Winning battles - What is\was the key in reality and in the Game?

[veut]

What I want to discuss in this Thread is how Battles were won in reality and how they will be won in Rome II. So for example what was the key for the victory of Arminius against Varus? Could he have won an open field battle too? And how will it be in Rome II?
Or how did Caesar beat the Gauls at Alesia?
How will an Army of lets say Pontus have to fight against an Roman Army of compareable size?
Only some examples...

What do you think Guys???

[veut]

Lets start with the battle of teutoburg forest.
First some facts (I know the most of you are informed)

Publius Quinctilius Varus led three legions (XVII, XVIII, and XIX), six independent cohorts, and three squadrons of cavalry (20,000-36,000 men). His opponent was Arminius with an Army of approx. 10,000-12,000 men. Advancing, the Roman army was strung out in a marching formation with camp followers interspersed. Reports also indicate that Varus neglected to send out scouting parties to prevent an ambush. As the army entered the Teutoburg Forest, a storm broke and a heavy rain began. This, along with poor roads and rough terrain, stretched the Roman column to between nine to twelve miles long. With the Romans struggling through the forest, the first Germanic attacks began. Conducting hit and run strikes, Arminius' men picked away at the strung out enemy.
Aware that the wooded terrain prevented the Romans from forming for battle, the Germanic warriors worked to gain local superiority against isolated groups of legionaries. Taking losses through the day, the Romans constructed a fortified camp for the night. Pushing forward in the morning, they continued to suffer badly before reaching open country. Seeking relief, Varus began moving towards the Roman base at Halstern which was 60 miles to the southwest. This required re-entering wooded country. Enduring the heavy rain and continued attacks, the Romans pushed on through the night in an effort to escape.The next day, the Romans were faced with a trap prepared by the tribes near Kalkriese Hill. Here the road was constricted by a large bog to the north and the wooded hill to the south. In preparation for meeting the Romans, the Germanic tribesmen had built ditches and walls blocking the road. With few choices remaining, the Romans began a series of assaults against the walls. These were repulsed and in the course of the fighting Numonius Vala fled with the Roman cavalry. With Varus' men reeling, the Germanic tribes swarmed over the walls and attacked.

Slamming into the mass of Roman soldiers, the Germanic tribesmen overwhelmed the enemy and began a mass slaughter. With his army disintegrating, Varus committed suicide rather than be captured. His example was followed by many of his higher ranking officers.

For me it seems that Arminius strategy was the only one with the possibility of a victory. In open field battles no barbarian armies could have won against an Roman Army bigger in size. Formations, training and discipline gave the Romans an edge over their enemies as we all know.
But now, how will it be in the Game? Will we be able to win in the open field?

[SacredPie]

Well, in many ways i don't think the game can be compared to reality. First of all i believe most armies of the time routed when about 10% of the army was gone, in the game they stand and fight untill maybe 80% is lost (+/-10%), in reality the wars could last for hours and days consisting of small skirmishes and clashes, in the game its a 10-15 minute clash between every soldier on the battlefield.

As for how pontus, barbarians, greeks etc would fight the romans that is more balanced in the game than in reality i think. The romans often steamrolled their oponents in battle (especially gauls and britons (watling street for instance), but also pontus and armenians lost to inferior roman armies), in the game it will probably be more even. The romans probably will beat any barbarian army in open battle if ithey have the larger army and the ai is somewhat decent.

[veut]

Well, in many ways i don't think the game can be compared to reality. First of all i believe most armies of the time routed when about 10% of the army was gone, in the game they stand and fight untill maybe 80% is lost (+/-10%), in reality the wars could last for hours and days consisting of small skirmishes and clashes, in the game its a 10-15 minute clash between every soldier on the battlefield.

As for how pontus, barbarians, greeks etc would fight the romans that is more balanced in the game than in reality i think. The romans often steamrolled their oponents in battle (especially gauls and britons (watling street for instance), but also pontus and armenians lost to inferior roman armies), in the game it will probably be more even. The romans probably will beat any barbarian army in open battle if ithey have the larger army and the ai is somewhat decent.

Yes, I think you're right. What I am interested in is the how. If I have a "big Army of experienced elite Troops" can I steamroll everything or is it necessary to change my tatics against different foes. In reality a frontal assault of an Roman Army may work against the Germans but against a Phalanx, thats another story.

[SacredPie]

Yes, I think you're right. What I am interested in is the how. If I have a "big Army of experienced elite Troops" can I steamroll everything or is it necessary to change my tatics against different foes. In reality a frontal assault of an Roman Army may work against the Germans but against a Phalanx, thats another story.

Should be several ways to beat a phalanx. You can hold them up with a slightly weakened center and send reserves (or cavalry) around to their flanks and back. Problem with Rome should be the cavalry, you can get in trouble if the macedonians come at you with companions, if you lose your possibility of flanking the phalanx you can find yourself in trouble. However it should be possible for romans with their big shields to carve their way through the pikes.

Another way to beat a phalanx is if you manage to draw it into difficult terrain (forests, areas with alot of stones) so they cant keep close together and your men can pour into the gaps of the broken formation. (i believe this actually happened in one of the bigger battles between rome and macedon?)

[-=PHX=-Hades]

Yes, I think you're right. What I am interested in is the how. If I have a "big Army of experienced elite Troops" can I steamroll everything or is it necessary to change my tatics against different foes. In reality a frontal assault of an Roman Army may work against the Germans but against a Phalanx, thats another story.

In all previous TW games a full frontal assault would usually work fine if you had superior infantry and protected yer flanks with cavalry. In Rome II it will be a bit different though with the new line of sight system. You will have to watch out for wide flanking maneuvers and units hidden in trees or behind hills. We can't really say how similar the strategies in Rome II will be to real life battles of the time until we play it because we have to see how the AI uses the line of sight system.

[roarer]

In game no one knows now, but I can give some idea about how battles were usually won in reality based on traditional Chinese books about military / Arts of wars if you may.

The first thing they stress about the most .. is the will to fight. Troops are only useful if they are willing to fight / willing to die. If they lose that, they are as useless as a pile of dead people. I think the battle of Issus of Alexander demonstrated this clearly. He won not by killing troops, but make the Persian King lose the will to fight, and the army lose the same thing when they saw their King ran. I got some Chinese examples too, but I bet you guys never heard of them. In Sun Tzu Art of War, he deliberately said that, a good general has to gather his men and throw them into a risky situation. Show your men running is not an option. Put yourself into a dead end, and you will come out alive. The exact quote in traditional Chinese from 2 separated paragraphs: "聚三軍之眾, 投之於險, 此謂將軍之事" and "投之亡地然後存, 陷之死地然後生。 夫眾陷於害, 然後能為勝敗". One of the most famous battles to support this logic is the Battle of Julu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Julu for your reference... it is quite accurate. This happened after Qin unified China from the warring state period. What Xiang Yu did was simply threw his whole army into a no escape situation. They cross the river before the main battle. Xiang Yu ordered everyone to destroy their cooking tools, sink all the ships they used, and only bring 3 days of supplies with them. Without the hope of survive by deserting, even Xiang Yu's troops are outnumbered, his men fight so fiercely that the professional Qin's army are overcame.

Only when both sides have the will to fight, other factors come into play. If your man can form a testudo, but would run the moment they contact with the enemy, no formation / weapons and equipments can save the day. That is why supplies are SOOOOOOOOOO important, cuz no one will stand the line when they know that they will starve to death after risking their lives. A lot of victories in Chinese history were won by breaking the enemy's will to fight. Even Alexander has to stop his conquest when he knew his men are wishing to go back home. I am quite sure you guys can draw quite some examples from your history books.

[roarer]

Yes, I think you're right. What I am interested in is the how. If I have a "big Army of experienced elite Troops" can I steamroll everything or is it necessary to change my tatics against different foes. In reality a frontal assault of an Roman Army may work against the Germans but against a Phalanx, thats another story.

In reality, it is not about how you kill the men in the phalanx, it is about how you make them want to turn their back and run. Tactics like flanking comes so late into the picture cuz you can simply cut their supplies and disintegrate their whole army without the need to fight them head on. The situation where 2 armies fight head to head is not a necessary thing to happen in wars ........ People on forums focus too much on open field battles and overlook the factors leading to a open field battle in the first place. Rome do not have to "kill" Hannibal's army to win the war, they just find a way to make him lose the ability to fight on.

[Ichon]

Actually winning field battles seems majority of the time about managing morale of men in the army by several different factors, firstly ensuring few surprises that can rattle confidence of men and officers (everything going according to plan), training of the men to where they believe they are good and then confirming that belief with some victories, rewarding men for winning, the general and officers showing calm confidence even in face of adversity, and then also factors of challenging the enemy morale.

Breaking the will of the enemy first by surprising/throwing enemy general off balance with surprise marches or diplomacy, second by making things difficult for men in enemy army by raiding supplies or making foraging difficult, having much larger army, reducing confidence in a commander by his army by forcing the commander to continually change his plans by outmaneuvering, threatening the men of the enemy armies homelands or wealth, bribes/spies to key people in enemy army which even if minor and few take can shake confidence of leadership, etc.

Things in Art of War such as leaving enemy an escape route (or the appearance of one) and winning before even fighting allude to the will to fight because if enough men in an army give themselves over to fighting until death they will prevail as most armies break long before 50% casualties. Only when two well prepared armies who believe strongly in their commander and are well trained meet can casualties reach high numbers because enough men in both armies have resigned themselves to fight to the death following orders of their commander as they believe victory can occur despite adversity.

[Richard III]

As well as the will to fight, I think terrain has a much higher effect on real life battles, despite Total War's effort to emulate it.

[veut]

As well as the will to fight, I think terrain has a much higher effect on real life battles, despite Total War's effort to emulate it.

Definitely. Thats what I've learned in the Army. A "weak Army" in a good position can beat a much stronger enemy as long as they are ready to fight (roarer mentioned this right).

[Tim_Ward]

The biggest difference between a Total War battle and a battle from the olden times is that a Total War player has access to some very modern command and control and intelligence abilities. The ability to see what every single one of your units is up to, and to issue orders to them instantly and have them obeyed instantly cannot be underestimated. If you watch the recent battle between Al and a very hard skirmish A.I, you'll see both players -especially the A.I - running troops all over the battle field in order to counter situations as they arise and generally using what would be extremely complex manoeuvres for a real ancient battle. Any ancient general who tried such a thing would end up with his army scattered, disorganised and defeated.

Had ancient commanders somehow had access to the level of control of their army a Total War player enjoys, battles back then would have been fought in a very different fashion. So there will always be a certain amount of artistic license in how TW battles are fought and won compared to the real thing.

[andrew2788]

As far as the game it's honestly going to be about how well you know the strengths and weakness' of your chosen faction as well as those of the factions you're fighting. I know that is RTS 101 but you'd be surprised at how many people moan about how their chosen faction sucks because they know nothing about it. I'll bet a week after release we'll get some Parthia player that wanted to recreate the Persian empire and complain because their infantry swarm/wave tactics aren't working for them.

For the Pontus example, while having the phalanx at it's core for hitting power (if it's Macedonian) or durability (if it's Greek) you have the advantage of bringing in an eastern flair to your army that you can take advantage of in form of cavalry of all types and archers, as well as more exotic units like elephants and chariots. Not to mention all the mercenaries you can get to cover anything you're deficient in.

[torongill]

Ichon nails it - it is mostly morale.

Purely on the battlefield, other parts of warfare(like supply raiding, skirmishing, foraging and preventing the enemy from reaching his objective), purely on the battlefield it's mostly morale, battles stress and exhaustion.

Simply put once you commit your men, once they are engaged in close combat you will not be able to control them. Pure and simple - you can't really tell them to move to the right when there are people trying to kill them from the front. Real-life generalship was all about management of the reserves. This is one reason why the Romans were so successful - they had reserves, men who were relatively relaxed and rested, who could receive and execute orders because they aren't engaged, who can continue the fighting at a given moment.

Stress and mental exhaustion also have a lot to do with the eventual victory or defeat, because once you start "having a bad feeling about this", a part of you will not focus on the battle, but will look for signs that your feeling was right and it's time to turn tail and engage the hyperdrive.

Combine these with pure physical exhaustion and low blood sugar levels(I'm serious) and you can win the battle even before it has started.

Case in point: Ilipa

For about a week Scipio and Hasdrubal faced each other, with skirmishes being fought every day. Every day Hasdrubal deployed his men before his camp, offering battle, the more reliable Carthaginians in the center and Iberian allies on the wings and every day Scipio responded, deploying his men in the habitual order, legionaries in center and Iberian allies on the wings. Every day Scipio deployed his forces when there wasn't enough time to fight a battle before nightfall.

Then one day Scipio ordered his men to rise up early the next day and eat before dawn break.

In the morning he sent the cavalry and skirmishers to attack the Carthaginian outposts and raise an alarm. His men deployed, but this time moved much closer to the Carthaginian camp. Woken by the noise and confusion of the fighting just outside the camp gates Hasdrubal took out his men and deployed them - and realised that he had been suckered - Scipio had deployed in reverse order - veteran legionaries in the wings and Iberians in the center. Then Scipio twisted the knife and had his light infantry and cavalry continuously keep the Carthaginians under pressure and not allow them to re-deploy or even eat something. After some time, when he had decided that the will to fight of the Carthaginian army was weakened enough, Scipio attacked - and pulled another move. The cavalry and light infantry deployed on the flanks, completely enveloping the Carthaginian line. The Romans on the wings advanced at the double, so that looked from above the army formation looked a bit like bull horns.

The horns crashed into the wavering Iberians, who were being outflanked by the light infantry and cavalry, and shattered them. The Carthaginian center had problems of their own - the elephants which had been stationed in front of the wings had gone crazy by the javelins, arrows and slingshot of the Roman skirmishers and crashed into the center, sowing confusion and destruction. Furthermore the center didn't dare swing out to attack the legionaries because that would leave a gaping hole for the advancing Roman center. The only thing to be done was to try and retreat in formation but that was impossible. Seeing that the elephants had broken and that the wings were running for their lives, the Carthaginian center panicked and ran.

That was the most complete and one-sided victory of Scipio IIRC.

[Markas]

It's pretty much all been said but I'd say the perception of how the battle was going influences morale of an army, and morale dictates who wins. If the enemy seems to have gained considerable momentum it could have an effect all out of proportion to the numbers involved or the locality of the superiority. It sometimes surprises me how low the number of casualties were in battles (especially the musket era) due to the perception of being outmaneuvered or outmatched. TW games by necessity have to have almost Cannae-like casualties so you don't end up fighting the same stack repeatedly. Having enemies rout quickly such as in S2 is probably more realistic, but does not really mean a better game.

[tomux7]

The biggest difference between a Total War battle and a battle from the olden times is that a Total War player has access to some very modern command and control and intelligence abilities. The ability to see what every single one of your units is up to, and to issue orders to them instantly and have them obeyed instantly cannot be underestimated. If you watch the recent battle between Al and a very hard skirmish A.I, you'll see both players -especially the A.I - running troops all over the battle field in order to counter situations as they arise and generally using what would be extremely complex manoeuvres for a real ancient battle. Any ancient general who tried such a thing would end up with his army scattered, disorganised and defeated.

Had ancient commanders somehow had access to the level of control of their army a Total War player enjoys, battles back then would have been fought in a very different fashion. So there will always be a certain amount of artistic license in how TW battles are fought and won compared to the real thing.

Yeah, agree with this. I mean if Gaius Terentius Varro had the view we have in Total War he probably wouldn't have been "sucked" into Hannibal's formations. It's just that Total War players can see everything most of the time and are able to react instantly.
But like many other here I believe that many battles were won before initial battle even started. Whoever used his resources better, advanced quicker, had better logistics, taken every opportunity to exploit enemies weakness has won and whoever played by the rules lost. Winning is above everything else, war is matter of life and death and shouldn't be played by certain set of rules.
That said, I have to say that AI can surprise in Total War games, or rather exploit human error. I remember once in Napoleon Total War I got ambushed by full stack of Hessen-Kassel as Prussia and failed miserably. My whole cavalry and artillery contingent got whipped out in matter of seconds and my infantry just routed without proper support. That defeat probably was my best experience in total war game ever.

[dom385]

The new thing with legionaries being able to throw pila at the run means that they could probably take some lower tier phalanx troops from the front. If the pila caused enough damage they could be in between the pikes before they have time to reform properly.

[Dan113112]

Should be several ways to beat a phalanx. You can hold them up with a slightly weakened center and send reserves (or cavalry) around to their flanks and back. Problem with Rome should be the cavalry, you can get in trouble if the macedonians come at you with companions, if you lose your possibility of flanking the phalanx you can find yourself in trouble. However it should be possible for romans with their big shields to carve their way through the pikes.

Another way to beat a phalanx is if you manage to draw it into difficult terrain (forests, areas with alot of stones) so they cant keep close together and your men can pour into the gaps of the broken formation. (i believe this actually happened in one of the bigger battles between rome and macedon?)

I agree with most of this. I actually prefer playing as Macedon or other Greeks states in RTR VII for RTW and I know all too well what you mentioned. However, terrain is not as much a disadvantage to a phalanx as people here seem to think. There was a battle Alexander fought in Thrace before invading Persia. I can't remember the name. Anyway, he actually had to fight in some pretty rugged terrain and uphill and he came out almost unscathed. His army was better trained and organized of course than the armies of the successor states, though. It also wasn't very easy to push through the pike wall with shields. Hence why, in many instances, the Romans lured the often inexperienced troops into situations they were unprepared for or used cavalry or elephants to shatter Macedonian units.

In game no one knows now, but I can give some idea about how battles were usually won in reality based on traditional Chinese books about military / Arts of wars if you may.

The first thing they stress about the most .. is the will to fight. Troops are only useful if they are willing to fight / willing to die. If they lose that, they are as useless as a pile of dead people. I think the battle of Issus of Alexander demonstrated this clearly. He won not by killing troops, but make the Persian King lose the will to fight, and the army lose the same thing when they saw their King ran. I got some Chinese examples too, but I bet you guys never heard of them. In Sun Tzu Art of War, he deliberately said that, a good general has to gather his men and throw them into a risky situation. Show your men running is not an option. Put yourself into a dead end, and you will come out alive. The exact quote in traditional Chinese from 2 separated paragraphs: "聚三軍之眾, 投之於險, 此謂將軍之事" and "投之亡地然後存, 陷之死地然後生。 夫眾陷於害, 然後能為勝敗". One of the most famous battles to support this logic is the Battle of Julu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Julu for your reference... it is quite accurate. This happened after Qin unified China from the warring state period. What Xiang Yu did was simply threw his whole army into a no escape situation. They cross the river before the main battle. Xiang Yu ordered everyone to destroy their cooking tools, sink all the ships they used, and only bring 3 days of supplies with them. Without the hope of survive by deserting, even Xiang Yu's troops are outnumbered, his men fight so fiercely that the professional Qin's army are overcame.

Only when both sides have the will to fight, other factors come into play. If your man can form a testudo, but would run the moment they contact with the enemy, no formation / weapons and equipments can save the day. That is why supplies are SOOOOOOOOOO important, cuz no one will stand the line when they know that they will starve to death after risking their lives. A lot of victories in Chinese history were won by breaking the enemy's will to fight. Even Alexander has to stop his conquest when he knew his men are wishing to go back home. I am quite sure you guys can draw quite some examples from your history books.

Agreed. I actually have read the Art of War. It's not really a book but a pamphlet. Supposedly because most of it is actually missing. Most of it is also not big news for TW fans because we already practice what Sun Tzu says to do.

The biggest difference between a Total War battle and a battle from the olden times is that a Total War player has access to some very modern command and control and intelligence abilities. The ability to see what every single one of your units is up to, and to issue orders to them instantly and have them obeyed instantly cannot be underestimated. If you watch the recent battle between Al and a very hard skirmish A.I, you'll see both players -especially the A.I - running troops all over the battle field in order to counter situations as they arise and generally using what would be extremely complex manoeuvres for a real ancient battle. Any ancient general who tried such a thing would end up with his army scattered, disorganised and defeated.

Had ancient commanders somehow had access to the level of control of their army a Total War player enjoys, battles back then would have been fought in a very different fashion. So there will always be a certain amount of artistic license in how TW battles are fought and won compared to the real thing.

Agreed.

[Durnaug]

Some great posts here.

[veut]

Yes, a nice discussion. This was my intention. Someone with more historical examples of battles?
For example: What's about the Battle of Watling Street (it was already mentioned)? Two volleys of pila and superior discipline combined with a standart wedge formation and the Battle was won.
What should Boudica have done to win the Battle (with her far superior numbers)?