How to stop camping and Spartan box tactics in Rome II?

[ray243]

The introduction of capture points might prevent you from chasing a single unit around the entire map, but it might also end up creating a new set of problems for the players. The nature of melee warfare means camping in real time battle would be a much bigger issue than a gunpowder age game, especially when two players didn't deploy any heavily artillery in the game.

What's stopping a player from simply camping around one capture point and forming a phalanx square formation?

[Markas]

Well capturing the point is one way to win, same as routing the enemy so it doesn't make much of a difference that I can see. It might, however stop a player camping in the corner or on a hill.

[Petroniu]

Well capturing the point is one way to win, same as routing the enemy so it doesn't make much of a difference that I can see. It might, however stop a player camping in the corner or on a hill.

Pff! And if the camp is on a hill on in a corner? It was on a hill in the preview demo! This is meant to avoid camping exploitations. You know what it will actually do: Encourage it. Now you actually have a camp to defend. HAHA! Makes me laugh!

In case of playing against another player/ heavy missile armies : Break a leg
Otherwise you still have to cover at least 2 or all side of the flag to defense it against enemy anyway, it can not be helped.

Exactly! If you are the attacker take loads of missiles while if you are the defender you need to counter that. That means replayability = 0!
EDIT:Argh! Damn it! Double!

[Markas]

Pff! And if the camp is on a hill on in a corner? It was on a hill in the preview demo! This is meant to avoid camping exploitations. You know what it will actually do: Encourage it. Now you actually have a camp to defend. HAHA! Makes me laugh!

You mean it will encourage if the capture point is in a corner or on a hill? Depends on what parameters are used for their placing, and what battles they are used in. You cannot say with any certainty it will encourage god awful exploits like corner-camping.

[Petroniu]

battles they are used in.

If your army is in a defense stance you will get a camp - they said that a long time ago; of course most people that had no sense of the game changing features really cared back then. I cannot say anything about the MP. I guess there it depends on what map you pick and its settings. But since camps are a choice for you in campaigns, expect people to exploit them. Also, as for battle map placing, I was exaggerating with corner based camps but hill camps I would say is a must. Just think about it. What is the point of a defensive camp if you make it in a valley? Hill camps is something we need to get used to. I mean, even in Shogun 2 when the enemy armies were defending the AI was always going for the nearest big hill. And how AI advances are done in extremely big steps from game to game I bet that will not change in Rome 2.

[nameless]

If your army is in a defense stance you will get a camp - they said that a long time ago; of course most people that had no sense of the game changing features really cared back then. I cannot say anything about the MP. I guess there it depends on what map you pick and its settings. But since camps are a choice for you in campaigns, expect people to exploit them. Also, as for battle map placing, I was exaggerating with corner based camps but hill camps I would say is a must. Just think about it. What is the point of a defensive camp if you make it in a valley? Hill camps is something we need to get used to.

What's stopping you from posting your armies on the campaign map in hills? I do recall them saying we can fortify so it does make sense to have a camp since the army has bogged down and established its base.

On the map you want to set up a base because of the nearby enemies, you put them on a hill or by mountains, tell them to fortify, enemy attacks you, why shouldn't the capture point/camp be on that hill you set up?

I mean, even in Shogun 2 when the enemy armies were defending the AI was always going for the nearest big hill. And how AI advances are done in extremely big steps from game to game I bet that will not change in Rome 2.

That was annoying because it was a series of musical chairs. Like I said unless they were already fortified there shouldn't be a free pass to run away.

[nameless]

If your army is in a defense stance you will get a camp - they said that a long time ago; of course most people that had no sense of the game changing features really cared back then. I cannot say anything about the MP. I guess there it depends on what map you pick and its settings. But since camps are a choice for you in campaigns, expect people to exploit them. Also, as for battle map placing, I was exaggerating with corner based camps but hill camps I would say is a must. Just think about it. What is the point of a defensive camp if you make it in a valley? Hill camps is something we need to get used to.

What's stopping you from posting your armies on the campaign map in hills? I do recall them saying we can fortify so it does make sense to have a camp since the army has bogged down and established its base.

On the map you want to set up a base because of the nearby enemies, you put them on a hill or by mountains, tell them to fortify, enemy attacks you, why shouldn't the capture point/camp be on that hill you set up?

I mean, even in Shogun 2 when the enemy armies were defending the AI was always going for the nearest big hill. And how AI advances are done in extremely big steps from game to game I bet that will not change in Rome 2.

That was annoying because it was a series of musical chairs. Like I said unless they were already fortified there shouldn't be a free pass to run away.

[nameless]

CA has stated that siege battles have several capture points so you cannot just go and camp at the main square so that deals with that problem.

For the baggage train battles well the defenders should be pouring everything they have to defend that train anyways so your weird concern is irrelevant. I mean who the hell abandons their supply train when it's under attack?

For land battles if it's just like the Nile battle then you just deploy your forces around that area anyways. Close enough that if someone sneaks in (which would be a small unit) you can drive it away.

You complain about camping but defenders technically speaking should be camping ANYWAYS in the best defensive position they can find on the campaign map.

Well capturing the point is one way to win, same as routing the enemy so it doesn't make much of a difference that I can see. It might, however stop a player camping in the corner or on a hill.

If the capture point is on a hill then it's really irrelevant.

The difference is that he cannot run to some corner of the map and camp there.

[Manu La Canette]

Maybe if you do so with the AI.

But a Phalanx square 'formation' may be one of the dumbest thing to do against another player: the back of the units are exposed and vulnerable to all missiles. If the attacker manage to break a single phalanx in it, he just have to throw his heavy troops in and slaughter the phalanxes from the inside. If the phalanxes turn in, just send the cav or reserve inf on their back.

[nameless]

Maybe if you do so with the AI.

But a Phalanx square 'formation' may be one of the dumbest thing to do against another player: the back of the units are exposed and vulnerable to all missiles. If the attacker manage to break a single phalanx in it, he just have to throw his heavy troops in and slaughter the phalanxes from the inside. If the phalanxes turn in, just send the cav or reserve inf on their back.

LOL. that's exactly what happened to the scottish who camped at the Battle of Falkirk

[jamreal18]

capture points encorage more camping than attacking without nothing to fear to lose something....

[nameless]

capture points encorage more camping than attacking without nothing to fear to lose something....

Defenders are suppose to be camping anyways so what's your point?

[Sandraker]

The noob square is one of the easiest to defeat tactics in Rome 1 multiplayer. As others said, surround them and shower their backs with missiles.

[SamueleD]

The introduction of capture points might prevent you from chasing a single unit around the entire map, but it might also end up creating a new set of problems for the players. The nature of melee warfare means camping in real time battle would be a much bigger issue than a gunpowder age game, especially when two players didn't deploy any heavily artillery in the game.

What's stopping a player from simply camping around one capture point and forming a phalanx square formation?

As Lusted said the capture points are to prevent the defender from corner camping, now you may think that there is no difference between boxing up around a capture point and corner camping, but that is not the case. Corner camping is an exploit of the game mechanics (the battle map limits) and can't be countered very easily as it has a single side to defend and no possibility to be flanked. Boxing up and camping on the capture point, instead, is a much less effective tactic: it effectively divides your strength by 4, as you can't open the box or you'll weaken it, it makes you lose all your mobility and ability to respond to enemy movements or flank the enemy, it is vulnerable to artillery and ranged attacks, it is also very vulnerable on the corners. Boxing seems an effective tactic to new players, who often employ it or are unable to defeat it, due to lack of experience, but countless online matches between experienced people have proven the box to be an overall weak strategy, and that is the greatest antidote to it.
If the AI devs are smart I expect them to program the AI to be especially good at countering boxing around a capture point, to make the player think twice before doing it.
Consider also that the capture point may not always be in the most easily defendable of positions, unlike the battle of the Nile, and so make boxing even less effective.

A defender has to defend, so not necessarily move around a lot, with a capture point he has a specific area to defend and area that won't be the corner, also you won't be able to exploit the new line of sight system and just run around unseen until the timer runs out.

Bottom line is: boxing is a weak tactic and that is what will stop people from using it, corner camping is much stronger (and dishonourable) but the capture point solves this problem.

capture points encorage more camping than attacking without nothing to fear to lose something....

That's not any different from other battles: you can always camp (unless there are multiple capture points and not taking them puts you at a disadvantage), but camping is not good for you, it may feel safer, but trust me it's not, a stationary target is an easy target.

[[N2]Kami]

In case of playing against another player/ heavy missile armies : Break a leg
Otherwise you still have to cover at least 2 or all side of the flag to defense it against enemy anyway, it can not be helped.

[universalmind]

No one will ever camp again.

[[N2]Kami]

No one will ever camp again.

Spartan soldier: Steady, wait till they come boys.
Roman soldier: FIRE IN THE HOLE !!

[Petroniu]

The introduction of capture points might prevent you from chasing a single unit around the entire map, but it might also end up creating a new set of problems for the players. The nature of melee warfare means camping in real time battle would be a much bigger issue than a gunpowder age game, especially when two players didn't deploy any heavily artillery in the game.

What's stopping a player from simply camping around one capture point and forming a phalanx square formation?

While everybody is discussing this POV you really have to learn to look the other way about this. I am usually the attacking kind of guy, even when defending! I want to be mobile and surprise the enemy by moving even when I am suppose to be sitting. Now, how am I suppose to go ahead and charge head long an enemy that overwhelms me numerically when I know that even if I can beat the larger army with superior tactics I will lose the battle because I being overwhelmed numerically I needed all my troops for an attack but 1 light enemy cav unit went around me and captured the winner.s point! It seriously deters any aggression of the defender!

No one will ever camp again.

I did not consider that! Ironically, CA introduced camps for better camping in the same game they made grenade throwing ballistas!

[Lieutenant Sharpe]

While everybody is discussing this POV you really have to learn to look the other way about this. I am usually the attacking kind of guy, even when defending! I want to be mobile and surprise the enemy by moving even when I am suppose to be sitting. Now, how am I suppose to go ahead and charge head long an enemy that overwhelms me numerically when I know that even if I can beat the larger army with superior tactics I will lose the battle because I being overwhelmed numerically I needed all my troops for an attack but 1 light enemy cav unit went around me and captured the winner.s point! It seriously deters any aggression of the defender!


I did not consider that! Ironically, CA introduced camps for better camping in the same game they made grenade throwing ballistas!

I believe the baggage trains are not the key to victory but merely something that can be captured to weaken the enemy. During the battle of Agincourt the English defeated the French army but a small unit of cavalry snuck into the British baggage train and began to slaughter the few troops and boys there. Fortunately the English returned jjust in time to drive them off. I think the concept of baggage trains is a good idea. The baggage trains, however, should not be top priority for the attacker unless they need to force enemy troops out of the battle or are losing and want to ccripple the enemies supplies. One question though, why doesnt the attacking side have baggage? And will the baggage train be easily defendable? And will there be army camps that can be attacked?

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

The introduction of capture points might prevent you from chasing a single unit around the entire map, but it might also end up creating a new set of problems for the players. The nature of melee warfare means camping in real time battle would be a much bigger issue than a gunpowder age game, especially when two players didn't deploy any heavily artillery in the game.

What's stopping a player from simply camping around one capture point and forming a phalanx square formation?

Anyone who has played RTW MP knows that a n00b-square is a sure way to lose, a play with half a brain will just surround the formation with archers and fire at the Spartans unprotected backsides which is easy to do since there a are backsides to fire on from every angle.

For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcslitpjl88

There is one viable "pike circle formation", the "last stand hedgehog", but it is only something a player reverts to if he loses all his cavalry and archers, by that stage the enemy probably only got a few depleyed low ammo archers left and in that scenario it can turn a loss into a win, but it is purely a last stand formation and it is very tightly packed back to back formation in order to prevent missile fire into unshielded rear areas and it is only successfull if the enemy has few missilies left. Generally it should be done with g/g Sacred Bands to be somewhat reliable.