Something really unusual...

[thegoat529]

Something surprising and unusual has happened to me in the current game I'm playing as Rome. Thus far, Gaul is conquered, the Illyrians are conquered, I've started to invade Carthage and taken several cities (reached 50 provinces by 201bc), last but not least I've sliced Macedon in two and I'm pushing them firmly onto their heals. Out of nowhere... the Iberian's declare war, I'm not worried as I was already planning to invade them and easily took one of their cities the very next turn. But the following surprised the crap out of me, the Macedonians built a huge navy, 7 fleets of 4-6 vessels and they are blockading the crap out of all of my major ports!

I found this really interesting for two reasons, and decided to start this thread to hear other peoples responses and unusual occurances that have happened in their games. The first: my navy isn't nearly strong enough to compete with them, hurting my ability to reinforce legions that are seperated from solder training cities by water and cutting my finances from about 15k per turn to 3-4k. The second: this is the best thing that could've happened, for about 40years worth of turns I've been doing nothing but annihilating wave after wave of full Macedonian stacks and inching into central Greece, the cost of this fleets upkeep is so monumentous that I've decided "it's worth my -11k per turn knowing their ability to feild a land army is stifled".

[fourganger]

It must have taken some time to build up that Navy...where were your spies?!?

[Quinn Inuit]

The Macs occasionally go crazy with their navy. Not sure why. I think the AI is programmed to be extremely aggressive with its navy if it senses that the human is allowing a naval power vacuum to develop.

Mac stack-spamming is really annoying. The problem is the Greek Peninsula. If you can blockade or ravage that area, you'll take out the problem. In the ExRM, we've had to put a substantial income negative into that area in order to keep the Macs from going crazy. They still go a little crazy, but it's not as bad. (Doubled troop upkeep also helps, since that heavily penalizes stack spamming.)

[despot_of_rhodes]

Yes, it´s annoying to fight naval battles on hard campaign difficulty, but there is one thing i don´t really understand: playing RTR platinum, i was desperate, how do keep my treasury under 50k and prevent all my generals from becoming currupt ( that was a first reason for me to switch to ExRM ) I finally found a temporary solution, after i built hunderts of spys ( i personaly don´t like to keep legions just sitting around and doing nothing ). Macednons are anoying, but in RTR they build mostly phalanx armies, which are quite easy to destroy, if you use your missile/cavalry units right - because princeps, set on defence mode, can keep any phalanx busy long enough, to slaughter it from the rear ( the "natural predators" of macedons are still the Germans, though. The fast moving units, throuing 6 javelins in the rear of the phalanx are simply exciting! )

Year 201...hmm..at this point, you shoud be able to train legionaries. And if you can - this guys are even toughter then triari. So, swimming in money, owning the best infantry in game, why is that a problem, to build up a decent navy? ( just curios, no offnce ment ).

Try ExRM ( with a cool auto installer by bladerunner ) and you can forget the Black Death along with ill growing cities

[thegoat529]

It never was a problem, it actually helped me a lot, the upkeep on those navies meant they had next to no land army and became a pushover like the Illyrians. Just out of curiosity, why would i bother training triarii? Principes and light cavalry are all you need against the Macedonians.

*Their navy a just gradually picked away with one large fleet once i got a foundry in one of my cities to upgrade weapons and armor, it was fun*

[morteduzionism]

but there is one thing i don´t really understand: playing RTR platinum, i was desperate, how do keep my treasury under 50k and prevent all my generals from becoming currupt ( that was a first reason for me to switch to ExRM ) I finally found a temporary solution, after i built hunderts of spys ( i personaly don´t like to keep legions just sitting around and doing nothing ).

Your solution was to recruit a massive amount of spies?

Did you try lowering your taxes? I play like this also, keeping my treasury <50K, the solution I found was to adjust my taxes. Generally I keep taxes on Very High (for governed settlements) and High (non-governed). When I'm approaching the 50K mark I lower taxes one level in all my cities.

You'd be amazed at how much of a difference that'll make. In both directions, if you notice you're not making enough money...you may have to raise taxes*

In addition to this when I notice I'm starting to make a lot of denari per turn I send a diplomat to an ally or another faction in order to gift money as necessary.

As a last resort I raise an army. I don't have any problems with an army sitting in a fort on a border for a decade or two. That's what military life is: hurrying up to do nothing
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This is actually a fun mini-game for me. During times of peace/prosperity I can lower taxes to promote growth/happiness in cities. During times of war/struggles I have to raise taxes so all the peoples of Rome contribute to her defence...

[despot_of_rhodes]

Well, yea sure, you´re right about taxes... i guess i´ve spent to much time near Mercury temple, when i was a kid

But iirc, RTR vanilla doesn´t have this awesome Roman promotion scripting, does it? Cuz keeping Generals off the cities is just like burning the money ( even an idiot general, when gouverning, brings you definetly higher income in any city ). Playing ExRM ( note: i tend to expand too fast, because the enemeys let me... ) i never get the problem to get over 50k, and believe me, i press all the money of every city i can get

I also wonder, how people take bout 80 years, before they decide to expand properly ( sitting about 50 years on Italian pennisula and building up cities is to boring for my gusto ). I do respekt the "historical way of playing" and i do like some houserulez, people post sometimes, but what i don´t like is, when the opportunity is given, but i have to say: oh, no, the "real" Romans never did that".. etc.

I wonder, if one could disable the 50k limit for players, but not the AI, since allways playing on hard campaign difficulty, i don´t get that nice gifts, but i´d like to put some denari aside, for the "hard times" ( you know, when i´m gonna meet black, yellow or blue death etc )

Btw. smth. unusual, though my screeny is gonna be from ExRM, but i think, it´s still RTR based, so...

[morteduzionism]

I also wonder, how people take bout 80 years, before they decide to expand properly ( sitting about 50 years on Italian pennisula and building up cities is to boring for my gusto ).

Au contraire mon frere...

Don't limit yourself to "building up cities." There's plenty of things you can do.

-I try to make cities revolt using spies/assassins
-Send an army into a territory and fight other armies. I don't take territory just destroy armies. If I do take a city I don't keep it I might destroy some stuff and gift it back...
-manage family members: make sure everyone has good retinue
-explore the map and various political situations (who's at war with who and how can I help/hurt a faction)
-use a campaign of assassinations to weaken a faction
-play power broker; i.e. go to Africa and try to reestablish Numidia (if they're not destroyed); protect Thrace/Illyria from Greece/Macedonia; protect Ptolemies from Seleucids

All of these things and more can be done during those down periods where the game doesn't match the history. Besides it's been my experience that those down periods don't actually last that long and before you know it you're back in a long term war.

I do respekt the "historical way of playing" and i do like some houserulez, people post sometimes, but what i don´t like is, when the opportunity is given, but i have to say: oh, no, the "real" Romans never did that".. etc.

An opportunity like what?

An example I've noticed is dealing with Carthage. If/when I take Lilybaeum too soon Carthage will repeatedly attack the city. It would seem like EVERY single turn they'd attack.

That's annoying and boring.

It would be a war of attrition. The AI would simply spawn full stacks of cheap skirmishers and slowly wear my army down. Then when I would send it back to retrain they'd attack again. Sometimes they'd get the city most times they wouldn't.

That's annoying, boring and unrealistic. Mostly it's annoying and boring.

The solution? Do nothing. If I don't take Lilybaeum and simply sit on my butt Carthage only attacks every so often and then with a few units. That gives me time to develop my infrastructure and to expand in more deliberate and orderly pace instead of constantly having to react to situations.

different strokes for different folks. I can't really get into the battles that much. They're so tedious...actually......I find the battles boring...lol

I wonder, if one could disable the 50k limit for players, but not the AI, since allways playing on hard campaign difficulty, i don´t get that nice gifts, but i´d like to put some denari aside, for the "hard times" ( you know, when i´m gonna meet black, yellow or blue death etc )

Post a diplomat near an ally and gift them money. What I do is every turn that I start with >50K I first que up needed buildings, retrain forces and any other duties that need to be done.

Then I only gift the amount that is <49,999 denari so that I end each turn with 49,999 denari.

This way I'm essentially only spending the interest on the 50K and if the "hard times" hit I'll always have at least 49,999 denari available to spend.

[Quinn Inuit]

'Cause the triarii are historical and were an integral part of Roman armies. They're also very good at a holding a line, which occasionally comes in handy.

[despot_of_rhodes]

Triari got the Eagle and inspire friendly units. You can keep your general behind the main line, of course, and lift the spirits of the army, but Roman cavalry isn´t really tough ( and quite expencive too ), and to engage the enemy warlord you can use your own general. Then, if you hold the mouse over a unit near Triari, you will see: "Glad to be near command unit" - wich means higher morale for the fighing units in absence of your general ( quite usefull, if you fight inside the city and send some troops to outflank enemy units; and in case, they charge you with cavalry, your Triary will just slaughter them, expecially efficient against enemy general bodyguards, who normaly can break any unit, but triari will actually fight to the last man ).

I found triari also very usefull while autoresolving ( siege ) battles. Their high defence stats grant you significantly less causalities, especially, if there are some elite enemy troops in the city ( you know, like carthaginian Sacred Band or Spartans ) - that´s at least, what i´ve noticed.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Also if you are short on cavalry and you enemies cavalry try to flank you, triarii are good for quickly moving to protect your flank with their spears.

[Titus Livius]

were spearmen really that effective against cavalry? i thought cavalry charges could decimate most infantry and would normally beat infantry, even if they contained spearmen because considering cavalry were maintained for the wealthy which culd afford the best armour and weapons. However, cavalry were small compared to the abundant infantry and would loose sooner or later. I could be wrong since i am no expert in this matter.

[despot_of_rhodes]

Only Generals bodyguards are really capable of prolonged and sucsessfull fighting agains infantry ( well, maybe kataphrakts also a little ). If you don´t charge in the rear or the flank of a defensivly stationd heavy infantry, your cavalry´ll get massacred. And it is still more effective to fight against cavalary with spears, than with swords.

[Tiberius Tosi]

were spearmen really that effective against cavalry? i thought cavalry charges could decimate most infantry and would normally beat infantry, even if they contained spearmen because considering cavalry were maintained for the wealthy which culd afford the best armour and weapons. However, cavalry were small compared to the abundant infantry and would loose sooner or later. I could be wrong since i am no expert in this matter.

Horses, for the most part, don't like to charge into a solid group of men. There are always exceptions but cavalry was usually only "very" effective when attacking the flank or rear of a unit or fighting when massed infantry broke apart and split up. Horses may be animals, but they are not dumb and no animal with a brain likes to charge into its death. (I believe there was a test done on the History Channel about Waterloo where they tried to get horses to charge at a 5-6 foot stack of hay, and usually the horse simply would not charge it, which definitely means they would probably not charge a group of screaming men with weapons)

After all, this isn't lord of the rings where cavalry can literally trample hundreds of men in a line without even flinching.

[despot_of_rhodes]

Nah, there were no men, just Orks

[Quinn Inuit]

Also, don't forget that the cavalry then didn't have stirrups, so a good thwack from a spear, even if it doesn't penetrate armor, might unhorse you and get you skewered by a sauroter. Ouch.

[pannonian]

Also, don't forget that the cavalry then didn't have stirrups, so a good thwack from a spear, even if it doesn't penetrate armor, might unhorse you and get you skewered by a sauroter. Ouch.

IIRC the current view is that contemporary saddles were good enough at keeping one horsed and fighting, at least in the contemporary style. It would be interesting to see the practical effect of using a couched lance without stirrups though.