How's your current campaign going?

[Augustus Octavius]

I enjoy reading how other people's campaigns are going and offering tips if I can. I'll share mine with everyone first.

I'm playing as Macedonia its about 263 BC and my faction leader is still alive. I used him and the heir Demetrius to take over all of the Greek peninnsula and Byzantium from the GCS. Needless to say my economy is very healthy and I built up three well-rounded stacks. I used them to attack the Seleucids in Asia minor. Demetrius defeated two full stacks (in the same battle, one routed then the other showed up.....and was soundly beaten)right at the Hellespot, opening the door to western asia minor as the cities there had almost no garrison. He killed the Seleucid Faction leader and heir and took Nicomedia. The other two stacks took three more cities around Nicomedia and I was poised to take at least three more and then I signed an alliance with Armenia.

Little did I know that Armenia and Seleucids had an alliance of thier own, so it automatically created a cease fire with Seleucids and Pontis(who were also allied with Armenia). I had a decision to make. Instead of violating the new ceasesfire, I have turned my attention to the Ptolemic city southwest of byzantium and Thrace. This actually works out for me as I want to consolidate my Macedonian/Thracian border. I think I will also take Crete, Rhodes, and the small island west of Asia Minor from the Ptolemics.

I realize I MUST pay attention to the diplomacy of my immediate neighbors and enemies. Ptolemy isn't allied with anyone and Thrace is allied with Sarmatia. I also just signed an alliance with Rome who is allied with Illyria. Does that mean Illyria won't attack? Is that front secure for now? What do you think?

[Mikail Mengsk]

Foget about alliances: they worth nothing. YOur own allies will always attack you, sooner or later. You MUST take Rhodes: the Colossus provide a great trade bonus (+40% i think)!!!

My campaign: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=152954 !

[Jamey]

I've been taking occasional screenshots of my Roman campaign. I've gotten a bit bored with the current cakewalk, so I've only played the occasional turn recently. I'll post the mini-map with some commentary.


264 BC.

Illyria was being a pest, so I took Salona to do my fighting outside of Italia. It was a good move both because it prevented devastation on my land and because it allowed me to start building up a recruitment/retraining center in the Balkans.

In 264, I was at war with Gaul and Carthage. I was allied with Numidia, Greece, Iberia, and Germania.

-----


241 BC.

After blockading Carthage until Numidia and Iberia were making headway against it, I invaded and took the best provinces. This boost in income was huge, and it allowed me to fight a two fronted war, one in Greece and the Balkans and the other in Gaul. I bribed Rhodes with the proceeds of the sack of Carthage and I traded some provinces with Germania to shorten my defensive lines, lubricating the exchange with the proceeds of the sack of Greece.

I decided to take the British Isles for the challenge, but was disappointed at the concentration of barbarians - it was a fairly pleasant romp. Removing the mine in the south end of Britain appears to have drastically reduced the number of stacks.

I've just begun the sack of Thrace. By the time I'm done, I will have exterminated all of their settlements except Vicus Venedae (their most recent conquest), destroyed their unit production, and returned several provinces to shorten my defensive lines. It was worth it, as I have not been attacked by Thrace since. They haven't even been able to field enough troops to clear out the rebels on their land (they field a total of one stack, mostly mercenaries).

I remained allied with Germania and Numidia. Iberia attacked very soon after I acquired a land border with them. Most of the Iberian conquest was won using an army whose core was 8 Gallic Auxilia. Greece first brokered peace and then alliance with Macedon, foreshadowing their betrayal. I wiped both from the map.

-----


231 BC. Current day.

I'm still allied with Germania and Numidia. Both borders are heavily fortified, with my best pre-Marian armies retired there. For some reason, the AI doesn't like attacking into the teeth of gold chevron stacks with competent commanders.

The great leader Amulius the Killer (may his assassins never get dull blades!) has retired to enjoy his dotage in a very pleasant home in Crimea with the legion that helped him to conquer it (I sent it back for retraining just before the Marian reforms kicked in).

I attacked Seleucia because they controlled most of Anatolia. The Armenians decided they wanted part of the action and sent an army to stand next to Byzantion until I decided to wipe it out. I've spent the last decade tearing through Anatolia with 4 full stack Roman legions (and a couple stacks of cheap garrison troops).

I'm currently in a retraining cycle. Philippi is my closest retraining center. I'm also shipping a newly built legion from Roma to Crete (got to have that silver equipment!). Another will follow in a few turns. These two legions will proceed to Africa to conquer the Ptolemaic homeland. One legion will subjugate the rest of Cyprus, then move to strike in Syria. One legion will proceed from Tarsus to strike Syria. One legion will clean up Maronia, Abydos, and Mytilene before proceeding to Syria or the Levant. The final legion will continue with the conquest of Armenia until it is wiped from the map - this is the price of irritating me by blocking free movement of troops into Anatolia.

-----

Yes, for those who are wondering, I've been allied with Germania since a few turns into the game. So far, a heavily fortified border and generous lubrication with annual tribute has kept that alliance stable. I don't trust my AI ally, but I also enjoy having a peaceful border with them. They are welcome to the northern barbarian lands; as long as their armies stay out of my lands, we'll have peace.

Numidia is still allied with me, but they are being passive-agressive (sending armies into my land for no apparent reason, but never attacking). They've had an army next to Palma for decades. It helped me fight off both Gallic and Iberian invasions of the island. I've considered bribing it just to make it go away, but it amuses me and couldn't possibly defeat the full stack defending Palma.

[dr0p]

My campaign is going fine, thank you.















(I had too, sorry )

[AqD]

1) Parthian campaign in my mini-mod (not original parthians), 110th year: I took the whole eastern parts on the map: asia and egypt, and part of scythia too. The only challenging foe, Armenians, are dead and the battles since then are boring because AI doesn't know how to break crossbowmen with greek units.......

2) Iberian campaign, 120th year: I took the whole north africa after carthage and numidia fought to death (almost ), and keep bribing roman cities and razing them to stop them from growing - which has been repeated for some 60 or 80 years. Now I have 30+ large cities and my population is more than the sum of all other factions, while romans are still fighting with macedonians in italy (whom I sent razed cities to), with their veterans of 100+ years old because they have only one city for recruitment

Things went out of plan, though, the nasty macedonians somehow decided to go across gauls territory to attack me They have like 20 stacks but I have only one, an elite army of entirely Scutarii Devotio and Scutarii Cavalry, with gold armour/weapon upgrade but no veterans...
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS

[Publius Quirinus]

Okay..... so it's now 260 BC and I'm playing as Bactria here. This is my first game in RTR-- sort of. I played as the Romans for a bit, up till about 270 BC, and then started a new game as the Bactrians. In this game the Greeks are pretty much the only losers-- they have only Tarentum and what other city in Italy left. Even the Seleucids are still going strong despite losing its eastern lands to me. It's also refreshing to see that the Romans are not steamrolling over everyone. (Yet?)

The annoying thing about Bactria is the distances. Even at the start of the game, suppliy lines were ridiculously long-- it took at least three turns from Alexandria Herat to Phrada, the nearest Seleucid city. Luckily there didn't seem to be much of a Seleucid presence around that area-- after Phrada, Kapisa also fell without a serious fight. There was a stack at Harmozeia, but I pounced on the garrison with half the army away, so it wasn't so bad. I took care of the other half later. For this I used first Sautes, and then Byzas after old Sautes went and bought the farm.

And then the Parthians attacked me at Sogdiana with a slightly-more-than-half stack. I waited for them to attack and then crushed them at the gates and on the walls.

After that I assembled a small army led by a new, capable son-in-law, and trekked west from Alexendria Herat (I had gotten maps from the Parthians earlier on), discovered (Seleucid) Hecatompylos en-route, and stormed it. There was a prickly battle with some of the bronze-shield dudes, but I despatched of it with the help of some peltastai. The Parthian city in Hyrcania (forgot the name) was easier in comparison.

In the meantime my starting diplomat had made his way over to Asia Minor, and bribed a Seleucid general with some understrength troops. I got good mileage out of that guy-- he stormed and sacked Tarsus, took apart a decent-like army and was taking a shot at Antioch when he was intercepted by Seleucid armies and suffered total defeat. Tarsus revolted from me not long after that, I think.

In the meantime, the Parthians had pulled back another army from Sogdiana to take back Hyrcania. I crushed that army too after some close fighting on the walls, but the general got away. I was going to leave the other city alone
for a while until I got some reinforcements from my core cities, but then I saw this Parthian army approaching from the south, so I took a gamble and attacked the other Parthian city, destroying the Parthians and making that said Parthian army rebel. That bought me some time until I could bribe an invading Seleucid army, which I turned on Alexandretta (sp?) after dealing with that remnant Parthian army on the way.

Epiphanaea (in Media) wasn't too hard after the Parthians. The real trouble was Susa. I had bribed over Pasargadae from the rebels, so from Harmozeia I bypassed that city completely to go to Susa. I was stopped en-route by the Seleucid army, which, although it lost to me, also took a large chunk of my army (over 500 men) with it. If not for mercenaries and some bribed units, I think I would have been forced to retreat, but anyways I managed to take Susa.

That's one of the things I'm loving about RTR: the auxilia building system does simulate this kind of overstretching of supply lines very well-- my southern army under Byzas is pretty much stalled because it would take forever to get reinforcements from my core cities or build the auxilia buildings (and the barracks). Although it's a bother, it also enhances the game: in vanilla, I would probably have steamrolled over the Seleucid Empire all the way to Asia Minor, retraining and maybe even adding to my army with the advanced military buildings of the conquered Seleucid cities. It also encourages me to actually care for my men-- they are not easily replaced.

When I started playing Bactria, I was expecting to play a heavily horse-archer reliant faction, ala vanilla Parthia. But since cavalry takes two turns to build and is expensive to maintain, there is a heavy emphasis on infantry, which I suppose better reflects history. The Bactrian pezoi is great, and are the mainstay of my armies, supported by the occasional agema and horse archer.

One thing about cavalry in RTR in general, their relative fragility in close combat is a great incentive to use cavalry more like the ancients did-- as screeners and chasers, and relying on charges to the rear. Also, I find that the longer battle times do encourage the use of tactics.

As the Bactrians, I never ran into any sort of money problems even early on, which I didn't expect, given that the Bactrians are landlocked and surrounded by enemy lands. I just invested on mines from the start, and carefully monitored my army recruitment, so that I was pushing 50000d by year six or seven. The aforementioned adventure in Cilicia was a way of reducing the cash in my treasury. (What is the corruption threshold in RTR? Is it still 50000d?)


What should I have done or not done, up till this point (260 BC)? What should I do next? I'm thinking of moving my capital somewhere to the west of Alexandria Herat. Any suggestions on where?


I think I'll probably stop when I reach the Mediterranean. I've been meaning to check out a barbarian faction, but they all seem quite intimidating. Which faction provides a good introduction to the barbarians? :hmmm:

[Jamey]

What should I have done or not done, up till this point (260 BC)? What should I do next? I'm thinking of moving my capital somewhere to the west of Alexandria Herat. Any suggestions on where?

When playing Bactria, I've tried to keep my capital central to my empire. The distances are so large, failing to do so hurts a lot. One method is to try changing the capital to various cities and choose the one which gives you the largest income in the next turn.

I think you're doing fine. I'm also a big fan of the Pezoi; I think they are one of the strongest pike units in the game. I like to team them with fast moving infantry like the Cyrtian spears/swords, then support the line with ranged units and cavalry. I carved my way into Syria with my longest Bactrian game.

I think I'll probably stop when I reach the Mediterranean. I've been meaning to check out a barbarian faction, but they all seem quite intimidating. Which faction provides a good introduction to the barbarians? :hmmm:

The various barbarian factions have different flavors. I'm a big fan of Germania and Thrace (though Thrace gets hit very hard by the growth problems from grain imports around the Black Sea).

Here's my impression of the various barbarian factions:

• Germania has a core of spear units. Almost every unit uses thrown javelins. Your biggest killer is your fear causing units (blackshields and elite spears). Use them to flank and envelop enemy forces. Germania has several varieties of region-specific units (blackshields, archers, and clubmen off the top of my head). Germania is my favorite faction. It's a heck of a challenge when you get into the juggernauts on the Mediterranean.
• Thrace has some of the best pure melee heavy infantry in the game. Falxmen and Bastarnae are virtually unarmored, but hit like a freight train (high damage and armor piercing). I've seen silver chevron Bastarnae rip through Principes like they aren't even there. Bastarnae are unbeatable wall storming units, if you can get them through the hail of arrows. The only problem with Thrace is that it simply cannot handle the population growth caused by all of the grain resources in the Black Sea region. Well, that and the fact that you are virtually certain to go to war with Macedon in the first few years of the game.
• Gaul has very strong (but expensive) elite units and large fast moving basic units. It's an interesting mix, but not one which I care for. I prefer the Germanic unit mix.
• Iberia is a lot like Rome light. Their units tend to be similar to Rome's pre-Marian units, but with lower stats (especially defense). It's a fun faction to play, and a good challenge. The mines of Iberia can easily support early attacks into Gaul or North Africa.
• Sarmatia is all about archers. They have the best horse and foot archers in the game and virtually no access to non-mercenary melee infantry. Not my cup of tea, but there are strong advocates of the horse archer play style.

[Andy5]

Settings VH/VH
It is 200BC and my western campaign is going well.
I have Carthage on the ropes and Gaul has only one province remaining.
Greece has Crete and Athens remaining.
I have launched a campaign to take Britain to provide a safe trade zone.

But the Seleucids are giving me real problems, my armies just can't do enough damage to theirs.
I have Elis, Sparta and Corinth but the Seleucids have taken Delmatia and Scodra and Appollonia.

Their stacks lack manouverablility but peltasts and javelins don't seem to have much effect.
I have tried missile cavalry but they don't reduce the numbers enough.
Do peltasts do more damage if they attack the flanks and rear of the phalanx?

I use Scorpions and they work reasonably well against the phalanx but they usually don't kill enough before the Selecuids close with my troops.
The Selecuids always attack my artillery and I have to withdraw them.

As an aside - why do ballistas have a shorter range than scorpions - is this factually correct?

I know I need to pin down their "golden shields" so other infantry can attack the phalanx from the flanks and rear but I can't procure enough hoplites to do this.

I have been using Gallic auxillaries with +1 armour and +1 weapons but they are no match for golden shields and they break before the legions can cause the "golden shields to route".
Does anyone know of a good spearmen unit other than mercenary hoplites that can just pin down the front phalanx so I can use the legions to attack the flanks and rear.

It is a really enjoyable campaign though. Forces me to really think about what strategies I need to employ.

[Mikail Mengsk]

Only a phalanx could pin down another phalanx on the front without suffering too many losses . But i think the legionnaires with much armor bonus (for example a silver chevron) could pin down phalanxes too :hmmm:

I think javelins have armor piercing bonus, so they should work good against heavy infantry :hmmm:

[Andy5]

I have worked out another strategy against the Seleucid 'golden shield' phalanx.
I place large stacks of heavy infantry in strategically located cities with stone or large stone walls.

I have noticed once the 'golden shields' have to climb ladders or even use siege towers they are much more vulnerable than in the phalanx formation.

I have still lost a couple of cities using this strategy to the Seleucids but I made them pay a heavy price and was able to retake the cities relatively quickly.

[Mikail Mengsk]

Good tactic, no one could use the phalanx formations on the top of the walls, so placing sword infantry there is very effective against phalanxes .

[fourganger]

I have worked out another strategy against the Seleucid 'golden shield' phalanx.
I place large stacks of heavy infantry in strategically located cities with stone or large stone walls.

I have noticed once the 'golden shields' have to climb ladders or even use siege towers they are much more vulnerable than in the phalanx formation.

You've worked out how to beat the phalanx - get it out of formation.

You should be able to move your forces to break up the Seleucid front line- cavalry, light missile troops (all missiles cause higher casualties from behind), feigned flankers etc. all break up the Seleucid line, meaning your heavy infantry can get in and attack the flanks of units. Once your men are in close there's nothing the Seleucids can do. A couple of cavalry charges to the rear of their engaged units (you probably have access to Gallic Noble cavalry or Sarmatian cavalry) will seal the deal, just remember to have some light cavalry standing by to chase down their units and stop them re-forming.

[Andy5]

Okay I will give the heavy cavalry a try. I have held them back because the few times I have used them against the phalanx they were slaughtered.

Has any identified if there is any advantage in using either Latin Velites or Heavy Peltasts or Light Peltasts. Is the only difference a better ability to melee with infantry?

I have taken Crete now and I am ready to launch a campaign in Asia Minor. From other posts I won't bother trying to hold the cities, I will sack them destroy any income producing buildings and then let them revolt.

I am hoping this will force the Seleucid armies in the Balkans to withdraw enabling me to finish off the Illyrians who have been dammed pests.

[Mikail Mengsk]

it's usually easy to kill enemy general: the AI usually throw him in the centre of the fight!

[fourganger]

it's usually easy to kill enemy general: the AI usually throw him in the centre of the fight!

True dat.

I remember one time a Gallic faction leader ran the whole length of my front line. I was playing as Rome, and I set my boys up on "fire at will". It was messy.

[Delvecchio1975]

killing a general is even easier if they don't engage (which is ususal in my games for some reason, they always hang back) - one unit of even unexperienced archers kills the whole bunch from a safe distance.

[Mikail Mengsk]

really in yourgames there are no-kamikaze generals?Well, they don't move out of archers' range?

[Delvecchio1975]

no, they don't move out either of the archer's range, so in that sense they're worse than kamikaze - at least kamikazes take some enemies with them

[Mikail Mengsk]

hehe you are right!

[Mikail Mengsk]

No, no NEVER use the wedge: it's almost useless in RTW. It might be useful if the enemy line is VERY thin, but the normal formation has the best impact on the enemy. Use a large formation for the cavalry units (three lines are good for a 40-50 soldiers unit), so they could immediately surround the enemy unit.


In my campaign i've just taken Rome! As the Rolling Stones said: SATISFACTION! (ta-da-daaa...ta-da-da-da-daa.... ta-da-daaaa...)

Link: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=152954&page=4