Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

  1. #21
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,520

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    @Alwyn you wrote:
    As I said, I watched an AI faction assault walls with siege equipment yesterday.
    Questions:
    How many AI controled armies besieged your city?
    How many of them had their OWN siege equipment such ladders, siege towers and rams?
    Or...if there was a 2nd or a 3rd army under AI control waited the 1st one to place its own siege equipment on the walls to allow them to attack?
    Last question. Have you saw any horsemen to dismount inorder to use the siege equipment like they do in Shogun II?

    Be honest please..Remember I do have ROME II and test in in VH/VH dificulties.
    Why do I make those questions? Its simple. If almost 15 years ago a development team could create a basic AI that could hundle 2-4 AI controled armies assauloting to the same city the player defends with EACH army had its own ladders, towers, tunnels and rams , then what prevented the so call super duper NEW ROME II develpment team to create something close to it and save us from idiotic solutions of non walled settlements to walls that melt under rain and wind?
    That last question was the reason why CA/SEGA silently banned me from its official forum inorder to avoid answer that SIMPLE QUESTION.
    There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
    if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
    Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.
    Greek War motto.
    XXI Armored Brigade. Proud that served in that unit in 1996!
    "Spartans do not ask how many (enemies are) but where they are"!
    XXI Armored Brigade's motto.
    The Greek Secret (or why they will fight again if it will be necessary or why they do not sell their history).


  2. #22

  3. #23
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,764

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Welcome to TWC, Cassadgaxia!

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    @Alwyn you wrote:

    Questions:
    How many AI controled armies besieged your city?
    As I said, it was an enemy city, not my city. The attackers were one AI army (my ally) and one army under my control.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    How many of them had their OWN siege equipment such ladders, siege towers and rams?
    The AI army had, and used, its own ladders and seige towers. You previously wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Rome II AND Attila siege AI can not assault walls AT ALL!!!!
    However, as I said, I've seen the AI using siege equipment - ladders and siege towers - to assault walls, despite your claim that they can't do this "AT ALL". I usually see this when there are two armies attacking the city (as in this case, an AI army of an ally, supported by the player's army) or when the city doesn't have an army in addition to its garrison (when the enemy approaches, our walled cities are likely to have armies defending them).

    I understand why you might think they that don't. I don't defend walled cities very often - this is quite rare (especially if you're used to Shogun II, where defending castles is common). It's rare in Rome II because, usually, when a walled city is defended by an army, the AI starves out the defenders. This is a sensible strategy, because a siege assault are usually costly for the attacker. The army outside the city are likely to have a better chance by forcing the defenders to make a desperate attack. It would be fun if the AI attacked walled cities more often, but it would make the game easier - and players tend to say that they prefer Total War games to be harder.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Or...if there was a 2nd or a 3rd army under AI control waited the 1st one to place its own siege equipment on the walls to allow them to attack?
    The second army was mine. I waited for the AI army to put their ladders and siege towers against the walls before I send my warriors in, just as the AI does when the second army is AI controlled.

    I see where you're 'coming from' - Rome II only allows one army to build siege equipment, a second army must either use the siege equipment placed by the first army or use its arillery (if it has artillery) to make a breach. You're saying that you believe that the second army should have its own siege equipment - and it's true that the second army won't have it.

    However, if my army had siege equipment, I would have ordered them to drop it and to use the ladders and siege towers left by the AI army instead, to minimise casualties from arrow towers. In other words, the AI is acting sensibly.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Last question. Have you saw any horsemen to dismount inorder to use the siege equipment like they do in Shogun II?
    No, I haven't. If your point is that Shogun II handles cavalry better in a siege assault, I agree. My preferred option for cavalry in a siege battle would be that they'd retreat after the infantry were defeated, not dismount and make a doomed attack which will (usually) get any cavalry general killed for no good reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Be honest please..Remember I do have ROME II and test in in VH/VH dificulties.
    Why do I make those questions? Its simple. If almost 15 years ago a development team could create a basic AI that could hundle 2-4 AI controled armies assauloting to the same city the player defends with EACH army had its own ladders, towers, tunnels and rams , then what prevented the so call super duper NEW ROME II develpment team to create something close to it and save us from idiotic solutions of non walled settlements to walls that melt under rain and wind?
    That last question was the reason why CA/SEGA silently banned me from its official forum inorder to avoid answer that SIMPLE QUESTION.
    You ask me to be honest; I am - and I can reasonably expect the same from you. I thought that, perhaps, when you said that the AI "can not assault walls AT ALL!!!!", this was based on early reviews of the release version of the game or on very limited experience of playing it. If you play Rome II, then it's reasonable to expect you not to mislead players.

    I don't agree that non walled settlements are "idiotic". I enjoy the variety of battles which Rome II offers - field battles, ambushes, battles in non-walled settlements, port battles and siege battles. Different types of battles suit different styles of warfare. For example, which faction's army would you want to use in the following scenarios?

    (a) You're attacking a Macedonian army of pikemen, peltasts and shock cavalry on an open plain under a bright sun
    (b) You're defending against a Roman army of heavy swordsmen in a foggy forest in Germania
    (c) You're ambushed by an Arverni army of swordsmen and slingers in a valley
    (d) You're defending a non-walled settlement against an Armenian army of hill-men, axemen and elite archers

    My preferences


    (a) A Roman army would be well-suited to attacking the Macedonian army on the plain. Your Triarii are sufficiently heavy spearmen to defend against the shock cavalry. Your heavy swordsmen are more agile than the pikemen and can attack them in the flank. Your cavalry would lose to the shock cavalry but they're capable of handling the peltasts.

    (b) A Suebi army would be ideal for a defensive battle in a Germanic forest. Your Scout Riders will tell you where the enemy are and your stealthy infantry will be able to hide from their scouts, except at close range (and, when your Scout Riders have met them, the enemy may not have scouts anymore).

    (c) Have you ever ambushed a horse archer army in Rome II? Trying to catch horse archers between two lines in an ambush is like trying to catch water from a waterfall by clapping your hands together - the horse archers will simply flow quickly out of the killing zone and soon they'll be running down the slingers and shooting the swordsmen in the back, so a faction such as Royal Scythia or Parthia would be good at handling being ambushed.

    (d) Defending a non-walled settlement is easier for factions which have a combination of heavy defensive melee infantry (pikes or spears) with good ranged units, so a faction such as Cimmeria (hoplites and heavy archers) or Bactria (pikemen and elite archers) would be great for this. As Cimmeria or Bactria, your Citizen Cavalry would perform poorly against enemy heavy cavalry or heavy infantry, but with their medium weight (medium means they're heavy enough to knock down light infantry but not actually 'heavy', which would mean they'd be slow) and decent armour, Citizen Cavalry would be good at attacking elite archers.



    The point of the question is that, in Rome II, the variety of battles is useful because different faction rosters and armies are better in different situations. Some factions have all-round rosters, but some have limited rosters which creates additional challenges. Of course, we can use mercenaries to fill the gaps in a limited roster, but that's not the only solution. One of my favourite features of Rome II is the client states and satrapies mechanic. This is available to some factions but not others - Celtic and Germanic factions can liberate nations (creating allies and trading partners), Greek, Carthaginian and Roman nations can create client states and eastern nations can create satrapies.

    Client states and satrapies allow players to recruit units from another faction's roster, by sending an army into their regions to recruit them (they're levy units, not mercenaries - and you only have a limited selection and can only recruit a small number per turn). This allows factions to have a precious few of units they wouldn't usually have.

    For example, as Pergamon I had great defensive infantry and short-range skirmishers, but my roster was limited. I made Royal Scythia into a client state and spent about a dozen turns building up an army which had a mixture of Pergamon units with Scythian horse archers and lancers. This was very successful for a while, as I fought my way south from Anatolia in a war against Egypt. In that campagn, too, I fought alongside an AI faction and that faction used siege ladders to assault walls. I really valued by Scythian units, because I could only recruit them slowly and only in Scythian territory - so it was a devastating blow when two of Egypt's armies attacked this army of mine and killed or captured every warrior.
    Last edited by Alwyn; April 13, 2019 at 03:47 AM.

  4. #24
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,520

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    To avoid misunderstandings play a faction of your own.
    Then when AI will use 2 or more armies to besiege your city take a look how many of the AI controled armies use their OWN siege towers, ladders or rams or SIMPLY only one use them and when they reach the walls the other AI controled armies use them as well. This feature (each AI controled army the siege a settlement) to use each army its own ladders , rams etc lost even in the years of M2TW!!!
    So make this experiment and tell us your findings.
    CAUTION: Do NOT load a custom battle please..
    I have played ROME II and Attila for hundreds of hours and I NEVER SAW a 2nd AI controled army to use its own siege equipment. Things getting worst when that AI controled army is a rebel one that ussually uses only ONE (1) ladder!!!
    When i said AI can not assault walls that is what i ment. CA/SEGA never managed to fix that issue and that is why in Three Kingdoms they use the same technic with Shogun II but instead of hands soldiers use ropes.
    In Attila AI waits -only in VH dificulty- to assault a walled city but NEVER uses ladders or rams simply because in a magicaly way walls apear with huge breaches from rain or wind.
    Or by fellows like him its seams:

    Now for the last test. Upgreade a 2ndary settlement in Attila to a walled one.
    When enemy besieges you there take a close look to your walls...It seams that according to CA/SEGA the walls were NOT ment to surround completly a settlement and in that game they still have gates but in a strange way they have HUGE GAPS to allow the idiot siege AI to storm the city. Am I right in this or not or you wish me to post some pictures to convince you even if you are a Rome II and Attila expert.
    About Satrapies and Client states. I would expect that the curent CA/SEGA dev team atleast to make what is reasonable.
    To allow a client state to be bribed to change side in he war!
    In fact dimplomacy does not allow you to make any offers when the master state is in a war with you.
    Shogun I had much more advanced diplomacy options than every other TW game...But i expected that modern developers would took under advicement the features of old and not deliver us a useless diplomacy.
    Even neutral states do not make trade agreements often even if they are not threatened by your faction in any way!!!
    Do you want more examples? In your siege battle did you see the AI controled ally cavalry units to dismount and use the ladders or the siege towers to assault the walls like they do in Shogun II?
    Such a sneakpic would be wonderfull and a miracle the same time..But Easter is near and miracles can happen it seams.
    There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
    if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
    Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.
    Greek War motto.
    XXI Armored Brigade. Proud that served in that unit in 1996!
    "Spartans do not ask how many (enemies are) but where they are"!
    XXI Armored Brigade's motto.
    The Greek Secret (or why they will fight again if it will be necessary or why they do not sell their history).


  5. #25
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,764

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    To avoid misunderstandings play a faction of your own.
    Then when AI will use 2 or more armies to besiege your city take a look how many of the AI controled armies use their OWN siege towers, ladders or rams or SIMPLY only one use them and when they reach the walls the other AI controled armies use them as well. This feature (each AI controled army the siege a settlement) to use each army its own ladders , rams etc lost even in the years of M2TW!!!
    So make this experiment and tell us your findings.
    CAUTION: Do NOT load a custom battle please..
    I was playing the Grand Campaign, not using custom battles, when I saw the AI using ladders and siege towers to assault walls.

    Do you agree that the AI can use siege equipment to assault walls?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    I have played ROME II and Attila for hundreds of hours and I NEVER SAW a 2nd AI controled army to use its own siege equipment. Things getting worst when that AI controled army is a rebel one that ussually uses only ONE (1) ladder!!!
    You seem to be trying to move the goalposts. What you said previously was:

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Rome II AND Attila siege AI can not assault walls AT ALL!!!!
    This statement said nothing about two armies. You claimed that AI amies could never assault walls in Rome II. As you know, we agree that a second army doesn't use its own siege equipment. This doesn't justify your statement that AI armies "can not assault walls AT ALL."

    As I said, when I have two armies (or play a second army, with the AI playing the first army with the siege equipment) I do the same thing as the AI. Sending your second army to use the same ladders and siege towers as the first wave of attackers makes sense in Rome II, it reduces casualties from arrow towers.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    When i said AI can not assault walls that is what i ment.
    That's not what "Rome II AND Attila siege AI can not assault walls AT ALL!!!!" means. You said that the AI "can not assault walls AT ALL". If one AI army uses siege ladders and siege towers to assault walls - and I've seen them do this - your statement was mistaken. It's an understandable mistake, as I said in my previous post.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Now for the last test. Upgreade a 2ndary settlement in Attila to a walled one.
    When enemy besieges you there take a close look to your walls...It seams that according to CA/SEGA the walls were NOT ment to surround completly a settlement and in that game they still have gates but in a strange way they have HUGE GAPS to allow the idiot siege AI to storm the city. Am I right in this or not or you wish me to post some pictures to convince you even if you are a Rome II and Attila expert.
    I don't have a computer which can play Attila, so I can't comment on that. (I look forward to trying it in future.)

    Cities don't normally need to have gaps in the walls for the AI to enter the city, since the AI can use siege towers and ladders, despite your denial of this.

    In my experience of Rome II, major cities (walled settlements) usually have walls which surround the city without gaps (except for a harbour, in walled cities by the coast). Carthage is an exception, as that city has a gap in the wall on the harbour side of the city. However, this isn't a "HUGE GAP", it's a choke point that Carthaginian hoplites (early campaign) or pikemen (late campaign) can easily defend. It's a bit odd, but I don't see it as a significant issue.

    Some minor cities (unwalled settlements) have no walls and some have incomplete walls. That's okay with me, because incomplete walls in minor cities provide useful choke points for defenders. Minor cities aren't intended to be walled, the campaign map clearly shows this.

    You may want all cities to have walls - that's understandable, different players prefer different things. However, that's not how Rome II was intended to work. For the reasons given in my previous post, I prefer the variety which is offered by having both sieges and battles in unwalled cities.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    About Satrapies and Client states. I would expect that the curent CA/SEGA dev team atleast to make what is reasonable.
    To allow a client state to be bribed to change side in he war!In fact dimplomacy does not allow you to make any offers when the master state is in a war with you.
    Shogun I had much more advanced diplomacy options than every other TW game...But i expected that modern developers would took under advicement the features of old and not deliver us a useless diplomacy.
    Did Shogun I have "much more advanced diplomatic options than every other TW game"? That's interesting, what options did Shogun I have, specifically?

    I don't agree that diplomacy in Rome II is "useless", as I see it, diplomacy works quite well. The player can build up relations over time, our decisions including our relationships with a faction's friends (and enemies) affect our relationship with that faction - I like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Even neutral states do not make trade agreements often even if they are not threatened by your faction in any way!!!
    You mentioned that you're playing on Very Hard. I'm not surprised that diplomacy would be very hard if you chose a high difficulty level. I don't play on VH. I can normally get trade agreements with neutral states after a while, when my faction has expanded and has something to trade - especially if I make a non-aggression pact with them first, pay them for a trade agreement, make treaties with their friends or go to war with their enemies.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Do you want more examples? In your siege battle did you see the AI controled ally cavalry units to dismount and use the ladders or the siege towers to assault the walls like they do in Shogun II?
    Why are you asking a question which I answered in my previous post?
    Last edited by Alwyn; April 13, 2019 at 09:35 AM.

  6. #26
    Bran Mac Born's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,834

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Anthonius if you use my mod WARS OF THE GODS-ANCIENT WARS you will have a much better experience playing Rome 2. https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/.../?id=193736354

  7. #27
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,520

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bran Mac Born View Post
    Anthonius if you use my mod WARS OF THE GODS-ANCIENT WARS you will have a much better experience playing Rome 2. https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/.../?id=193736354
    I will give it a try.
    QUESTIONS:
    Do AI 2 or more armies of it besiege your city having each one of it its own siege equipment?
    Do AI controled units that are cavalry participate in the assault on walls by dismounting?
    Are strat_map models connected with the real battlemap model of the cities you are defending or besiege?

    PS: The misunderstanding between me and Alwyn was that Alwyn does not have Attila to witness how miserable TW historical games end up !!!
    PS2: Someone years ago said that he managed to import walls to Rome II unwalled settlements. What happened to that attempt?
    There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
    if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
    Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.
    Greek War motto.
    XXI Armored Brigade. Proud that served in that unit in 1996!
    "Spartans do not ask how many (enemies are) but where they are"!
    XXI Armored Brigade's motto.
    The Greek Secret (or why they will fight again if it will be necessary or why they do not sell their history).


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •