Hello . . . and a few questions . . .

[Lost In Transition]

Hey, everyone:

I’ve lurked on the this forum and the rometotalrealism.org forum for over six months now and I finally decided to register and introduce myself. I’m introducing myself here because RTR Platinum is the only game I play.

About me: I just finished graduate school with a degree in writing, I’m teaching this fall at a famous (well, actually infamous) university in America, and working in the university library.

Since the RTR forums are down, I’m assuming I can ask questions here. I apologize if I’ve got the wrong place. After playing for several months, I have a few that I don’t think have been answered (if they have, I apologize — I did try to search the forums).

First, how does a unit get experience? I mean, what is the actual formula for determining a unit’s experience? Do they have to kill a hundred men to get an increase? Do they have to loose a certain number? I’ve read, on some posts, that units get experience faster through auto-resolve, but is there a better way to do it while actually fighting the battles?

Second, what makes the Roman units so tough? Principes can slice through even a phalanx without sustaining significant damage. I’ve tried editing the armor and attack values of other units, but cannot get the same effect. I notice Roman units have "heavy" weapon types. Is that what makes the difference? If so, how do I change a unit to a "heavy" weapon type? In the unit data file, I forget the name, there is a setting for unit class: light or heavy, but no weapon class (unless I missed it).

[Deleted - I found the AAR forum above].

Thanks.

[mjobling]

Been wondering the same thing about experience. I've noticed units gain a stripe during a battle, only to lose it again afterwards.

I was also wondering if they build up to stripes, e.g. can they win a stripe over several battles or do they have to win it in one go?

I hate autoresolving but I really want to build up some experienced units.

[Spawncaptain]

Second, what makes the Roman units so tough? Principes can slice through even a phalanx without sustaining significant damage. I’ve tried editing the armor and attack values of other units, but cannot get the same effect. I notice Roman units have "heavy" weapon types. Is that what makes the difference? If so, how do I change a unit to a "heavy" weapon type? In the unit data file, I forget the name, there is a setting for unit class: light or heavy, but no weapon class (unless I missed it).
Thanks.

Hi, did you read the article on wikipedia about phalanxes? Well, I did (at least the german version).

The huge advantage of the Roman troops was their flexibility. If you set your units' guard mode off, the Roman soldiers try to keep out of the enemy's "spear range" and flank the unit.
Once a soldier managed to break through or move up to the flank, the phalangites were very vunerable.

In my RTR Platinum, the units facing those 20 feet long spears don't directly slice through the phanlanx, but, as I mentionend, try to move up to the flanks.

[cor2nguy]

The only way for a unit to gain experience seems to be the number of men the unit kills in battle. I'm currently playing a Macedonian campaign on RTR PE 1.9v. When I route a bunch of Seleucid Phalangites, I send my companion cavalry to kill all the routing units, hundreds of them. After many battles like this, my phalangites gained one or two bronze chevrons, but my companion cavalry gained 3 silver chevrons. No matter how hard my phalangites fight, their only role is to hold the enemy so that I could find a way to flank them; they can't get many kills, even though they do most of the fight.

[Lost In Transition]

The only way for a unit to gain experience seems to be the number of men the unit kills in battle. I'm currently playing a Macedonian campaign on RTR PE 1.9v. When I route a bunch of Seleucid Phalangites, I send my companion cavalry to kill all the routing units, hundreds of them. After many battles like this, my phalangites gained one or two bronze chevrons, but my companion cavalry gained 3 silver chevrons. No matter how hard my phalangites fight, their only role is to hold the enemy so that I could find a way to flank them; they can't get many kills, even though they do most of the fight.

That makes sense. I've had the exact same experience playing Macedonia. My phallanx troops have engaged the enemy more that any other unit and have the least experience.

When I play Rome, my Principes get great experience because they kill everything in sight.

I'm going to play with this a bit and see what I find out.

[MCM]

Thank you for your questions and interest in RTR!

If one of the other fans here doesnt answer your questions sufficiently well enough( which they probably will looks like!), I will get one of our dev team to answer in more detail for you.

Also, try to catch up with Florin80, who is a RTRPE expert!

cheers

MCM

[Publius]

First, how does a unit get experience? I mean, what is the actual formula for determining a unit’s experience? Do they have to kill a hundred men to get an increase? Do they have to loose a certain number? I’ve read, on some posts, that units get experience faster through auto-resolve, but is there a better way to do it while actually fighting the battles?

This is hardcoded, so (legally speaking) we can't be positive. Personally I think it is primarily based on how many kills your unit gets, as example a cavalry unit riding down fleeing enemies tends to get a high experience boost by the end. Normally if a unit is killed down to only a few men, they will still only gain 2-3 chevrons.

Second, what makes the Roman units so tough? Principes can slice through even a phalanx without sustaining significant damage. I’ve tried editing the armor and attack values of other units, but cannot get the same effect. I notice Roman units have "heavy" weapon types. Is that what makes the difference? If so, how do I change a unit to a "heavy" weapon type? In the unit data file, I forget the name, there is a setting for unit class: light or heavy, but no weapon class (unless I missed it).

Your export_descr_unit.txt file (found in folder Activision - RTW - Data) controls unit types. I think generally roman units have good morale and discipline which makes them less prone to route, and in vanilla especially their unit statistics are insanely tilted in their favor.

[Preskinn]

I would allso be interested in knowing a litle more precise what makes the experience tick.

Now... this is actually the wrong forum, but sinse the thread is allready up.
I allso want to direct a question to Florin80 or anyone that knows much about RTRE.

Why do some Phalanglites have such a hard time lining up properly?
Some don't have this problem, but the Pontiac ones have this problem.
They seem to march to the point where their speartips arive whrer the markers indicate their feet should stand... if you know what I mean.
If your un it seems to be less of a problem.. anyone else noticed this?

I have not yet tried RTRE 1.9 in this aspect

[Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Well I always have hated phalaxes to be honest. It is not logical that units slice throught 9 feet wall of spears... but yeah, rtw isn't perfect, and that is why the new formations (over-handed) or how is it called, are much more suitable and enjoyable. I like the short spear animation, and I think hoplite battles are always a bit catastrophic. Because a phalanx almost never holds a formation/position.
But yeah, I am and will always be a Roma-freak. So no phalanxes for me :p

QC.

[Preskinn]

Well I always have hated phalaxes to be honest. It is not logical that units slice throught 9 feet wall of spears... but yeah, rtw isn't perfect, and that is why the new formations (over-handed) or how is it called, are much more suitable and enjoyable. I like the short spear animation, and I think hoplite battles are always a bit catastrophic. Because a phalanx almost never holds a formation/position.
But yeah, I am and will always be a Roma-freak. So no phalanxes for me :p

QC.

I know what you mean Quintus =P I'm a Rome-boy myself... And the new style hoplite factions that can run and use the overhand animation... I love those to. I think the Sucessor factions (and the whole game) would benefit much in terms of gameplay and balance if the phalanx was less diciplined.
Maybe less diciplin and more morale? Probably not possible... but anyways.

Aren't there several types of phalanxes?
(I speak of RTR PE 1.8 as that's the version I have played most lately)
one very orderly (like agema)
and one less diciplined and chaotic (like the pontus style)

Does this ring any bells for anyone but me?
anyways... the pontus style seems more realistic, but on the other hand much more prone to disobey your orders, as explained in my post above.

Don't know if this was just my installation deciding to go lolo but I rather think it wasn't

[Juvenal]

Units gain experience for killing enemy troops in melee, and to a lesser extent from chasing down routers or killing enemies with missiles.

Units also get some experience simply for being in the battle. I recall a number of occasions where unengaged units have received an experience chevron at the end of a battle.

It is generally agreed on the boards that experience is recorded at the level of individual soldiers. This means that the unit experience is actually the average of the experience of all of the soldiers in the unit.

I presume that more experienced individual soldiers are less likely to become casualties in melee. This means that when a unit takes heavy losses in melee (not to missiles) then these fall disproportionately on the inexperienced troops, so the average experience of the unit may rise sharply.

When a unit is retrained, the new recruits are given the average experience of the whole unit. This makes it very advantageous to retrain very small units which have gained high experience by the winnowing effect described above.

The retraining effect is so strong that many consider it an exploit - hence the adoption of "no-retraining" house rules.

[mjobling]

<snip>
The retraining effect is so strong that many consider it an exploit - hence the adoption of "no-retraining" house rules.

I don't see the retraining effect as an exploit. The new recruits would be joining an elite unit with skilled, experienced soldiers in there to train them. If a unit was created from scratch, they would not have the benefit of this experience. Surely elite units would also attract elite candidates.

[Juvenal]

@mjobling

My own feeling is that the experience calculation for retraining is wrong. It was better in the original Medieval Total War where new recruits were given default valour.

If a unit takes heavy losses and is retrained, it can end up with more experience than before it was shattered because the low experience troops who were killed are replaced by newly recruited troops with the same experience as the veteran survivors.

In case you are wondering why different troops in a unit have different experience, I think it is caused by the fact that front ranks do most of the fighting.

To answer your earlier question, units can lose the chevron gained at the end of a battle if a significant number of their casualties are healed. If the healed troops have lower experience than those who were unwounded, then the average experience of the unit can drop back below the threshold required to show the new chevron.

[Lost In Transition]

Units gain experience for killing enemy troops in melee, and to a lesser extent from chasing down routers or killing enemies with missiles.

Units also get some experience simply for being in the battle. I recall a number of occasions where unengaged units have received an experience chevron at the end of a battle.

. . .

When a unit is retrained, the new recruits are given the average experience of the whole unit. This makes it very advantageous to retrain very small units which have gained high experience by the winnowing effect described above.

The retraining effect is so strong that many consider it an exploit - hence the adoption of "no-retraining" house rules.

Juvenal:

First, thanks for this information. I am assuming, from your answer, that experience is "awarded" at different calculations depending upon what a unit is doing on the battlefield. A unit in a melee gets a lot of experience, a unit shooting arrows or thowing missles gets less, and the reserves units just standing around watching get the least of all. But everone gets some experience.

Naturally, the experience would be cumulative from battle to battle.

I wonder . . . has anyone ever taken a single unit and just kept them on the battlefield, without engaging them, to see how long it takes them to get experience?

Also, thanks for the info on retraining; I did not realize that. However, I'm not sure I agree that retraining a high experience unit is an exploit. Maybe I misunderstand. For example:

If I have a unit of 20 Hastati with an average experience of 5 (just as an example), and I retrain the unit to full size of 80, do I get:

(1) a full-sized unit with an average experience of 5 (this would be a bit of an exploit); or

(2) a full-sized unit with an experience of 1.5 (or some lower number); or

(3) something else entirely that I haven't forseen?

If it's (1), then I've never realized it and, if so, one way to make very strong units is to fight them down to the last few men, getting as many chevrons as possible, then retraining.

Thanks for your reply and your info.

[Whiskeyjack]

@ Lost in Translation

Regarding what makes roman troops so tough in RTR, this is a combination of a few things.
1. Romans troops are almost all sword units and as such have a significant advantage vs spear based troops.
2. Roman troops typically have better stats than other factions, in rtr their armour/defence is very high combined with thier attack stats and pilum and you have a formidable unit.
3. Phalanx units in a lot of mods tend to be underpowered, and this is especially true in rtr which of course only exagerrates the op nature of roman troops.

I hope that answers your question.

Nearly forgot, welcome to the forums .

[Lost In Transition]

Aren't there several types of phalanxes?
(I speak of RTR PE 1.8 as that's the version I have played most lately)
one very orderly (like agema)
and one less diciplined and chaotic (like the pontus style)

Again I'm not an expert, but yes, things rings some bells for me. In particular, I notice that when I'm playing Macedonia and fighting the Greek Cities, the Greek phalanxes are much more mobile and can get into position much faster than my Macedonians.

I don't know if that's a design feature or just the AI is better than me at moving troops . . .

[Lost In Transition]

@ Lost in Translation

Regarding what makes roman troops so tough in RTR, this is a combination of a few things.
1. Romans troops are almost all sword units and as such have a significant advantage vs spear based troops.

Like in MTW? Wow, I didn't realize they had brought that feature over to RTW. Well, that explains it.

Okay, let me ask this: what about when your spearmen are using a secondary weapon, like a sword? Imagine this: my Macedonians attack Greek spearmen. I switch to secondary weapon, which is a sword. Does that give me an advantage, or does the unit have to use a sword as a primary weapon.

3. Phalanx units in a lot of mods tend to be underpowered, and this is especially true in rtr which of course only exagerrates the op nature of roman troops.

I hope that answers your question.

Nearly forgot, welcome to the forums .

I'm not criticizing, just wondering: why would an elite Macedonian phalanx unit be weaker than a Roman Hastati or Principe company? I can understand technological development, but is that the only explanation?

Here's my reason for asking: I'm thinking of doing a Macedonian AAR, but I want all my units to be the same size (80 men). So, I'm considering adjusting the attack/defense values of some Macedonian units while reducing the unit numbers to 80. Would it be realistic to set them similar to Roman numbers?

Oh, and thanks for the welcome. On thing I've noticed about this forum is everyone is quite friendly. Not the case on every forum I've been to . . .

[MCM]

Hi there
I can attempt to answer it for you.

Q: why would an elite Macedonian phalanx unit be weaker than a Roman Hastati or Principe company? I can understand technological development, but is that the only explanation?

A. Your Macedonian phalanx unit (at the time of RTR era) was trained to fight as a part of an overall cooperating striking force, with each unit fighting in unison, using the pike as the main assault weapon. Polybius(I think it was him) notes that the standard tactics of the day for Macedonian units at that time were to either:
 Stand in place and allow the enemy to break against the phalanx, having the cavalry act as shock troops ( this went back to Alexander’s fighting techniques) or
 advance in unison with the rest of the phalanx, and roll over any opposition, effectively ‘shoving’ them out of the way. The traditional enemies fighting the Macedonians at the time of RTR era ( lets say 280), if they fought in phalanx, would break and run rather than fight and slug it out to the last hand to hand. This was the form of warfare they were used to at that time.

This is not detracting at all from the awesome power of a Macedonian phalanx in its heyday with the big A, which was a very different and skillful animal

Still some points to note-
1. the Macedonian cavalry was way past its heyday
2. the phalanx techniques were not as skillful as in the earlier Macedonian years of supremacy
As for your Romans
 their primary weapon was the sword
 they were trained to fight both as a unit, as part of an army in formation, and
 hand to hand up real close
 individual units could effectively break off and operate independently, if required

This made roman units very versatile, under a commander who thought fast.

This is the main advantage of your Roman troops.

What initially shocked the troops of Philip V when they met with the Romans was that,

• they did not fight in the usual manner
• even if the Roman formation was under threat or extreme pressure, the Romans, if given the chance, would attempt to step into the Macedonian formation, breaking off the pikes arrayed against them, and close with the enemy. The Macedonian troops expected the usual push /pull of phalanx vs phalanx, as indeed the sword was a secondary weapon.

This is a very basic explanation (as I am at work-lol)

Its all in Polybius if you wish.

Hope that helps you


MCM

[Juvenal]

Juvenal:

...a unit shooting arrows or thowing missles gets less (experience)...

...If I have a unit of 20 Hastati with an average experience of 5 (just as an example), and I retrain the unit to full size of 80, do I get:

(1) a full-sized unit with an average experience of 5 (this would be a bit of an exploit); ...

My archers and slingers usually get a lot of kills and take few casualties. They don't seem to gain experience as quickly as front-line units. But this may be because the experience gained is divided amongst a larger number of survivors.

I believe that retraining does add new recruits with the same experience as the current average for the unit - so I recommend merging very small units rather than retraining them.

I don't think the actual formulae for all of these mechanisms have ever been made public by CA. However, the massed minds of fandom have been working away at this and other problems over at the .ORG - try looking there in the Ludus Magna http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=88

Regarding Roman superiority to Macedonian Phalanx. The phalanx does not have a very high kill rate - it is mainly intended for pinning the enemy in place while you manoeuvre against their flanks. In a one on one encounter, the Roman unit will spread out and eventually wrap around the flanks of the phalanx. At this point the phalangites with their weak sword and low armour will start dropping like flies - and are quite likely to break.

Alas the AI is not very good at maintaining a single line with its phalanxes, so you won't have much trouble defeating them individually one after the other.

But, If you are playing Macedon, then you can create a battle winning phalanx - Roman Hastati and Principes will not be able to quickly cut their way through from the front provided you keep a solid line with flank guards and stand your ground with guard mode switched on.

Using a good strong flanking force, the Romans can be eventually worn down and defeated.

EDIT: In vanilla RTW the officer and standard bearer standing at the left of a pike unit prevent the next unit from touching, and the resulting gap can be infiltrated by enemy swordsmen. I believe RTR has adjusted the pike phalanx formation so that they can join to form an unbroken line.

[mjobling]

@mjobling

My own feeling is that the experience calculation for retraining is wrong. It was better in the original Medieval Total War where new recruits were given default valour.

If a unit takes heavy losses and is retrained, it can end up with more experience than before it was shattered because the low experience troops who were killed are replaced by newly recruited troops with the same experience as the veteran survivors.

In case you are wondering why different troops in a unit have different experience, I think it is caused by the fact that front ranks do most of the fighting.

To answer your earlier question, units can lose the chevron gained at the end of a battle if a significant number of their casualties are healed. If the healed troops have lower experience than those who were unwounded, then the average experience of the unit can drop back below the threshold required to show the new chevron.

Hmmm, you've got me thinking now. I may need to change the way I play by only repopulating units by merging after battles and only retraining full units for blacksmith upgrades.