Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rome Total War- Battle strategies
#61
Whether squadrons, subgroups, or individual ships, it would be good to have some specialties. Some ships are made for ramming. Some ships have catapults, perhaps with fire, like the land units. Some ships have upgrades of different sorts that might make them faster, or heavier, etc. But the ship warfare as it is now is pretty lame.

How about supply lines? It's silly to be able to keep an army stack in one place indefinitely in ambush mode without ever having to go for food somewhere. Water, ok, except in the desert regions, water is available. If a unit is cut off from its supply of food, it would begin to shrink, much like if it were in a city under siege. I think capturing a baggage train should be included by increasing the goods and such of a victorious army, too. Whatever the enemy had becomes yours. Sell the excess in the next town.

The ability for a unit or army to surrender.

What about being able to build a bridge over a river that is in the way of where you want to go? Sacrifice a bit of time, use some resources, just like building siege equipment. I suppose that's a programming problem. The bridge either becomes permanent, or else bridges can be destroyed. Romans had great engineers. J.Caesar crossing the Rhine at flood stage proved that. Being pursued, the Romans build a bridge, cross the river, then can destroy the bridge behind them. To escape, an army that has anything that can hurl fire can burn a bridge, like burning a building in a town you're attacking.

Siege catapults and ballistae ought to be able to shoot at ships near the shore.

And lastly, make it so I always win when I'm ready for victory. Heh. :lol:
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#62
Something that I would really like to see is a complete overhaul of the fort system. Forts in RTR and its associated mods are useless, you can never fight from them, they offer no advantage whatsoever on the battle map, and their only use on the strategic map is to hold bottlenecks and so on.

I would like the option to make both temporary marching camps, and permament, stone ones. The marching camps, with multi-levelled towers, proper gatehouses, ditches, walls and ramparts from which you can actually fire from, not the useless camp you have now. Also, when you build a stone fort in a territory, all 'rebels/bandits' that usualyl spawn there should stop. I hate it that no matter how many stacks of armies you have in a province, brigands still spring up every now and then. This does not represent a realistic situation.

Should you leave your lands vulnerable then fair enough, but realistically it would encourage you to leave some reserve forces in your lands, and not just on the borders, to curb piracy and brigandry. Thats not too much to ask for.
Reply
#63
The fort idea you mention is fantastic, I was quite disappointed with my first "fort" battle since it provides no advantage.

If they make Rome TW 2 I want a more in depth and strategy involved Siege warfare.
Travis Satterfield
Formerly Decimus Claudius Drusus screen name
Reply
#64
That and the fact I rarely ever see the AI ever using forts. I think I've seen it once over the years I've played RTW and its mods.
Reply
#65
Yes, I have noticed that when they lay seig to your forts, and you lose, they don't seem to occupy them....at least not in any recent campaigns I've played.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#66
I generally play as the Romans (Julii). I like to put my missile troops in front of my heavy infantry with 2 or 3 units of lighter infantry who throw the pilum standing behind. The missiles fire/throw their missiles then retreat behind the heavy infantry. The heavy infantry then throw their pilum if they have any and the infantry units behind them can fire at will. With this method the enemy if attacking in waves will often run away before they've even attacked my men.
I have my cavalry on the left and right flanks as evenly distributed as i can but with the general on the right. Traditionally the enemies left flank is weaker that their right.
If the enemy dont run after the first engagement then the heavy infantry engage and when the lighter infantry run out of missiles they engage. They're less tired than the other troops by this point so make up for them not being so good. The missile troops meanwhile attack the enemy flanks and the cavalry who generally win against any enemy cavalry fall into the enemies rear. The general I usually set to chase anyone fleeing.
I usually only fight battles where I'm outnumbered so if the enemy go for a long battle line to try and outfalnk me I put my troops in a formation a bit like the Alexander one used a bve but with both flanks indented and the cavalry protecting their flanks. This generally confuses the enemy unless their generals particularly good. I did this against the Spanish when they had over 3000 men and I had just under 900 and they only killed 28 of my men (my missiles killed more of my men).
I once attacked the SPQR general with some siege catapults and it actually killed him. That was probably a complete fluke but I think I deserved it since the catapults had been useless in previous battles.
Jeremy Latcham
Quae caret ora cruore nostro?
Reply
#67
I usually try to aim at the Generals unit if he will come in range wit h my artillary. Not just a fluke! some times I have seen him taken out in the first salvo!!! Big Grin
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#68
I've seen that, too, GJC. It really lowers the morale of the enemy when their general is gone before the battle even begins, so to speak.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#69
Yeah, decapitation is usually a very effective strategy. Especially later in the game when you start getting very experienced enemy generals. I either do it with ballistas or chase him down with my cavalry. Its especially fun when they are on ships and you sink them to the bottom of the sea, together with a stack of enemy units lol.

There have been times I have defeated factions solely by assassinating and killing their family members in the field. Very rewarding :twisted:
Reply
#70
That's true. When the last family member is dead, that faction simply becomes some version of Rebels, and is no more.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#71
*I'd like to see smarter enemies (when they run from the battlefield sometimes they will just run straight into your troops)
*The ability to chose whether you want to surrender in a ceasefire, or if you are calling for the enemy surrender.
*more choices of mercenaries
* Fix the glitch where when you get your men in formation, then tell them to march they sometimes get into a new stupid formation.
*have cavalry switch to using swords after the first charge.
*not let the legionaries carry so many pillums (pillii?)
*allow you to decide whether you want your legionaries to throw a pilum before charging, or to just charge.
*When ramming the walls, dont let the soldiers look stiff as sticks just sliding back and forth with the ram
*let some of the fleeing enemies be able to stop and fight small bands of your troops (plowing down thousands of infantry with 20 horses doesnt make much sense)
* One bireme being able to carry an army makes no sense. limit how many troops one ship can carry.
*somehow making the battles on a scale more comparable to those of reality would be nice, but difficult.
*more accurate armor and stuff
*no more larger that life trees.
*more realistic diplomacy (if they have one city left that is surrounded by way more massive armies, they should surrender...)
*LET US PLAY ALL FACTIONS!!!!!

-Nihonius
Nomen:Jared AKA "Nihon" AKA "Nihonius" AKA "Hey You"

Now with Anti-Varus protection! If your legion is lost for any reason, we will give it back! Guaranteed!

Carpe Dium
Reply
#72
Quote:*I'd like to see smarter enemies (when they run from the battlefield sometimes they will just run straight into your troops)
*The ability to chose whether you want to surrender in a ceasefire, or if you are calling for the enemy surrender.
*more choices of mercenaries
* Fix the glitch where when you get your men in formation, then tell them to march they sometimes get into a new stupid formation.
*have cavalry switch to using swords after the first charge.
*not let the legionaries carry so many pillums (pillii?)
*allow you to decide whether you want your legionaries to throw a pilum before charging, or to just charge.
*When ramming the walls, dont let the soldiers look stiff as sticks just sliding back and forth with the ram
*let some of the fleeing enemies be able to stop and fight small bands of your troops (plowing down thousands of infantry with 20 horses doesnt make much sense)
* One bireme being able to carry an army makes no sense. limit how many troops one ship can carry.
*somehow making the battles on a scale more comparable to those of reality would be nice, but difficult.
*more accurate armor and stuff
*no more larger that life trees.
*more realistic diplomacy (if they have one city left that is surrounded by way more massive armies, they should surrender...)
*LET US PLAY ALL FACTIONS!!!!!

-Nihonius


Jared, you should really try Rome:Total Realism (Platinum Edition 1.9) or Europa Barbarum.

Here, I'll compile all out ideas together:

- Forts: 2 types, a) Army Camps, which are temporary, similar to the existing forts, but with the ability to man the walls and such for proper defense during battles, and b) Stone/Permanent forts that give some kind of territorial bonus. Perhaps "Permanent" forts can train additional troops, but require +1 turn to train and still reduce the local population.

- Attrition: An army should lose soldiers if stationary in desert terrain over too many turns. Perhaps building a fort reduces this affect.

- Supply lines and River crossings: Perhaps this can be something like Attrition. Armies too far from home territory start to lose soldiers. To prevent this, build supply depots while in enemy territory. These depots are like temporary "miniforts" and can be raided/taken over by the enemy if you are not careful. Add in the ability to build bridges (perhaps some factions can build "permanent" stone bridges" while others can only build temporary bridges that only last for 10 turns or so).

- Better AI and Diplomacy: Sea raids and invasions should be more frequent and more menacing. Diplomacy should feel more realistic. Add in hostages (Philip II comes to mind) and marrying off daughters to seal alliances. More intrigue. AI uses forts more often. AI also occasionally razes cities they capture from you. Maybe make that a family member trait, like "Callousness: +50% chance he will raze conquered cities." Alliances are more durable. A faction should be more open to peace if they are beaten too many times on the battlefield. Add "surrender" options to units on the battlefield and for factions in diplomacy. Perhaps make defeat more devastating in order for "surrender" to be a viable option.

- Unit AI on the battle map: Routing units should fight back at least a little bit when pursuing enemy units are too small in number. Routing enemy units shouldn't be stupid and run right into your lines.

- Mercenaries: Look at the mod Rome:Total Realism for a much improved area of recruitment system for mercs. Make a larger variety of mercs. Make mercenaries possibly revolt if the player's treasury is in the red for too many turns (this could be cool or annoying, so make it a toggle option in the pre-game menu).

- Cities and Populations: Make it possible to raze city walls. Perhaps give the ability to found new cities as colonies. These new cities would have a +100 loyalty bonus for 10 turns, then gradually reduce 10% per turn. Make a cheap "colonist" unit that allows the player to shift population from one city to another. Colonists cannot fight on the battle map and are easy to destroy if ambushed by enemy armies. Give a larger culture bonus/penalty to un-colonized cities.

- Navy and Ships: Sea battles should be playable on the battle map, with ramming, fire arrows, boarding, etc. There should be different kinds of ships with different functions and abilities, rather than just upgraded versions of the next one down, as currently in RTW. The number of garrisonable army units for transport should depend on the number of ships or number of units of ships in a fleet (perhaps 1 army unit card per 1 ship unit card).

- Army and Soldiers: Units should be more varied and historical. Be as accurate as possible in their graphical depiction. Give options for a step above "Huge" unit sizes, for a more realistic looking experience.

- Campaign and Factions: Unlock all factions after defeating the game with the Romans on Medium difficulty. In addition to the "standard" campaign breadth, give the option for an "expanded" historical campaign, that lasts from 500BC to AD500, which includes emerging factions, historically scripted events and characters, and multiple eras of units and technology. So for Rome, the player would progress from the old "Hoplite" army era, to the Camilan era, to the Marian era, then to the Early Empire, and then Late Imperial eras. Let different factions truly play differently, rather than as just a variation on a theme. For instance make it possible in gameplay for one faction to exist happily in a steady-state fashion, while another faction requires continuous expansion in order to survive.

- Multiplayer: Include the ability for friends to play a multiplayer campaign that can be played out over the course of weeks or months. Add more support for guilds or clans.
Michael D. Hafer [aka Mythos Ruler, aka eX | Vesper]
In peace men bury their fathers. In war men bury their sons.
Reply
#73
Great ideas, i also think the soldiers armor upgrades should be visible like they are in Medieval II Total War. I'm not sure how accurate the system of armor upgrades even is for Roman times. Medieval makes sense, but Romans in the empire at least I believe were kept standard when it came to swords and armor. The early republic would have likely been a bit more mix and match when it came to armor.

Do most of you use the total realism mod? Any hardware conflits or glitches known?
Nomen:Jared AKA "Nihon" AKA "Nihonius" AKA "Hey You"

Now with Anti-Varus protection! If your legion is lost for any reason, we will give it back! Guaranteed!

Carpe Dium
Reply
#74
I have the same questions as Jared. I have long considered downloading the mods, but I am weary of it. I dont want ti to slow my computer or glitch the game or anything. Have any of you run into difficulties? Or is it pretty simple and quick process?
Travis Satterfield
Formerly Decimus Claudius Drusus screen name
Reply
#75
You guys don't know what you are missing.

There is no such thing as 'slowing down your computer' because you installed a mod. If you have a decent PC, install Europa Barbaroroum, probably the ultimate mod. If its slower, then stick to Rome Total Realism.

The process is very simple and both mods come with auto-installers. All you have to do once you have instaled a clean version of RTW and BI is to 'copy' it into another folder, and then have the instaler instal over that, as then you stil have your original RTW/BI game intact.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Players needed Rome Total War Warrior of Italia 7 3,193 11-24-2018, 06:00 PM
Last Post: Stug50
  Rome 2 Total Realism 3 released JaM 2 5,868 12-04-2016, 09:33 AM
Last Post: Timus
  Rome: Total War II rononmaximus 250 89,167 10-16-2016, 10:35 AM
Last Post: womble67

Forum Jump: