Rome:Total Battles or Rome:Total Siege? A poll

**Empedocles** · May 07, 2006, 10:34 AM

Hello everyone! I want to start this thread to see what gamers think about the "Less is more" cities approach of BI.
The poll is simple, what do you prefer? more cities and management or less management and more field battles.

Pros about Rome:Total Siege:
The map is more historical accurate. You have the chance to defend important cities. The management kind of gamers will like it more.

Cons about Rome:Total Siege:
The AI will often defend only in the sieges, so you have to fight a low number of units in every city you pass by. Less field battles.

I personally want fewer provinces so we can concentrate on the real battles. BUT only if the economy of the factions is well balanced so factions with few cities wont go bankrupt in few turns.

Cheers!

Diego, from Argentina

**hsimoorb** · May 07, 2006, 10:44 AM

Well, Since I've already posted my opinions on this, I'll keep it brief. Basicaly, I don't think there is or needs to be a trade off between map size and seige frequency. Since the number of field battles will always be proportional to the number of cities there are, there is realy no fear of creating seige: total realism. That phenomena is mostly an illusion, in reality the RTR map, for instance, will have no more or less seiges per hour of play than BI. The only difference it that if you want to conqure he whole map, it will take longer and require more seiges. But on the whole, a more crowded map offers a deeper campaign, uses more of the available map space, and is also somewhat easyer on the AI. ALso, it's much more realistic.

If you (IR) decide to go with a crowded map (good for you) I would strongly reccomend using some for of the Metropolis mod, particularly the part that limits city walls to only historicaly fortified or important cities.

**Professor S** · May 07, 2006, 11:10 AM

Empedocles: I'm not sure why you are posting this in our threads. Shouldn't this be in a general discussion forum?

Unless of course by "rome total seige" you ARE actually referring to our mod (which would be quite insulting). In which case the choice is simple: Don't download it.

No need for a debate. Just take this thread somewhere else please.

**Empedocles** · May 07, 2006, 02:13 PM

Yes, I think you are right. I apologize, but I wanted to post it here since I saw that in the "Things in BI people don't like" thread this was the main discussion for the last two pages.
But I guess a good moderator will help me and move it into the BI general discussion.
I wanted to help but I messed up, really sorry!!!!!

Diego, from Argentina

PS: I do not try to insult in any way your mod! I really like it and have been following it from its beginings.

**allmighty_phate** · May 07, 2006, 03:22 PM

Prof, i agree what your saying about him posting in the wrong place...
but having said that there was discussion about our map having too many cities... it may be interesting to see what people think?

**Razor** · May 07, 2006, 04:39 PM

About this too many siege battles etc. Sieges were very common in ancient warfare. Also you don't HAVE to play them all... That's how I think of it...

**Professor S** · May 07, 2006, 05:04 PM

PS: I do not try to insult in any way your mod! I really like it and have been following it from its beginings.

Yeah I realised that when I re-read it Empedocles. No harm done.
:wink:

Sieges were very common in ancient warfare. Also you don't HAVE to play them all... That's how I think of it...

Absolutely Razor. As SG pointed out in a different thread; in our period there were far more siege battles than field battles. Whenever there was a possible threat they would build defences around towns to keep the enemy out, even if the threat was simply from raiders or pirates.

We'll be playtesting the finished map as thoroughly as we can to try to keep the gameplay and realism balanced.

**-=Justinian=-** · May 08, 2006, 01:04 AM

The only reason some people want less cities is because they want to conqer the whole world in one night of palying the game. Man people don't have any patience now days....

More cities makes the game more realistic and a more involved campaign. And if you don't like the fact that there aren't enough field battles, edit the unit upkeep and recruitment costs to less or even zero, in the export_descr_unit text. I know its cheating, but the AI factions create massive armies that are an actual threat and it creates field battle after field battle every turn. The only negative is the fact that wars last forever and make the cities empty for both sides, if you don't watch how many troops you recruit out your cities and villages.

**Shaun** · May 08, 2006, 05:09 AM

The AI cant handle a large amount of cities, and with only prov covering a large area it makes battles more descisive. It also keeps the money down, at the end of the game you will have millions if you control lots of cities.

**Obi Wan Asterix** · May 08, 2006, 05:45 AM

Added poll and voted Total Siege.

**Stalins Ghost** · May 08, 2006, 08:09 AM

I've voted total siege. The way I see it, this was how war was in the ancient world.

Have any of you read Caesars Gallic and Civil War? There were far more sieges back then than field battles (remember, Caesar captured 300 cities roughly in Gaul). In both his period and the IR period however, many of the sieges were won by scaring the enemy into submission. The sight of towers was enough to make garrisons surrender (in fact this was exactly the case under Julian when he constructed a Helepolis-style tower). I guess the lack of intelligent AI for sieges is a pain. But the fact that there were lots of sieges should be represented in game.

**Obi Wan Asterix** · May 08, 2006, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Stalins Ghost

I've voted total siege. The way I see it, this was how war was in the ancient world.

Have any of you read Caesars Gallic and Civil War? There were far more sieges back then than field battles (remember, Caesar captured 300 cities roughly in Gaul). In both his period and the IR period however, many of the sieges were won by scaring the enemy into submission. The sight of towers was enough to make garrisons surrender (in fact this was exactly the case under Julian when he constructed a Helepolis-style tower). I guess the lack of intelligent AI for sieges is a pain. But the fact that there were lots of sieges should be represented in game.

I just wish there was more variety to the AI always counterattacking on the last turn... those battles get extremely repetitive.

Originally Posted by Some worker ant

modified the poll, corrected the spelling in the title and moved to the general BI forum (voted too)

Thanks Tackietac

**Tacticalwithdrawal** · May 08, 2006, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Asterix

I just wish there was more variety to the AI always counterattacking on the last turn... those battles get extremely repetitive.

yeah, they pile out the single gate and you cut them to shreds as they do. It'd be a lot better if the AI actually tried coming out of more than one gate.

Originally Posted by Asterix

Thanks Tackietac

git

**Tacticalwithdrawal** · May 08, 2006, 08:13 AM

modified the poll, corrected the spelling in the title and moved to the general BI forum (voted too)

**Sitarus Originalus PM-30+** · May 08, 2006, 09:16 AM

i personally voted for feald battles, but in game i really like management in the game. in fact i prefer politics and management in game to just batteling. the reason i prefer feald battles to siege cities is that on feald you have more land to use strategy such as hidding units, using hight grownd, ambushing, etc. but in game i will always be manager and makroorganizer of economy and army. to sum up - as an student of economics i must then say i prefer management, but i am fan of warfare and strategy (and i mean it with all my heart)

**Romanow** · May 08, 2006, 09:56 AM

I vote battles, not because that's more realistic, but simply because the AI can't handle siege battles in the least. They do a terrible job coordinating their troops when defending, and you can pretty effortlessly rape them upside down when they try to take a city by storm. I don't generally mind waiting a siege out, except (as already mentioned) they tend to sally on the last turn regardless, and, naturally, do a terrible job of that, too.

**allmighty_phate** · May 08, 2006, 10:34 AM

i like a mix, i feel it adds more balence to the game to have a fairly simelar amount of both field and siege battles, however, i tend to go straight for the sieges ingame to take the province rather than having to fight field armies every turn.

also.. Asterix... you think you could slow your sig thingy down it hurt my eyes trying to keep up