Roman empire

[Andy1984]

Just a smal question: In vanilla, the Romans always seemed to be building up their empire and were - at least for me - a reason to continue my campaign once the hardest part of getting your economy and army going was finished. You just knew some awful Scipii or Bruti-army was coming after you with fully upgraded praetorians.

Since I've never played so long a campaign in dtw, I'm wondering if the same goes for this mod. How likely are the Romans (or any other faction for that manner) to give you a serious challenge once you've started to field elite units?

[RedFox]

Considering the experience bonus; their troops will always be superior. And later Polybian units are very tough compared to other infantry. Polybian Principes is probably among the best melee infantry in v0.941. The next version will introduce Early Legionary Cohorts that have more soldiers and similar performance as Polybian Principes.

The best way is to try it out yourself though, since every game is different and in some games Pyrrhus of Epirus conquers Rome...

[jakobh94]

I would say that Macedonia, Carthage and the Germans are a serious threat to your nation. You wont notice their existence during the Pyrrhus Wars but afterwards, you will recognize their existence. The Germans will swoop down from the north, macedonians will attack with phalanxes and carthage ... Either come from the west or they'll come from the sea. So get a good foothold in Syrakusai, also it's a good trading island.

[Stilgar CG]

One of the main fun contributors in the Roman gameplay is the challenge of fighting helenic phalanx-heavy armies. When I'll play Romans next time I'll aim for the conquest of Greece as the ultimate goal.

[jakobh94]

Yeah, better bring them down early, stacks of Agyraspidai can be difficult, even with Wedge Triarii ...
Gaul is easy, you start off with way better units than they do.

[Andy1984]

Thanks for the replies. At this moment, I'm not playing as the Romans, but as the Seleucids (although I started a Parthian campaign at the same time to experience another way of warfare). I guess I'll just give the Romans, who own Italy, Crete and perhaps some minor possessions in southern-Gaul, a little bit more time. The reforms haven't passed yet, and I still need to wipe out Scythia, Parthia, Bactria, Thrace (?), as well as the remnants of Egypt and the IGC.
Despite the vast size of my empire, I'm not making that much money. A large part of potential income is lost by garrisons, two full stack-armies and most of all: corruption. Even when building law temples, the corruption is still huge. Due to my income not being extravagantly huge (and due to cultural issues on the edges of my empire), my military advance will be slowed down considerably... which ultimately buys Rome more time.

looking after some Romans,

Andy

[aznflea]

i dont have much experience fighting the romans except this one campaign where i decided to play as pyrhus of epirus and conquer rome. the campaign was far too easy as i was playing on m/vh.

they are not that hard from my experience. you just need to make sure your army does not lose cohesion and use your cavalry to its full potential. i had warelephants to help me conquer rome. you should get them too, they are uber easy to get in dtw

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

Well, Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire didn't think that the Roman Republic was too tough an enemy, and look what happened to his army .

[aznflea]

i think he knew the serious threat the romans were he just had greed get the hold of him and made him go raid the enemy camp. quite futile if youre gonna trade an empire for a few dollars

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

He had plenty of money, I don't think he failed for that reason. He failed rather because he decided that he could do what the Macedonians and Carthaginians (including Hannibal, his military adviser) had failed to do, that is defeat the Romans.

If anything, his ego was his downfall. He should have used his army to consolidate his territory in the east, rather than go on a doomed expedition against the Romans just because he decided he didn't like them very much.

[aznflea]

at the battle of whatever it was called i cant remember the phalanx charge was successful. antiochus wiped out the roman cavalry. all he needed to do was strike the anvil but what he did was go panty raid the roman camp. in that time the romans crushed a seleucid wing and the massacre had already started.

i firmly believe that if antiochus played his cards right he couldve defeated the roman empire.

[RedFox]

Unfortunately, not many had the same command talents as Alexander the Great did. The main reason Alexander was so successful were his many generals that independently controlled groups of his army, following his 'master plan' of course. Later generals seemed to lack such tactical aspect probably due to command authority issues (think mutiny). Alexander also had excellent, very well trained cavalry in mass quantities, which is something the later armies lacked due to, in my opinion, overall bad management.
I doubt even Pyrrhus could have done anything great against the Romans, since he relied on Elephants to crush the Romans, which is a cheap tactic and in the end backfired and cost him his entire army. We don't really see many Anvil and hammer tactics after Alexander the Great, which is pretty sad.

The Successors had a chance to beat the Romans in every major battle they did, in fact, the Makedons crushed Romans on numerous occasions, but if they lost a battle once, they couldn't recover fast enough. Rome had much more manpower and that is the main reason they won the wars.

[jakobh94]

Yeah, like the second punic war ...

[aznflea]

the second punic war was second best epic war in antiquity after the persian war.

its quite amazing how hannibal lost even though the romans had far more casualties. it just shows the massive manpower that the romans wielded

[Cal20]

Well and the fact that Hannibal wasn't able to act, screwed over by his own government and such. Could have ruined Rome if he had been able to act straight away and not letting the Roman's time to breathe and recruit a new army.

[Zarax]

The 2nd punic war was a closer affair than you may think.
If Hannibal's reinforcements (almost 20000 troops) weren't redirected to Sardinia or the macedonians gave a more active support things would have been very different...

[RedFox]

Rome controlled the Pyrrhenian sea, so Macedon's only route was through more than savage Illyria. Though I figure coast-line travel would have been possible, Illyrians would've probably gathered an army to repell them. And considering the poor quality of successor armies during that time, they posed little threat to anyone.

Hannibal should've commited all available resources to besieging Rome, blocking river access to sea if possible and poisoning the Tiber that flowed through Rome. Alas, Hannibal chose to loot and pillage the countryside with his Gallic mercenaries, while Rome chose to avoid direct confrotation and win the war by attrition, which is exactly what they achieved.

[aznflea]

unfortunately...or fortunaetly rome won quite spectacularly and went down in history as one of the most epic wars.

i didnt know rome had a strong navy, considering macedonia had greek engineers i was thinking they had a good navy.

[RedFox]

They had neither the money nor manpower that the Romans had.