RS2: As Rome, how hard should the opening battle with Hannibal be?

[tone]

As the name of the thread suggests, we're having a bit of a discussion as to how difficult the first battle against Hannibal should be. We could make it impossible to win (historical), almost impossible to win, or a little easier to win. Also there's the question of whether to make it so you have to fight that battle of you can choose not to.

What are people's thoughts about the opening of the Roman campaign?

The poll is set up to allow multiple selections, so you can choose e.g. nearly impossible but should be able to avoid it.

[tone]

Just to enlarge a bit further....

At the moment the opening of the RS2 beta is pretty much set up as Lake Trasimene for the Romans. We have at least two options as to how to set things up other than the difficulty....

1) Set it up as a scripted battle, one you can't avoid, in which the Roman army is ambushed by Hannibal's army as happened at Trasimene.
Advantages: historical, extremely challenging
Disadvantages: might be offputting to lose an army straight away as a new or inexperienced player

2) You have the choice to engage your Roman army under Gaius Flaminius Nepos with Hannibal or put off confrontation...
Advantages: less offputting to the new player
Disadvantages: reduces the challenge somewhat, relatively easy to build up overwhelming forces and beat Hannibal by shear numbers

[Lucius Gellius Publicola]

I would love to give my vote but it says that i may not vote on this poll. Why would that be ?
As for the battle, it should be almost impossible to win.

[tone]

Less than 50 posts I think

[Ybbon]

Nearly impossible to win but you should be able to avoid it. If I were a new player and the first thing I had to do was play a battle I would almost never win, I would almost certainly uninstall the mod afterwards and never touch it again and you don't want to discourage new players. The alternative would be to put up an explanation that it is intentionally difficult, historically accurate and not to panic you haven't lost yet!

[Mr_Fluffy]

Hmmmmm...I can see both sides of this but have gone with a bit of 'Devil's advocacy'. Hope it's taken in the spirit intended.

I appreciate that a Lake Trasimine start gives an opportunity to avoid a Cannae, however small, but:-

How about setting up the start of a Roman campaign in the immediate aftermath of such a battle (e.g. Cannae, Lake Trasimene)? I mean that would prove a sop to the egos of wannabe saviours of Rome who could later take pride in the fact that they've played 'historically' and never lost a battle - exept naval, of course, nobody ever wins all of their naval battles...do they?

Maybe a chance to stop Hannibal before he got near the Alps?

Would a Carthaginian campaign begin with the road to Rome wide open and defenceless? Or with Scipio advancing on Carthage? A Gallic campaign beginning with Vercingetorix under seige in Alesia? I hear the Romans cry.

Would it not be possible to give us the best of both worlds with the option of a scripted or non-scripted start? I have no idea how big a pain that would be to implement.

Just a few thoughts. I'll go with the flow when released. Thanks for listening.

[Redolegna]

I'm going to go with what ybbon66 said. If it happens, then it should be very difficult to walk out that trap. But at the same time, not every player should feel forced to make Flaminius's blunders.

[stanley86]

The Romans were ambushed at Trasimene Lake, right? So, they didn't know that they were marching straight into Hannibal's trap. If the game starts right in that moment the battle should be inevitable. However, having an option to retreat may look tempting for some players. dvk901 once said something like the mod is as much historically accurate as possible at the start, but then the accuracy ends.
I will vote for:
- Nearly impossible to win (at Trasimene lake Romans had like 30,000 and Carthage 40,000 soldiers, if I remember correctly, so the difference is not that big relatively but with the element of surprise and escape routes cut off the battle was nearly impossible to win in my opinion. But with RomeTW engine you should be able to inflict some decent damage to Hannibal, I think).
- Should be able to avoid it in some way (don't know how though EDIT: hmm, maybe just sending a spy would do the job? "Oh, there's Hannibal. Retreat!" )

[DaddyPro]

Well if you would make it historical romans would have numbers and man power advantage and hannibal would have only position and mby ability to ambush but in rtw nobody would fall for that, unless you can make so that whenever player is attacking Hannibal it would occur as an ambush by Hannibal forces that way you would represent Hannibal's ability to lure romans into traps it would be very challenging, but you still would be able to avoid battle.

[evocarti]

i think that we should be able to avoid the battle cause as a matter of fact flaminius avoided a confrontation for a long time (and he did what his advisors told him) but the increase pressure of the senate and the devastating of the country and especially his arrogance made him attack (didn't listen to his advisors) maybe the best idea is at the start of the game a message should appear saying that the senate is angry with you and your lack of action and urgently asks you to take measures against hannibal. and also another message from your advisors saying that yes you have the advantage of numbers but they still think you should wait. this way some will want to satisfy the senate wish and maybe somehow win or other will stay put and think for another strategy.am i right?

[snuggans]

nobody else has asked this, so i guess i'll be the first one to do so:

what is the point of forcing a defeat on the player?(that is what 'impossible to win' is implying right?) and after Hannibal runs over us, are we also going to be forced to take & lose cities/regions during their historical date, be forced to use the historical checkerboard formation with forced historical velite:hastati:principe:triarii ratios, etc etc? because that is what you are driving at by forcing a historical defeat on the player. with very few exceptions, everything historical that should be forced on us should be situations that simply are and have been, before the campaign's start date, such as our starting cities, Hannibal right at our doorstep, or Rome's comparatively weak cavalry. hasn't the game always given the player the opportunity to change history while being gently guided by some historical factors? (in mods more so than vanilla) at best, the player losing a stack gives them an overwhelming amount of conviction to wipe Hannibal & Carthage off the face of the map. however, you are instilling some indifference over the initial battle if the player already knows they cannot win the battle right off the bat, at best all they can do is weaken Hannibal's army so another roman army can come for the coup-de-grace. there is no "i could've won this", there is just "ehh, lets see how many i can take down with me." i should also mention the possibility of the player still losing the battle due to difficulty, not impossible terms.

Hannibal should be handled the same way Pyrrhus was handled in 1.5. defeats weren't forced on the player back then, and it shouldn't be forced now. make it a little harder, make it unavoidable perhaps, i don't know. the battle shouldn't be easy, but it should be in some way doable.

how is Hasdrubal being handled? that should be another stack of doom crossing the alps if the player does not stop them beforehand.

also, any particular reason why the start date is Tresimene and not after Hannibal has moved to southern Italy and taken several cities with him (most notably Capua)? would that not make it even more difficult?

another way to add difficulty would be to have starting armies that are very injured, forcing the player to send them to retrain and losing any experience. this could emulate Hannibal's string of victories as well as Rome's ability to recover after defeats by resorting to conscription.

[tone]

All good questions. Certainly some food for thought so far.

It sounds like maybe we have two main options then for the Roman campaign:

1) Forced or unforced battle (Trasimene) against Hannibal but possible to win at some cost

2) A more established Hannibal in Italy with one or two more settlements, simulating the scenario around Cannae.

[intel]

nobody else has asked this, so i guess i'll be the first one to do so:

what is the point of forcing a defeat on the player?(that is what 'impossible to win' is implying right?) and after hannibal runs over us, are we also going to be forced to take & lose cities/regions during their historical date, be forced to use the historical checkerboard formation with forced historical velite:hastati:principe:triarii ratios, etc etc? because that is what you are driving at by forcing a historical defeat on the player. with very few exceptions, everything historical that should be forced on us should be situations that simply are and have been, before the campaign's start date, such as our starting cities, hannibal right at our doorstep, or rome's comparatively weak cavalry. hasn't the game always given the player the opportunity to change history while being gently guided by some historical factors? (in mods more so than vanilla) at best, the player losing a stack gives them an overwhelming amount of conviction to wipe hannibal & carthage off the face of the map. however, you are instilling some indifference over the initial battle if the player already knows they cannot win the battle right off the bat, at best all they can do is weaken hannibal's army so another roman army can come for the coup-de-grace. there is no "i could've won this", there is just "ehh, lets see how many i can take down with me." i should also mention the possibility of the player still losing the battle due to difficulty, not impossible terms.

hannibal should be handled the same way pyrrhus was handled in 1.5. defeats weren't forced on the player back then, and it shouldn't be forced now. make it a little harder, make it unavoidable perhaps, i don't know. the battle shouldn't be easy, but it should be in some way doable.

how is hasdrubal being handled? that should be another stack of doom crossing the alps if the player does not stop them beforehand.

also, any particular reason why the start date is Tresimene and not after Hannibal has moved to the south of Italy and taken several cities with him (most notably Capua)? would that not make it even more difficult?

To some point I agree with you, however I'd still rather an unavoidable battle.





I played two Roman campaigns. First had relatively easy start, with quick ceasefire with everyone and strenghtening economy and conquering rebels. In the second, however, aware of the immense power of our Roman Republic, I declined every peace offer and rushed with two legions at the Carthage and Cannae, trying to blitz my way south, to the Epeiros and Carthage. Legions were splitted by the mountains, so they had to fight separately. After relatively easy defeating two Free people stacks and conquering Cannae, I resupplied my legion in the city, while the second legion headed towards the top of the Peninsula Italica. Everything seemed perfect, and the Senate was pleased by quick success...

..but then, Phyrrus of Epheiros, our damned enemy besieged the Cannae, trapping entire legion in it! Army was composed of 2 units of Equites, Legatus with his cavalry, 5 maniples of Triarii, 5 of Principes and 7 of Velites. Understanding that momentum is vital for the success of the campaign, despite desperate circumstances and enemy's advantage of surprise, numbers and strenght- I ordered to counter the enemy. Legate sailed to break the backbone of Epeiros, Prhyrros and his army and once for all end Epeirot dominance in the Region. He heard stories of the King's tactical genious, yet he felt no fear. Only cold, dispassionate determination to end his enemy's existence or to find glorious death on the battlefield. He regreted only that eventual death came so fast.

Phyrros placed his army on the slope behind the city, so the Romans couldn't use their more numerous skirmishers to harm his phalanx and precious war elephants. Legate realised that elephants were danger almost as great as the enemy comander- once the formation is broken by elephants, there's no chance of survival whatsover. It was time for difficult decisions: one of them was to split velites into two formations, bigger one to shoot uphill at the elephants, and the second to inflict as much casualties to the phalanxes as possible. Triarii were positioned in front, to stop and keep busy the phalanx, and principes stood behind as a backup and a flanking force. Phyrrus set his much more numerous and powerful cavalry on the flanks, one near the walls, and second protecting the elephants. Skirmishers suffered great casualties trying to kill the elephants, archers on the beast's backs were deadly effective against unarmoured velites. They (Velites) retreated shamefully, killing only one elephant, at the same time when Phyrrus ordered his phalanx to advance on Roman infatry. Two armies clashed with terryfing sound of bent, dented and crushed metal, impaled, crippled and wounded people. Triarii stood frimly against phalanxes, and when the principes ran out of their pilums, they engaged the enemy in the breaches in the enemy lines. Slowly, phalanxes were splitted and sisolated, but Epeiros still had the numerical advantage and high morale. It was the damned Phyrros who rallied his troops!
At some point elephants advanced on Roman flank, leaving the cavalry behind. It was the ultimate chance to finish off Phyrros beasts, moreover, flank was at danger. Legatus charged with his fellow Equites at the elephants, in a desperate struggle to reduce that particular advantage of the enemy. He underestimated those giant animals... Half of the Equites were anihilated in a matter of seconds. Elephants proved to be powerful meatgrinder to the Roman cavalry. Legatus' himself was in danger, and when the last of his bodyguards fell, he understood that resistance is futile...

"RETREAT!"- shouted Legatus heading the city gates, almost exhausting his horse. "RETREAT!" sounded over the place when two infatry blocks fought against themselves with such a great fury. Legionairres' hearts stopped for a while... To the moment when elephants and cavalry charged right into the flanks of the Legion. It took a while for a whole legion to trealise that the battle was lost and legion was in danger of encirclement... Suddenly, all of the Roman infatry routed simultaneously. And due to unusual, untraditional formation, there were no Triarii to cover the reatreat...



Those few legionaires who managed to escape the encirclement saw what appeared to be the most terryfying sight in their (soon-to-be-ended) life.

Sight of hundred of Epeirot cavalrymen blocking the gates of the city.


Fin


Outome of battle:

-allied losses: 2k of experienced troops, only 100 of principes and general remained.
-enemy losses: 1k out of 3k, 10 elephants.


CRUSHING DEFEAT! Yay!

Battle was on Alex, H/VH. I lost and I was actually happy. One reason for that being very smart AI, and another-the fact that I've fought bravely I never managed to lose such an equal fight before-suprisingly, satisfaction was unmatched even by my greatest victories. If that's sort of the fight I'm going to fight against the Hannibal in RS II-then I'm all for it.

And I finally managed to write an mini-AAR! Unfortunately, with grammar and spelling unchecked- but that's for later.

Hope that you enjoyed it



Edit: I choose option 1) with forced battle from the latest tone's post

Or compiling those two
3) A more established Hannibal in Italy with one or two more settlements, simulating the scenario around Cannae, with forced battle (Trasimene) against Hannibal but possible to win at some cost.



EDIT 2: The key is to allow the player to quickly restore his power after this defeat, just as the Romans did.

[Halie Satanus]

We did this with the opening of '300' and most people who gave feedback on it seemed to prefer the course of history rather than just the win.

IMO- It's an interesting inclusion to add an unwinnable battle at the start of a mod, it adds a whole new level to the immersion factor, the desire for revenge is intoxicating. Players can always try and run the clock down, though I think Mak implmented heavy financial penelties if players did.

[intel]

We did this with the opening of '300' and most people who gave feedback on it seemed to prefer the course of history rather than just the win.

IMO- It's an interesting inclusion to add an unwinnable battle at the start of a mod, it adds a whole new level to the immersion factor, the desire for revenge is intoxicating. Players can always try and run the clock down, though I think Mak implmented heavy financial penelties if players did.

@Haerresiah: You are right, but you did it by making Xerxes immortal It isn't much fun when AI wins with you by such an excessive cheating


Oh the fact that you HAD to cheat to live long enough to fight Xerxes doesn't count!

[ray243]

Nearly impossible to win, given the fact that the Roman army has an additional advantage of raising a huge army to counter Hannibal again even if they lost the first battle.

If the battle is relatively easy, there is no sense of danger when it comes to fighting the 2nd Punic war, and you could easy defeat the Carthaginian through the sheer number of Roman recruits you can get.

Even if Hannibal wins the first battle, but lost so much troops that he could not replace his losses in the first battle, then Hannibal isn't much of a threat to Rome.

The entire war is quite heavily stacked in favour of Rome that making the battle easy, or letting the players win their first battle would be pointless.

A certain amount of challenge is needed in the opening phrases of the game, or less it won't be that interesting for people to play.

Another suggestion would be starting the game just after Rome lost the battle of Cannae.

It would create an incentive for players to pull back the legions in Spain, and allow Carthage to retake the lands down there, or making the hard decision of not pulling back the legions, and try to hold out against Hannibal.

[Halie Satanus]

@Haerresiah: You are right, but you did it by making Xerxes immortal It isn't much fun when AI wins with you by such an excessive cheating


Oh the fact that you HAD to cheat to live long enough to fight Xerxes doesn't count!

Actually we had to make Xerxes immortal because players could win by postioning themselves in the corner of the map and running the clock down. Xerxes being immortal meant that tactic was greatly reduced, though not immposible.

We really wanted the battle to be unwinnable.

[intel]

Actually we had to make Xerxes immortal because players could win by postioning themselves in the corner of the map and running the clock down. Xerxes being immortal meant that tactic was greatly reduced, though not immposible.

We really wanted the battle to be unwinnable.

I know, but I consider placing your units in the corner of the map simply cheating It would be easier by giving persians another stack arriving on the battlefield- the problem is only in computer performance.

Still, I don't know how will the RS team manage to make this battle impossoble to win. 30 000 vs 40 000 sound quite fair to me, even when ambushed.

[keebz]

nobody else has asked this, so i guess i'll be the first one to do so:

what is the point of forcing a defeat on the player?

Adds a sense of desparation to the player. Starting out with fewer units and cities or whatever, why would you feel in trouble? You'd just play like you normally do but if the first thing you have after starting a new campaign is a crushing defeat then you're going to be switched on... or angry

[tone]

At the moment it's pretty much unwinnable. We've had complaints from beta testers!