Recruitment turns, human v AI

**Tidybeard** · December 13, 2011, 12:14 PM

I've set recruitment turns per unit to 1 for everything (inc. Wardogs, Praetorians etc) on this mental Brutii campaign of mine where the Julii are being squished by Gaul, but it seems my enemies (namely Greece and now Gaul) are able to amass armies very quickly. Much quicker than I, in fact. I have real difficulty keeping up with them in terms of troop numbers.

Does the AI always have this advantage during campaigns? My campaign is only being played on Medium difficulty.

**Bonez** · December 13, 2011, 12:33 PM

on medium you should have the same advantages and disadvantages of the ai they get no bonus or anything.

**Dava2710** · December 13, 2011, 01:02 PM

If you think enemy has too many armies go play Third age total war, beat 2 full stacks and the next turn three full stacks with arrive from the shadow. Kill those 3 stacks and 2 more will come... guess what comes next.

**Thracian Princess** · December 13, 2011, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Dava2710

If you think enemy has too many armies go play Third age total war, beat 2 full stacks and the next turn three full stacks with arrive from the shadow. Kill those 3 stacks and 2 more will come... guess what comes next.

Omg I was having this problem with RS2 - but now I've gone to 1-turn campaigns - in one of my campaigns. I took a settlement from Carthage and was fighting off army after army after army for years until I eventually just abandoned it

**Dava2710** · December 14, 2011, 05:42 AM

This is why I like RTW, there actually are decisive victories. When you beat 2 full stacks it's very possible that you will be able to capture 2 or 3 cities of the enemy. But when you beat stack after stack after stack of them... where's the point of doing that? It's like removing the snow from a pavement in a snowstorm.

**Thracian Princess** · December 14, 2011, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Dava2710

This is why I like RTW, there actually are decisive victories. When you beat 2 full stacks it's very possible that you will be able to capture 2 or 3 cities of the enemy. But when you beat stack after stack after stack of them... where's the point of doing that? It's like removing the snow from a pavement in a snowstorm.

Yeah it got old very quickly in RS2. But then I found the one-turn campaigns - like Vanilla - and now its fun and there's no pointless killing stack after stack after stack. I even learned first hand the repercussions of losing a full stack in this when I lost a siege battle because I forgot to turn off the battle time limit. And I was going to win it too! It took me quite a few turns to rebuild an army, and I'm still not done rebuilding it. It doesn't help that my capitol and only one other city are the only ones able to create the quality of unit I want.

**Parzival2211** · December 20, 2011, 07:02 AM

Isn't the 0-turn-recruitment a bit like what Hannibal was facing in Italy... Consular army after consular army being thrown against him... and indeed, he didn't achieve anything. Isn't that true historical realism? ;-)

**total war lover** · December 20, 2011, 12:29 PM

Hannibal knew how to gain a victory but not how to use it. After Cannae he could have marched to Rome and easily take the city, but he didn't. He wanted more allies of Rome to abandon it and join his side. As most Carthaginians he was greedy, and wanted to get his hands on as much gold as he could.

**Ezilkannan** · January 26, 2012, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by total war lover

Hannibal knew how to gain a victory but not how to use it. After Cannae he could have marched to Rome and easily take the city, but he didn't. He wanted more allies of Rome to abandon it and join his side. As most Carthaginians he was greedy, and wanted to get his hands on as much gold as he could.

Actually, what Hannibal did was right indeed. Maharbal was just too fascinated by his victories that he was eager to march on Rome. The reality was that Hannibal's army, after the 3 great battles, was exhausted(especially after Cannae). Marching on Rome would have resulted in a war of attrition in which Hannibal would have surely lost as his supply lines were thin and not to mention that Rome still had enough ppl to organise its defenses. Also Hannibal had neither the manpower nor the war machines to assault Rome. What Hannibal wanted was not the entire destruction of Rome, but to cause havoc and strike fear into their hearts, and indeed he succeeded in that. What I like about the Romans is that even after terrible and disastrous defeats like Cannae, they always managed to learn from their lessons and strike back even stronger. Scipio imitated Hannibal's ways of striking terror and used many of his tactics, quite evident from the slaughter at Cartagena and the Battles of Baecula, Ilipa and Zama.

**Hopit** · January 28, 2012, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by total war lover

Hannibal knew how to gain a victory but not how to use it. After Cannae he could have marched to Rome and easily take the city, but he didn't. He wanted more allies of Rome to abandon it and join his side. As most Carthaginians he was greedy, and wanted to get his hands on as much gold as he could.

hannibal was as great as historians made him be
actually, historian was hired by Scipios family to write him down

**Hopit** · January 28, 2012, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by total war lover

Hannibal knew how to gain a victory but not how to use it. After Cannae he could have marched to Rome and easily take the city, but he didn't. He wanted more allies of Rome to abandon it and join his side. As most Carthaginians he was greedy, and wanted to get his hands on as much gold as he could.

hannibal was as great as historians made him be
actually, historian(?) was hired by Scipios family to write about him