the prussians at waterloo as well, then the engliish were a minority of the allied troops on the field.

While this is true, see above. The 25,000 British (plus 6,000 kings legion) seem pretty small, but they made up the strongest component of the allied forces (unless you count Prussia, but what are you doing, trying to out land-army Prussia? MADNESS! :smallwink:)


war of Spanish Succession (1701–1714) and outlying conflicts (like Queen Annes War in the americas)

Well, to an extent. That war was, however, more about preventing French dominance than fighting it - it's just that France was in the perfect position for this war when it broke out and seized upon an opportunity. Still, a good example of how well their military operated (albeit with support from the Spain)

One note, I'm surprised you brought up that war without bringing up this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Grand_Alliance).


War of the Austrian Succession (1740–48) and outlying conflicts (the '45 jacobite rebellion (Bonnie Prince Charlies), King George's War in North America, etc)

Involved pretty much every power in mainland Europe when it broke out >.>


the french intervention in the american Revlutionary War (which tipped teh scales in your favour, i must add)

I'm Australian :smalltongue: (Truly, France helped us Aussies win that war ...)

But this doesn't really fit with your point so much as indicate that the French had a solid military thing going on as well as some degree of spite towards Britain. I don't think that I'd debate either of those :smallwink:


the Seven Years war (1756–1763)

A terrible example, compared to your others which were (mostly) quite good. France + Austria + Sweden + Russia forced the Prussian army to defeat, not France alone. France alone probably would've been beaten, to be honest. The winner of the war, naturally, was Great Britain because they didn't neglect their colonies (and this involved plenty of land battles, it's just the colonial war wasn't on a comparable scale to the European theatre).


and so on. most of these wars were not france fighting alone, but france was a major player in all of them.

Which is the problem with the argument. No European power was so great that all the others bowed to them, unless if you count the rather cheap-shot example of the Romans. There were great powers in Europe and France had times when they could claim to be one of the greatest powers on Land, but you can never really claim their dominance to have been so absolute.


yhea, i was kinda hoping you would not notice that.:smallredface::smallredface:

Welcome to the internet. We pick up on all your tiny slips and then spite you do heck and back! :smalltongue:


but please, do note form about the mid 17th century to the frist world war, most diplomacy was carried out in french.

That's just because the French kept being responsible for the wars :smalltongue:

But yes, you're correct in that point.

[Eldan]

Just took Syracuse.

My god, I have about 700 troops there and after two turns and a provisional government, public order is still at 0. Unrest just killed 150 soldiers and nearly 600 citizens. Taxes are at low.

At least I just adopted someone I can appoint governor.

[Kiero]

Just took Syracuse.

My god, I have about 700 troops there and after two turns and a provisional government, public order is still at 0. Unrest just killed 150 soldiers and nearly 600 citizens. Taxes are at low.

At least I just adopted someone I can appoint governor.

That'll be culture penalty (it's Greek, you're Roman), the bulk of which comes from the governor's building (which you can't destroy, only upgrade once the population gets big enough).

There's a maximum public order bonus from garrisons (80%), with somewhere big like that you need a good governor. Should also have a spy stationed to out enemy spies.

[Eldan]

Ah, well. It still makes me money, so it's not too bad.

Interestingly, I'm already deviating from real-world history. After I landed on Sicily, the Carthaginians declared war on me as they should. But just after I took the first city, they sent me an ambassador, asking for a ceasefire.

So, I'm at peace with them now. Same with the Epirothes. Leaves only the Eleutheroi, who are being annoying with their constant "Let's land 300 troops somewhere in the countryside and walk around doing nothing!" approach to warfare.

Interesting fact: 150 slingers can't defeat 300 phalangatoi. They can, however, kill half of them with shooting, make a reckless charge down a hill in the forest and end up with 55% enemies dead, then routing, mostly intact.

[Kiero]

Ah, well. It still makes me money, so it's not too bad.

Interestingly, I'm already deviating from real-world history. After I landed on Sicily, the Carthaginians declared war on me as they should. But just after I took the first city, they sent me an ambassador, asking for a ceasefire.

So, I'm at peace with them now. Same with the Epirothes. Leaves only the Eleutheroi, who are being annoying with their constant "Let's land 300 troops somewhere in the countryside and walk around doing nothing!" approach to warfare.

The Eleutheroi can only take settlements by revolt (if they revolt from their faction-creator), so they will never do anything when they spawn. Aside from block trade routes and create unrest in nearby cities.


Interesting fact: 150 slingers can't defeat 300 phalangatoi. They can, however, kill half of them with shooting, make a reckless charge down a hill in the forest and end up with 55% enemies dead, then routing, mostly intact.

Which is as it should be. Slingers aren't melee fighters, they shouldn't be able to stand against actual line infantry.

[Eldan]

I know. The goal of that attack was just to cut down the army so they can't take my city before reinforcements arrived.

Which they did perfectly. Shooting until they ran out of ammo already killed 50% of those annoying Greeks. About the same number as my total slingers. Then a few hit and run skirmishes (having three units means that you always get flanks and back) and retreating:

200 dead Greeks, 50 dead slingers.

[Storm Bringer]

I'm Australian (Truly, France helped us Aussies win that war ...)

actaully, the loss of the americas forced britian to expand its eastern colonies as a destination for those sentenced to transportation (Exile by another name. you couldn't come back for a set period, and even after that almost none of those sent would have had the means to afford transport back to england. and quite frankly, most didn't want to return to the hellholes they'd come from.)

so, yes, the french intervention in that war helped austrailia considerably.:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:



Interestingly, I'm already deviating from real-world history. After I landed on Sicily, the Carthaginians declared war on me as they should. But just after I took the first city, they sent me an ambassador, asking for a ceasefire.


well, the main reason for the punic wars in most of the games i played was becuase the blasted Senate kept pushing me towards it, so if your played non vanilla Rome, then i would suppose that would happen.

[Gaius Marius]

well, the main reason for the punic wars in most of the games i played was becuase the blasted Senate kept pushing me towards it, so if your played non vanilla Rome, then i would suppose that would happen.

Bloody Cato, eh?

The man was a menace.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

In EB, the First Punic War is scripted to happen if either Carthage or Rome makes a move in Sicily against the Mamertines. If either country moves an army into that province, boom, war.

[Eldan]

I did that, war happened, and the carthadastim sought a ceasefire only about half a year later, without any armies actually meeting.

[Kiero]

In EB, the First Punic War is scripted to happen if either Carthage or Rome makes a move in Sicily against the Mamertines. If either country moves an army into that province, boom, war.


I did that, war happened, and the carthadastim sought a ceasefire only about half a year later, without any armies actually meeting.

Unfortunately, while you can script something to trigger a state of war, from that point on its down to the AI. Which isn't guaranteed to keep fighting.

[Eldan]

I'm actually quite happy with that. The Eleutheroi are my only enemies now and that's quite enough.

[Kiero]

I'm actually quite happy with that. The Eleutheroi are my only enemies now and that's quite enough.

The only faction for whom they are not enemies (at least at the start) are the Casse.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The only faction for whom they are not enemies (at least at the start) are the Casse.

I never got WHY that's how it is. Why do the Casse not start at war with the Eleutheroi?

[Klose_the_Sith]

actaully, the loss of the americas forced britian to expand its eastern colonies as a destination for those sentenced to transportation (Exile by another name. you couldn't come back for a set period, and even after that almost none of those sent would have had the means to afford transport back to england. and quite frankly, most didn't want to return to the hellholes they'd come from.)

so, yes, the french intervention in that war helped austrailia considerably.:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

In which case I'll point out that my family only became Australian in the last 100 years and I'm German :smalltongue:

Did Prussia win the war as well?

Also, I'm pretty sure that Britain would've expanded her colonial interests with or without the dreaded thirteen. Do you know why they should've held onto them, though?

English Gentleman Cowboys :smallcool:

[Kiero]

I never got WHY that's how it is. Why do the Casse not start at war with the Eleutheroi?

Because they've already got a difficult enough starting position (out in the arse-end of nowhere) as it is. Means they can get some breathing room to build their economy before trying to take over the British Isles.

[Gaius Marius]

All right! Final question: Is Rome : Total War : Alexander worth it if I wanna play the best TW antique experience, meaning probably with EB?

Is there any general gameplay element added, or is just new content (like new units and factions and map)?

[Coidzor]

All right! Final question: Is Rome : Total War : Alexander worth it if I wanna play the best TW antique experience, meaning probably with EB?

Is there any general gameplay element added, or is just new content (like new units and factions and map)?

Haven't found any new gameplay elements. Just seems to be a timed campaign with different units and a more focused map.

Now, the mods... they probably would make it worth it.

[Thorcrest]

Quick Question about modding, since I have never done it before:

This EB that keeps being mentionned interests me greatly, but I also love the Vanilla version of the game. If I were to get EB, would I still be able to switch to the vanilla game and keep playing that if I choose to without any difficulties (i.e. having to uninstall files, losing saves, etc.)?

[Gaius Marius]

Haven't found any new gameplay elements. Just seems to be a timed campaign with different units and a more focused map.

Now, the mods... they probably would make it worth it.

Meaning that the Mods needing Alexander are worth the expense?

Are there good mods incompatible with Alexander?

[Eldan]

Quick Question about modding, since I have never done it before:

This EB that keeps being mentionned interests me greatly, but I also love the Vanilla version of the game. If I were to get EB, would I still be able to switch to the vanilla game and keep playing that if I choose to without any difficulties (i.e. having to uninstall files, losing saves, etc.)?

Yes. In fact, EB get's its own start menu/desktop buttons and keeps everything separate. Just make sure to follow all the instructions: I had to install it about three times until it ran well.

[Thorcrest]

Alright, thank you Eldan... now that I know that, I may just have to get that mod some time this week.

[Kiero]

Meaning that the Mods needing Alexander are worth the expense?

Are there good mods incompatible with Alexander?

You can play EB with Alexander's executable.

[Gaius Marius]

You can play EB with Alexander's executable.

Yo-hoooo!!

All right. I'll buy Rome Total War : Complete then, it's only 10$ on Steam.

Fun fact, Rome : Total War Complete is composed of:
- Rome : Total War Gold
- Rome : Total War - Alexander

Also, Rome : Total War Gold can be bought for 10$ on Steam. It is composed of:
- Rome : Total War
- Rome : Total War - Barbarian Invasions

In short, ALEXANDER IS LET GO FOR FREE! :smallbiggrin: They must realise that they'd never manage to sell it off by itself, eh?

[Eldan]

So, if I have only Rome and none of the addons, do they add anything worthwhile to EB?

[Kiero]

So, if I have only Rome and none of the addons, do they add anything worthwhile to EB?

BI has tweaked naval AI, which might be to your taste. Me, I just found it annoying being constantly harassed by tiny armies from anyone else with a military port.

Alexander is apparently better campaign AI (like making proper armies and retraining), though less aggressive.

[Gaius Marius]

By the way, am I the only one puzzled by the (totally awesome otherwise) speech given by Napoleon at the beginning of.. well, Napoleon : Total War?

The speech itself is awesome. The animation is great.

But.. I mean.. yhea, first, them naming Italy as a conquest, that's great. Napoleon's actor is really doing a great job, and it's one of the most expressive animated character I've seen.

But then, using Egypt and Russia as examples of Napoleon's greatness? One was a mild defeat, the other was a complete disaster!

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

By the way, am I the only one puzzled by the (totally awesome otherwise) speech given by Napoleon at the beginning of.. well, Napoleon : Total War?

The speech itself is awesome. The animation is great.

But.. I mean.. yhea, first, them naming Italy as a conquest, that's great. Napoleon's actor is really doing a great job, and it's one of the most expressive animated character I've seen.

But then, using Egypt and Russia as examples of Napoleon's greatness? One was a mild defeat, the other was a complete disaster!

I think the idea is "If he didn't fail."

I just like studying his Italy campaigns myself. More fun then Egypt or the later periods.

[Gaius Marius]

I think the idea is "If he didn't fail."

I just like studying his Italy campaigns myself. More fun then Egypt or the later periods.

The man was a great genius on so many level, but damn it, he should have sticked to some principles and been a little more conservative in his dealing with other European powers.

[Coidzor]

I think the idea is "If he didn't fail."

I just like studying his Italy campaigns myself. More fun then Egypt or the later periods.

You know, I've never heard a peep about Napoleon and Italy before today. Funny, that. I've heard about him and Austria, Prussia, Spain, England, Russia, and Egypt, but never anything about Italy.

[The_JJ]

By the way, am I the only one puzzled by the (totally awesome otherwise) speech given by Napoleon at the beginning of.. well, Napoleon : Total War?

The speech itself is awesome. The animation is great.

But.. I mean.. yhea, first, them naming Italy as a conquest, that's great. Napoleon's actor is really doing a great job, and it's one of the most expressive animated character I've seen.

But then, using Egypt and Russia as examples of Napoleon's greatness? One was a mild defeat, the other was a complete disaster!

You'll note that in the background his men are burning the British fleet and, as the camera pans down you can see a milestone reading "To London."

[13_CBS]

You'll note that in the background his men are burning the British fleet and, as the camera pans down you can see a milestone reading "To London."

The ship that they're burning is also the HMS Victory; Admiral Nelson's flagship. Thus, I took the speech to be set in an alternate future where the Battle of Trafalgar was won by the combined French/Spanish fleet.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

You know, I've never heard a peep about Napoleon and Italy before today. Funny, that. I've heard about him and Austria, Prussia, Spain, England, Russia, and Egypt, but never anything about Italy.

He was fighting the Austrians, as the Austrians owned most of northern Italy then. He was given a green army, against a proffessional, larger force, won (what I consider to be) his greatest and most iconic victory, Marengo, and drove the Austrians from just about all of Italy. Over time, he would set up a Kingdom of Italy, and make his baby son King.

[Gaius Marius]

The ship that they're burning is also the HMS Victory; Admiral Nelson's flagship. Thus, I took the speech to be set in an alternate future where the Battle of Trafalgar was won by the combined French/Spanish fleet.

Oh.

Well, that explains it. The world would be quite a different place if that had happened, wouldn't you agree?

No idea if better or worse, mais different en sacrebleu, pas vrai?!

[Klose_the_Sith]

No idea if better or worse, mais different en sacrebleu, pas vrai?!

Much worse from my perspective, purely because I can't stand the language :smallwink:

[Gaius Marius]

Much worse from my perspective, purely because I can't stand the language :smallwink:

Dude, don't be anglocentric and think about it for one second from my point of view: I have to speak English in most aspect of my life :smallwink:

proof that being on the losing side ain't that bad.

[Brother Oni]

Well, that explains it. The world would be quite a different place if that had happened, wouldn't you agree?

No idea if better or worse, mais different en sacrebleu, pas vrai?!

I personally think the world would have been a much different place if the Mongols had swept all the way to Paris instead of stopping in the Middle East.

England would have been spared the purges and thus be in an even more powerful position for the major power struggles in the Middle Ages.

[Eldan]

I personally think the Seleukid empire should have been more stable and conquer the known world.

But that's because I'm playing Rome, not Empire.

[Gaius Marius]

Well, if you want to go that route..

Just think what would have happened if Caesar hadn't been assassinated and he had went to conquer the whole Parthians Empire.

He then would have had time to groom properly his successor, or restored full power to the Senate (depending on what was his intention, obviously).

It means Christianity would have spreaded much, much farther into the East. Different history, eh?

[Eldan]

If Christianity would even have gotten a hold on a suitably changed Roman Empire. Take about massively changed human history.

[Gaius Marius]

If Christianity would even have gotten a hold on a suitably changed Roman Empire. Take about massively changed human history.

All based on a single assassination, eh?

I guess Rome ex-Augustus would probably had been a tad different...

[Klose_the_Sith]

Dude, don't be anglocentric and think about it for one second from my point of view: I have to speak English in most aspect of my life :smallwink:

Who are you calling anglocentric? I'm the son of German immigrants to Australia. No Angles in me, nosiree :smalltongue:

(I'd also much rather speak German than English, but a lack of learning + lack of need means that I'm highly unlikely to ever learn, let alone start regularly using it ...)


proof that being on the losing side ain't that bad.

Depends how badly you get beaten and what in, I'd say :smallamused:

[Eldan]

Well, that depends where your ancestors come from, in Germany. They might just be saxons or anglians (angles? What do you call them in English?) :smalltongue:

[Gaius Marius]

Who are you calling anglocentric? I'm the son of German immigrants to Australia. No Angles in me, nosiree :smalltongue:

(I'd also much rather speak German than English, but a lack of learning + lack of need means that I'm highly unlikely to ever learn, let alone start regularly using it ...)

All right, fair ennough. My apologies. It's just that I am genuinely amused by some of my English friends who sometimes talk about WW2, and say argument justifying the Brit Empire's action like that: "If X hadn't happened, we'd all be speaking German by now!"

My usual reaction is: "So what? I am speaking english right now"
(Relevant facto: I am French-Canadian)

It's pretty funny to see native english-speakers argue like that, like it would be the end of the world if their language wasn't the current top of the Lingua Franca food chain :smallbiggrin:


Depends how badly you get beaten and what in, I'd say :smallamused:

Well, I think that overall, Napoleon's conquests didn't had the shortest end of the stick if you compare some of the regimes at the time, no?

Obviously, the English would have probably suffered big time, as they were the main belligerent to Napoleon and The Republic during his entire regime.

[Eldan]

Well, I'm not sure how happy Switzerland was after being conquered. But then, we only actually got a constitution after Napoleon, and he founded the canton I'm currently in, so that's fine. We also got our currency and probably a few dozen other things there. So, probably can't complain, in hindsight.

Nice additional fact: we still have the franc. The french gave it up for the Euro :smalltongue:

[Gaius Marius]

Well, I'm not sure how happy Switzerland was after being conquered. But then, we only actually got a constitution after Napoleon, and he founded the canton I'm currently in, so that's fine. We also got our currency and probably a few dozen other things there. So, probably can't complain, in hindsight.

Nice additional fact: we still have the franc. The french gave it up for the Euro :smalltongue:

So Nappy gave you your constitution? Neat. :smallcool:
I know he did a lot to protect the right of freedom of religion. Did you had much Jews in your land?

Is it just me, or I find ironic that the English as so hellbent on demonising Nappy that they seem to completely forget he was probably one of the main cause of the undermining of the Catholic Church's political influence through Europe? English often had been at odds against the Papists too, if memory serves right.

[13_CBS]

So Nappy gave you your constitution? Neat. :smallcool:
I know he did a lot to protect the right of freedom of religion. Did you had much Jews in your land?

Is it just me, or I find ironic that the English as so hellbent on demonising Nappy that they seem to completely forget he was probably one of the main cause of the undermining of the Catholic Church's political influence through Europe? English often had been at odds against the Papists too, if memory serves right.


Was the Catholic Church that big of a political threat to England around Napoleon's time? :smallconfused:

[Gaius Marius]

Was the Catholic Church that big of a political threat to England around Napoleon's time? :smallconfused:

Don't think so, but it was still powerful in Spain and Italy.. I think...

[Eldan]

So Nappy gave you your constitution? Neat. :smallcool:

No idea about Jews, but our constitution was written after Nappy (didn't know you called him that in English too) was kicked out. It's basically a rewrite of the American one, kicking out some things Switzerland thought was silly (like presidents) and putting a few others in.

[Gaius Marius]

No idea about Jews, but our constitution was written after Nappy (didn't know you called him that in English too) was kicked out. It's basically a rewrite of the American one, kicking out some things Switzerland thought was silly (like presidents) and putting a few others in.

Hum... I don't believe that the Napoleonic Code is a mere rewrite of the American constitution.

Wait, the base system of law you are under, is it Common Law (like American & English) or the Code? (Like.. many, many, many countries)

Maybe I forgot the difference between the Napoleonic Code (the constitution) and the Napoleonic Code (the base of law)

[Eldan]

Right, I was exaggerating. After reading up on those again, no, we don't really have Common Law. Precedent can be cited in a case, but generally, laws are written by the parliament and voted on by the public.

It still draws on parts of the American constitution, mostly in the general structure of the government, with a two-chamber parliament, one chamber with seats given out to cantons proportional to their population, the other with two seats per canton.

[Gaius Marius]

Right, I was exaggerating. After reading up on those again, no, we don't really have Common Law. Precedent can be cited in a case, but generally, laws are written by the parliament and voted on by the public.

It still draws on parts of the American constitution, mostly in the general structure of the government, with a two-chamber parliament, one chamber with seats given out to cantons proportional to their population, the other with two seats per canton.

I believe these are extract of the French constitution as well, friend.

Sorry to say, I believe the French had a lot more influence on your country than the Americans :smallwink:

[Eldan]

Well, true. And nothing against the French. (Though from what we were told in history class, they drew some inspiration from the Americans as well :smallwink: ).

I mean, about a third of our population speaks (kind of) French. The rest still has tons of French loanwords. (Mainly used to confuse Germans :smalltongue: )

[Gaius Marius]

Well, true. And nothing against the French. (Though from what we were told in history class, they drew some inspiration from the Americans as well :smallwink: ).

I mean, about a third of our population speaks (kind of) French. The rest still has tons of French loanwords. (Mainly used to confuse Germans :smalltongue: )

I think I might take your word over Wikipedia's...

Swiss Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution)


The groundwork for today's Swiss Constitution was laid with the promulgation of the Constitution of 12 September 1848, which was influenced by the ideas of the French Revolution.

[Eldan]

Yeah, I know. French Revolution, though. Not Napoleonic code.

[Gaius Marius]

Yeah, I know. French Revolution, though. Not Napoleonic code.

Ouch, burned.

All right then, I surrender. I am, after all, of French Descent. :smallwink:

[Eldan]

No problem. I'll just keep your gold in my bank and sell you some cheese and chocolate. :smalltongue:

[Klose_the_Sith]

All right, fair ennough. My apologies. It's just that I am genuinely amused by some of my English friends who sometimes talk about WW2, and say argument justifying the Brit Empire's action like that: "If X hadn't happened, we'd all be speaking German by now!"

My usual reaction is: "So what? I am speaking english right now"
(Relevant facto: I am French-Canadian)

Glory to the British Empire! :smallbiggrin:

Although I haven't seen language as being that big an issue, provided that I don't speak French :smalltongue:


It's pretty funny to see native english-speakers argue like that, like it would be the end of the world if their language wasn't the current top of the Lingua Franca food chain :smallbiggrin:

Well if England hadn't stopped zee Germans, then who?

Exactly. There is nobody who could've achieved that. NO-ONE AT ALL.


Well, I think that overall, Napoleon's conquests didn't had the shortest end of the stick if you compare some of the regimes at the time, no?

The most humane thing Napoleon ever did was abandon Colonialism - and they intended to pick that back up once they were finished in Europe :smalltongue:


Obviously, the English would have probably suffered big time, as they were the main belligerent to Napoleon and The Republic during his entire regime.

Having been at war with someone almost constantly throughout their rule does breed a degree of hostility, I hear :smallwink:

Of course let us never forget the lesson of Versaille - humiliate your enemy beyond reason and they'll goose-step down your door. (I think there were earlier examples, but eh ...)


Well, that depends where your ancestors come from, in Germany. They might just be saxons or anglians (angles? What do you call them in English?) :smalltongue:

Well, we're from Saxony so I think that that should answer your question :smalltongue:

(Osnabrück, if you're particularly interested for some reason ...)

[Gaius Marius]

Well if England hadn't stopped zee Germans, then who?

Exactly. There is nobody who could've achieved that. NO-ONE AT ALL.

And life and history would have rolled on, and the Nazi Regime would have come to an end eventually, collapsed under its own incompetence at running things.

It wouldn't have been the "end of the world", it would have been just one more page in the history book.


The most humane thing Napoleon ever did was abandon Colonialism - and they intended to pick that back up once they were finished in Europe :smalltongue:

I guess giving free right of religion to the people he ruled rather than forcing Protestant, Catholics and Jews in ghetto doesn't count?

Allowing any man to become anything (save the top position) in his government, doing away with the old nobility cast system?

The breaking of the Inquisition?

And how do you know he was planning to go back to colonalism once he would have finished with Europe?


Having been at war with someone almost constantly throughout their rule does breed a degree of hostility, I hear :smallwink:

Yhea.. it was inconsiderate of him to have been declared war upon by the English 7 times, eh?

Most of the Napoleonian Wars had the French as the agressee, not the aggressors. The others were usually wars aimed at preventing further aggression (like the disastrous Russian expedition).

How rude Napoleon was, clearly, he should never have beared any hostility to the English :smallamused:


Of course let us never forget the lesson of Versaille - humiliate your enemy beyond reason and they'll goose-step down your door. (I think there were earlier examples, but eh ...)

I am not sure what you are referring about... care to enlighten me? :smallbiggrin:

From Wikipedia, there's been about 9 treaties of Versaille. The biggest is, obviously, the one that ended WW1.. but maybe you are talking about another one?

[Storm Bringer]

And how do you know he was planning to go back to colonalism once he would have finished with Europe?





well Nappy didn't make any bones about his plans for world domination. the Egyptian fiasco was partly launched to pave the way for an invasion of India overland (as a very long term goal)





I am not sure what you are referring about... care to enlighten me? :smallbiggrin:

From Wikipedia, there's been about 9 treaties of Versaille. The biggest is, obviously, the one that ended WW1.. but maybe you are talking about another one?

no, he's reffering to the 1918 treaty. It was a compromise between those who wanted to break germany as a power and those who didn't want to arm germany with a greivence for another war.

the result was that it was harsh enough to really annoy germany and give substance to hitlers rhetoric about being mis treated by the allies, but not so harsh as to prevent them form getting thier feet back under them.

the feeling of many was summed up quite well by:

This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.

and he was right.

[Gaius Marius]

no, he's reffering to the 1918 treaty. It was a compromise between those who wanted to break germany as a power and those who didn't want to arm germany with a greivence for another war.

the result was that it was harsh enough to really annoy germany and give substance to hitlers rhetoric about being mis treated by the allies, but not so harsh as to prevent them form getting thier feet back under them.

the feeling of many was summed up quite well by:


and he was right.

Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to point out the guy who said it was just going to be a relapse. But at the time, I am sure the great majority of everybody thought Germany was gone for good.

[Klose_the_Sith]

And life and history would have rolled on, and the Nazi Regime would have come to an end eventually, collapsed under its own incompetence at running things.

It wouldn't have been the "end of the world", it would have been just one more page in the history book.

It took the Roman Empire hundreds of years to figure out that their economic plan didn't actually work and that their Empire was doomed. The Nazi's could very well still be going today, had they won WW2.

Although I do wonder how a global Nazi Imperium would have evolved, as science changed and counterpoints were brought to Aryan concepts - not to mention when the big H died. It's an interesting question from the perspective of alternate history ...


I guess giving free right of religion to the people he ruled rather than forcing Protestant, Catholics and Jews in ghetto doesn't count?

Allowing any man to become anything (save the top position) in his government, doing away with the old nobility cast system?

The breaking of the Inquisition?

Not compared to abandoning colonialism, wherein genocide and human rights abuses were practically commonplace and the segregation/discrimination/forced cultural change made Europe look moderate.


And how do you know he was planning to go back to colonalism once he would have finished with Europe?

I think I might have been thinking of the seven years war :smallredface:

Although really, had he become Emperor of Europe I can't imagine him deciding that that was enough or that he would stop conquering :smallredface:


Yhea.. it was inconsiderate of him to have been declared war upon by the English 7 times, eh?

Britain only declared war on him twice, really. They kept fighting when the coalitions crumbled to deny Napoleon a chance to fully consolidate his gains.


Most of the Napoleonian Wars had the French as the agressee, not the aggressors. The others were usually wars aimed at preventing further aggression (like the disastrous Russian expedition).

How rude Napoleon was, clearly, he should never have beared any hostility to the English :smallamused:

While that might be true for some of them, you still have wars that Napoleon started - one example which sticks out in particular being the Peninsular Wars where they funnelled troops into Spain to betray their long-standing ally and conquer Spain.

Truly, he was a great man of peace :smallwink:


I am not sure what you are referring about... care to enlighten me? :smallbiggrin:

From Wikipedia, there's been about 9 treaties of Versaille. The biggest is, obviously, the one that ended WW1.. but maybe you are talking about another one?

The one that ended WW1 is indeed what I was referring to.

(Also, please note that John Maynard Keynes, the biggest economist of his time, explained to the British Government that the treaty would just create further unrest. They didn't listen to him, even when he had a book published on it "The Economic Consequences of the Peace".)

[Eldan]

Let's go back to Rome for a while and let the RL politics rest, shall we?

So, I have conquered Italy up to the alps, with the exception of Mediolanum (nice town in RL, by the way), and two cities on Sicily, the third being owned by my Carthaginian allies.

Then, out of nowhere... the Eleutheroi suddenly come knocking in from the Northeast with a level eight general called Conan and his army of 2500 celtic mercenaries. The Aedui (gauls) decide that's a nice time to come in from the northeast with 1500 men. And while my army (a meager 2000 soldiers) is busy somehow holding them off, the Qarthadastim declare war and take both cities on Sicily because I have no army left down there.

I might have a bit of a problem.

[Brother Oni]

Although I do wonder how a global Nazi Imperium would have evolved, as science changed and counterpoints were brought to Aryan concepts - not to mention when the big H died. It's an interesting question from the perspective of alternate history ...


Read Fatherland by Robert Harris, it gives a very good alternate history of 'what if' Germany won WW2.

As a bonus, Rutger Hauer plays the protagonist in the film - I can't think of more perfect casting. :smallbiggrin:[/QUOTE]

[Gaius Marius]

Read Fatherland by Robert Harris, it gives a very good alternate history of 'what if' Germany won WW2.

As a bonus, Rutger Hauer plays the protagonist in the film - I can't think of more perfect casting. :smallbiggrin:[/QUOTE]

I think I've seen a movie about that. There was a state of cold war between Germany and the US, and the plot begins with an American (ambassador?) arriving in Germany.

[Thorcrest]

Let's go back to Rome for a while and let the RL politics rest, shall we?

So, I have conquered Italy up to the alps, with the exception of Mediolanum (nice town in RL, by the way), and two cities on Sicily, the third being owned by my Carthaginian allies.

Then, out of nowhere... the Eleutheroi suddenly come knocking in from the Northeast with a level eight general called Conan and his army of 2500 celtic mercenaries. The Aedui (gauls) decide that's a nice time to come in from the northeast with 1500 men. And while my army (a meager 2000 soldiers) is busy somehow holding them off, the Qarthadastim declare war and take both cities on Sicily because I have no army left down there.

I might have a bit of a problem.

Ouch, yeah that might be a problem...

I actually decided to get EB, and it's great fun, but I can no longer play the vanilla game since a crucial file is missing and I need to reinstall, but cannot find the uninstall or reinstall options...

Anyways, EB works for me and I started playing as Rome as well. I also encountered this Conan, he's from Illyria. I went a different rout from you though, I decided to avoid Sicily and maintain peace with Quarthadastim, and go into Illyria, so Conan never marshalled an army against him and was disposed of in his own town.

I started by taking Southern Italy and then went North, taking all of modern Italy but Mediolanum, much as you did, but then sent diplomats to sign peace treaties with the Gallic factions and begin trade relations. I then built an army in the south as insurance and left small forces on my Gallic border, 4 units in Segesta, Bolani, and Patavium (or however they are spelled), and moved my Northern army, into Illyria and marching down the Adriatic to go fight Epiros. Pyrrhus is dead and his faction holds only Pella, of all things, but now Macedon has decided to attack me so I have begun the Macedonian wars instead of the Punic wars... probably a good idea as Carthage makes a good Trade partner anyways! :smallbiggrin:

I quite like this Mod for the game, adds far more territories and traits which I find quite nice, but I have to get used to the high prices for buildings and units (Honestly, 1006 Mnai for one unit of Hastati is more than double the vanilla price!), with my income being relatively similar to that of Vanilla Rome.

[Eldan]

Wikipedia lists half a dozen Conans, but they are all British or Irish.

I'm in alliances with the Sweboz (largest German tribe), the Koinon Hellenon, Baktria and Pontos. So I guess Seleukeia hates me as well. Luckily, they are far away and busy. Actually one of the first things I did was make peace with the Epirotes and the war I started with Carthago for attacking Sicilly only lasted two seasons and never saw any action. So, I thought I was mostly safe down in the south. Turns out I wasn't.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I hope you like the taste of getting stabbed in the back. :smallamused:

[Eldan]

Ah, my family is huge. You start with four sons in law, and I'm starting the fourth generation now (they are mostly around two years old). I have something like a dozen adult males now. So, the stabbing will take some time.

Of course, none of them has a single star as a general. But they are all great administrators.

[Rustic Dude]

I feel your pain. In my game, Phyrrus, with 80 whooping years, is still leading the Epeirote Army conquering everything because all the generals-to-be are pretty bad. 2 stars tops, and that is after Spartan education.

[Gaius Marius]

I feel your pain. In my game, Phyrrus, with 80 whooping years, is still leading the Epeirote Army conquering everything because all the generals-to-be are pretty bad. 2 stars tops, and that is after Spartan education.

I was thinking, in my TW Medieval game, to shape some of my generals by putting them in towns that have no brother, just stat-boosting buildings (like Tourney or achery fields and churches), and then send them in battle with small forces against small troupes of bandits. Then free the bandits, and do it again.

Is it actually doable?

[Rustic Dude]

Dunno, that could work. All I know is that if a family member gets cultured in a city with academy, is less likely to gain Command traits.

Battles add a bit of command, yes. But at least in my Europa Barbarorum game, it didn't reach even 3 after some ten good battles. Medieval was much more forgiving with the command stars and your general should get them easily.

Ah, I remember fondly one general I got when there was only the vanilla Roma Total War. He had four freaking command stars from start, and conquered the whole world.

[Gaius Marius]

Dunno, that could work. All I know is that if a family member gets cultured in a city with academy, is less likely to gain Command traits.

Battles add a bit of command, yes. But at least in my Europa Barbarorum game, it didn't reach even 3 after some ten good battles. Medieval was much more forgiving with the command stars and your general should get them easily.


Actually, if I remember right, you must do battles that the computer evaluates as "unlikely" to win and have clear/heroic victories in them for the best chances.

If you win battles that the computer evaluates as "impossible", you might get the trait "reckless", which isn't the best of trait.

If you win battles the computer evaluates as "easy", you get some negative traits.

And, if I remember right (again!), your general getty bloody himself on the battlefield helps his command stat. But I am not 100% sure.

(yhea, I red the Medieval 2 : Total War trait faq.. sue me :smallamused:)

[Eldan]

I remember that I had an 8 star general in Medieval 8 once, when I was playing the picts. He rocked. But there, generals leveled all the time.

[Klose_the_Sith]

I once had an Empire game with 4 Generals at 7 stars or more. I think I went 2 of those in Vanilla Rome before winning and losing interest ...

... but then again, my Vanilla Rome Generals were known for feats like regular kill ratings of ~1,000 for them and their bodyguards.

[Gaius Marius]

Okay.. My first game evar of TW! Play as the mighty French, and attackig rebel settlements for naow.

The castle i am currently assieging has only 4 units in defense. But one of th happens to be dismountes knights, or something like that. Heavy infantry, obviously.

Myself, I got 2 cavalries (general + mail knights), 3x spearman militias and 2x archer militia.

I Build 2 rams and go on opening 2 nice holes in their walls. Now, tell me if I am right: my strategy should be to focus mainly on trapping these heavy infantry, to break and kill them... Right?

I was thinkin of leavin a group of spearmen near one of the hole so they'd move out and engage them, then smashing their flank with my general. The other infantries would go after the ennemy archers, my own archers would shoot on the melée between my soldiers and their heavies.

If possible, use the 2nd hole to get my mail knights behind them and charge the heavies from the inside?

Or I should simply rush the town center?

[Eldan]

Militias will probably turn and run if hte fight doesn't go well for them. Be prepared for that. Cavalry is generally good on the charge, but weak if bogged down in infantry. So use them as a hammer in the flanks. If you have more archers than the enemy, try shooting his archers first. If you get htem all down and still have archers and arrows left, continue shooting his lightly armored units.

Generally, I prefer shooting as much as possible first to soften the enemy up. After that, concentrate as many troops as possible in one spot.

[Coidzor]

...Can Militias even take peasants? :smallconfused:

edit: Tie up the heavy infantry and then charge their flanks/sides with your cavalry.

[Kiero]

Ah, my family is huge. You start with four sons in law, and I'm starting the fourth generation now (they are mostly around two years old). I have something like a dozen adult males now. So, the stabbing will take some time.

Of course, none of them has a single star as a general. But they are all great administrators.

You're the human player. Command stars are largely irrelevant (even if they give defense and morale bonuses) unless you're auto-calc'ing most of your battles.

[Eldan]

Oh, sure. But I still like them, they look pretty.

And I think the computer is screwing with me. I defeated 8 star Conan (barely) rebuilt my army (expensive) and went on to kick the Gauls out of my (recently acquired from them) lands.

And there's a 10 star general in Mediolanum. Hahaha.


Also, just to make my anger complete: I have a battle against 1600 Qarthadastim. They are attacking my reinforcements, only about 900 men.

Perfect starting position. An extremely steep pass street between forested mountains. I set up at the top, they set up far, far away at the bottom. My slingers start shooting them and their cheaper troops, sent in first, lose more than half of their men and run. The more expensive troops come up, my slingers retreat. Luckily, the entire Roman infantry of this era has javelins, so they advance up an almost vertical hill, on a narrow street, through a rain of javelins. By the time they are up there, they lost maybe half their men and the rest was exhausted from running uphill. Cue cavalry charges into the flanks and my (still totally fresh) principes from the front.

Overwhelming victory. Lost about 50 soldiers, barely any Qarthadastim survive.

Then the game crashes.

[Gaius Marius]

^^ It is my Theory they progammed the AI to be spiteful and to ragequit the game during your best performance..

[Kiero]

Overwhelming victory. Lost about 50 soldiers, barely any Qarthadastim survive.

Then the game crashes.

There's a memory leak issue with the RTW engine that often causes post-battle CTDs. One of the main ways to avoid it is to wait 15-30 seconds after the victory scroll before clicking to continue. Gives time for all the battle stuff to be cleared out of memory.

Another one is to quit and restart every 2-3 hours to clear the memory.

[Eldan]

Yes, I was familiar with that bug, I've had it often enough in Medieval. I just forgot... and I thought it wouldn't occur if I started up the game and did that battle as the first thing.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Yes, I was familiar with that bug, I've had it often enough in Medieval. I just forgot... and I thought it wouldn't occur if I started up the game and did that battle as the first thing.

I've had some reeeaaallly long sieges that I just BARELY won, and then it crashes.

I hate re-doing sieges.

[Eldan]

Yeah. After a crash, I usually just let the AI do the battles for me. Hate redoing things, even if the result is usually far worse.

And as far as I can tell, Rome lacks the "quick save before battle" function of Medieval.

[Thorcrest]

You can just press escape to access the menu and save your game before each battle.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

You can just press escape to access the menu and save your game before each battle.

I do, but I still hate redoing the battle itself.

[Eldan]

True, I can do that. The problem is, without a prominently placed quicksave button, I often forget it.

[Kiero]

You can just press escape to access the menu and save your game before each battle.

That can cause post-battle crashes, there's a bug related to it. You should never load a game that's already on the pre-battle screen. You also won't be able to activate the script.

[Thorcrest]

Really? Hmmm. I do it all the time, but I've only ever had three battles crash, one that was a big deal and pissed me off, and it continually crashed, so I had to autocalculate it, but the others were just little dinky battles that weren't such a big deal... annoying, but not a problem.