Total War: Roman Style

[JRSCline]

If there is Rome in a box somewhere, I'm definitely buying it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
We mustn't be "authenticity Nazis" and lose sight of the fun. On the other hand, reality is so interesting, why add fantasy elements?<br>
<br>
If I were an alignment, I'd be Neutral Good. It's so annoying being able to see three sides to every story!<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Jenny <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Neutral good? Yeah right! Better take care not to turn into a Chaotic neutral. <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[JRSCline]

I am definitely not an authenticity Nazi -- they are all Lawful Neutrals.<br>
<br>
Most Dutch are Chaotics of one sort or another...<br>
<br>
J. <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Lawful neutrals, ugh<br>
<br>
Ahhh, yes, I remember that slur from somewhere. Now, where was it, somewhere on the net! Romanarmy.com perhaps? <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Rome in a box: just add water and stir...<br>
<br>
I think the screen shot of the incorrect auxilary centurione whatevers is itself incorrectly labeled. I think it's really a shot of some equally incorrect transverse crested hoplites with octagonal shields. or maybe <span style="text-decoration:underline">I'm</span> incorrect! <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

P.S. I'm gonna buy it anyway, if only to find out! <p></p><i></i>

[StrategyM]

Trust me - I played STW from one end to the other; was very active on the old totalwar.org forum (ask JRS) and was one of the first to get the game. I don't bother with multi-player games much since either: a) I do not enjoy RTS stye games, and b) if it is not an RTS style game (i.e., you are allowed to pause the game whenever you want), I'll win 9 times out of 10 (Sorry - I don't mean to brag, but I've really only found a very few people that are actually challenging to play against - an unfortunate side-effect of tending to over-analyze games).<br>
<br>
And as much fun as the battle game is in STW (and it is fun), it is Rock (Infantry) beats Scissors (Cavalry) beat Paper (Archers). The fact that you have several variants of the rock, the paper, and the scissors does not alter this very basic gameplay mechanism. And personally, I don't see anything bad about that - it was a conscious design choice made by the CA; and it works well in the context of their game. That it is ahistorical, and that too many people do not have the intelligence to understand that, is an unfortunate side-effect.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regarding the whole realism vs fun thing; I have always wondered: Why do people always believe that <strong>more realism = less fun</strong>?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

So Strategy, are you trying to say that "real" ancient combat is not Rock Paper Scissors? You say that that mindset is atypical historically, how so?<br>
<br>
If you have a force of pure calvary, and you face an enemy of similar size heavy in spears/pikes, you're trying to tell me that you would actually charge your horse into those spears and expect to win (or if you win, without losing 2/3rd of your force in the process)? ie, scissors beats rock?<br>
<br>
Or if instead, your cavalry unit came across a predominatly lightly armed archer army-- on anything but drastically unequal terrain-- and you decided to charge, you would expect to lose the fight? ie, paper actually beats scissors?<br>
<br>
I think its been shown fairly well that archers of any time period will completely decimate infantry (either physically or their morale) if given enough time and ammunition to continually pummel their opponents without having to close in hand to hand. ie, paper beats rock. rock, of course, will slaughter those archers if they must cease being paper and become a rock (by engaging in hand to hand)....and what general would ever knowingly/willingly place his archers in this position?<br>
<br>
(Wasn't it a spartan battle where the enemy knew this and told the trapped spartan leader that they would suffer under a cloud of arrows so thick, it would block out the sun, in the hopes that the very thought of it would break the spartan will to fight? (of course, the response was great--'then we'll fight in the shade!'-- on the same level as the WWII quote of 'Nuts!' in the battle of the bulge))<br>
<br>
Now, if you are playing STW or any game that basis its combat system off of this principle, its up to you to make sure you have a diverse enough force on the field of battle to counter everything that is sent against you. But isn't this the same thing in "real" life? If I'm foolish enough to march my Roman 'rock' into Parthian lands with no counter to their mounted 'paper', am I not insane if I think I'm going to win? Rock-Paper-Scissors. It *is* that simple, really.<br>
<br>
Is it 'overly simplified' in these types of games? Sure, but what game can accurately portray whether or not in "real" life a unit would break and run from any threat they face, or rather, overcome tremendous odds, forge ahead, and by their own determination, force the enemy to break and run (even though the enemy still maintains numerical superiority). The odds say that Agincourt shouldn't have happened. Boudicea's routing by Agricola shouldn't have happened. The very young and green 10th mountain division should not have taken all those hills in WWII, etc. But the majority of battles out there, I believe, *does* follow a rock paper scissors mindset, and it is from this mindset that all battlefield tactics are initially created. I doubt strongly you've ever heard in a commanders tent the words "Okay, we'll start by charging our archers into their calvary..."<br>
<br>
Just curious. People criticize these types of games for this reason, but I'd like to hear about generals who were successful and did NOT follow the basic tenet of 'attack my enemy's strength with their own weakness'.<br>
<br>
Uale!<br>
<br>
Britannicus<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

fisrt off...in response...any true [url=http://totalwar.ea-europe.com/players/PlayerDetails.asp?PlayerID=48048" target="top]stw[/url]/[url=http://totalwar.ea-europe.com/mi/Players/PlayerDetails.asp?PlayerID=366" target="top]mi[/url]/[url=http://www.fearfulways.com" target="top]mtw[/url] player will tell you that spears units are rock, swords units are paper and cav are scissors... the missle units are considered outside this forumula.. and then you add things like moral, terrain, and weather... but the biggest modifer of the formula is the commander:<br>
<br>
The essence of military operations is speed, taking advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness, going by routes he docs not expect and attacking him where he is not on guard.-Sun Tzu<br>
<br>
another all important factor is your timing. i could go on and on about the nature of warfare but i think you should try reading [url=http://www.chinavista.com/experience/warart/warframe.html" target="top]sun tzu- the art of war[/url]. his principles are what the game is founded upon.<br>
<br>
but plz...i had no intentions on coming to this wonderful forum to defend the [url=http://www.totalwar.com" target="top]tw series[/url]... just to chat among patrons who might enjoy playing it. plz stop bashing this game in order to try and promote another...thanx <br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fearofnc>FearofNC</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://home.ec.rr.com/fearfulways/NC/img0.gif" BORDER=0> at: 2/8/03 9:24:46 am<br></i>

[Catiline]

To be fair NC Strategy isn't bashing TW to promote his game, in fact I'm not convinced he's actually bashing at all. We know the historicity of TW is lacking. It doesn't matter, it's still a damn good game, precisely because it's glorified rock paper scissors. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

ahh a good compramise as always cat <strong>glorified rock,paper,siccors</strong> i can live with this <p></p><i></i>

[StrategyM]

Britannicus -<br>
<br>
Yes - I am exactly saying that real Ancient combat isn't rock-paper-scissors. Because in anything but the most extremely lop-sided circumstances, disciplined heavy infantry rules the battlefield.<br>
<br>
Cavalry have advantages over infantry, but not on the field of battle itself - the advantage of cavalry lies in its strategic mobility which allows it to strike at the supply system to great effect. On a one-to-one basis, Cavalry haven't got a hope against equally well-armed infantry (of course the infantry can't defeat the cavalry either since they can't catch them - but that is another problem).<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think its been shown fairly well that archers of any time period will completely decimate infantry (either physically or their morale) if given enough time and ammunition to continually pummel their opponents without having to close in hand to hand.<hr><br>
<br>
Sorry to say so, but this is incorrect. There does not, as far as I know (and I'm getting this distinct sense of deja-vu at hearing this claim made yet again), exist even a SINGLE recorded instance of a pitched battle where archery alone has succeeded in decimating infantry. Not even Carrhae (if we accept that this is a pitched battle - which is stretching the definition somewhat) - the textbook example of archery/mounted versus infantry - is such an instance. Archery can "soften" infantry prior to a charge, and even break up a charge enough that it doesn't come into contact (but - of particular note - ONLY if the archers are themselves protected by heavy infantry), but - and I'll repeat this again - there is no historical evidence to suggest that archery fire alone was capable of decimating and breaking heavy infantry in any historical pitched battles. If you can find any - especially for this period - feel free to let me know, as it would interest me greatly.<br>
<br>
FearofNC -<br>
<br>
What is a "true" STW player anyway? I'd explain to you about why the dynamics of the game system in STW (which I studied extensively when I played the game, the same way I break down every game system that I play for more than a few weeks - comes of having specialized in AI during my C.Sc. studies and having a slightly over-analytical mindset) make it a classic RPS game. But I really don't think it's worth the while; I have better things to do, and I think you may be melding concepts from MTW with STW (and as I said, I have no experience of MTW and therefore won't comment on the dynamics of that system). I'll just point out that just because a game system seems to have a lot of complexity involved, doesn't necesarrily mean that all of that complexity is of great importance. Most often, all the complex game interactions can be boiled down to a very few, basic rules. This is the case in STW, as in most other games as well.<br>
<br>
That aside, just because STW is - as Catiline says - a glorified rock-paper-scissors game, doesn't mean that I think it is a bad game. In fact, I think the tactical part of S:TW is an excellent game. I found it a lot of fun for a while, and I especially admire the tactical AI, which I think is impressive considering the potential complexity of the game environment (it would have been very easy for the AI programmers to get lost in many of those largely unimportant details). The only gripe I've ever had with S:TW (apart from the fact that people can't distinguish Total War from history ) is that the strategic side of the game was a complete letdown, IMO (which was extremely annoying because at the time CA had been promising deep tactical and strategic gameplay). I understand this has been improved somewhat in MTW, but the reviews haven't impressed me enough that I have felt like buying it. Maybe at some later date when its gone down in price.<br>
<br>
As for Rome:Total War - I'm looking forward to seeing it and - unless the strategic gameplay completely sucks or the tactical battles are too ahistorical (gladiators and catapults on the field of battle tend to make me somewhat apprehensive) - will probably purchase it. The only thing I'm not looking forward is having to read people coming to strange conclusions about history based on the game. But I guess that is inevitable.<br>
<br>
<p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I vehemently disagree with your contention that archery has never decimated infantry. There are cases where archer proved decisive. First let’s address what is meant by decimating infantry.<br>
Decimation<br>
1 : to select by lot and kill every tenth man of<br>
2 : to exact 10 percent from<br>
3 a : to reduce drastically especially in number b : to destroy a large part of<br>
<br>
also of interest. U.S. Army doctrine in judging an enemy suppressed, neutralized or destroyed by fire (Artillery Field Manuals 6-20 and 6-40)<br>
<br>
Suppressed = 10% enemy casualties<br>
Neutralized = 20%<br>
Destroyed = 30%<br>
<br>
It may seem incredible that such ‘low’ casualties could suppress, neutralize or destroy an enemy, the reason besides the physical casualties caused is the effect on the morale of the enemy force<br>
<br>
At Crecy, Poiters, Agincourt and Carrhae archer proved decisive. In each case archery caused the majority of the casualties and the main cause in the decline of morale in the defeated force. It should be remembered that in most of the French-English battles mentioned the majority of the defeated force was an infantry force. The body of Genoese crossbowman was decisively defeated by English longbowmen. It is also easy to determine how decisive the archers were in each of those battles. The U.S. Army has a very detailed simulator called JANUS which we use both to determine probable outcomes of future conflicts and also to study past conflicts. It takes into account, weapons effects, protection, training, morale etc. Removing the archers from any of these battles also removes the chance of victory for their respective sides. Leaving only Parthian Clibinarii to face Roman infantry and Gallic/Galatian cavalry also results in Roman victory. That proves the decisiveness of the arm of archery.<br>
<br>
At the Battle of Falkirk the English cavalry attacking early could not budge or penetrate the Scottish Schiltrons. After Edward brought up his Welsh longbowmen they decimated the Scottish spearmen, allowing the English cavalry to penetrate the huge gaps. Again, simulate this, remove longbowmen and the English lose, remove English cavalry and not the archers and the English still win.<br>
<br>
In the strictest sense ‘archer alone’ has not ever won a battle but you can say the same about any arm. Agincourt, Falkirk and Carrhae are probably the closest. Archers and cavalry with all their strengths have their own vulnerabilities which is why combined arms is best even to this day. Archers could probably have won those battles alone even if the other arms only deployed to protect them instead of actually fighting.<br>
<br>
I also disagree that cavalry never had a battlefield advantage over infantry. That is a drastic oversimplification. The Housecarles and Fyrd that pursued the apparently faked Norman retreat of the left wing were definitely at a disadvantage. Caught in the open, in loose order, and on flat ground they were slaughtered.<br>
<br>
The heavy Roman infantry at Cannae, probably better armed and armored than the Gallic and Spanish Cavalry were defeated by a cavalry charge against their rear. Remove them and the Romans would still have lost but they would have withdrawn their army in relatively good order.<br>
<br>
In Alexander’s army the decisive battlefield arm was the cavalry both Companion and Thessalian. Dismount these and they are no longer the arm of decision.<br>
<br>
There is also the morale factor that mounted troops have over dismounts. It is true that in the case of highly desciplined infantry this may matter not at all but if the best trained and best equipped force of infantry don't stand their ground oe even if a small but significant portion of them don't, the cavalry using battlefield mobility and shock may overwhelm them. It takes courage and experience to stand before a mounted charge. In the height of infantry this was usual, when infantry declined it became more rare.<br>
<br>
<br>
In the era of ancient Rome infantry still has a higher relative effectiveness compared to other arms. This infantry ascendancy will shift over time but it was never absolute.<br>
<br>
As a career soldier, life long student of military history and military operations I think it is an oversimplification to say that tactics are a form of rock, paper, scissors but ONLY in the sense that there can be many more factors that just three. The Napoleonic era comes closest to this simplified view but in all cases, morale, training, terrain, relative quality and effectiveness of weapons and other factors all can have a decisive effect. To this day each arm has its strengths and weaknesses. Combined arms emphasizes the advantages and minimizes the vulnerabilities. The different arms protect each other while enabling opportunities for each others strengths.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

Salve,<br>
<br>
No unit can win a battle on its own. What is more important is that an army works as one body. Archers can be really devastating (Crecy, Agincourt, Nagashino), but in all of these battle's, the arrows or bulets were followed up by a charge of cavalry or infantry. Try it in one of the Total War games, it works! (thats how i win most of the times). Furthermore, in my experience the type of unit is not important to win - the commander and morale is decisive.<br>
<br>
oh, i can't wait for RTW for to arrive<br>
<br>
gr, jeroen <p></p><i></i>

[JRSCline]

I'm beginning to think StrategyM is a Lawful Neutral.<br>
<br>
Strat, by the way, is one of the very very first members on RAT. I believe Catiline and Shiro have pride of place but Strategy was also one of the first, as were a number of other totalwar.org Dojo members who stopped in here to lend encouragement when our membership number was under 20. (Truly ancient history...)<br>
<br>
And are the Fears still stuck in their Ways? I wonder if any of my old clanmates are still playing online...<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Jenny<br>
(once known as Mariko) <p></p><i></i>