Gallic Garrison Swordsmen OP?

[BazzBrother]

150 turns into my Roman campaign, and I noticed that, unlike every unit the "barbarian" factions can muster, for some reason, the garrison swordsmen seem to be capable of clashing head to head with roman legionaries, cutting right through them with no casualties to themselves

Legionaries are by no means invincible as I have dealt with many of them during the civilwar, but the combat abilities of the garrison swordsmen prove time and time again to be gods on the field.

[Cope]

Some of the garrison stuff needs to be balanced I'd say. Germanic tribesmen, for instance, are pretty OP in my opinion. But all of that stuff will be addressed for v. 1.0

[harnas1977]

Some of the garrison stuff needs to be balanced I'd say. Germanic tribesmen, for instance, are pretty OP in my opinion. But all of that stuff will be addressed for v. 1.0

I'm fighting them with Gauls. They are tough, but not a major problem. Are you playing on normal battle difficulty?

[Cope]

I'm fighting them with Gauls. They are tough, but not a major problem. Are you playing on normal battle difficulty?

They aren't a major problem no, but I find them and the Germanic garrisoned warriors a little overpowered because of their pila. 225 men x javelin level damage + average/decent melee stats = lots of wreckage.

[Roskilde grenadier]

Syracuse needs to be balanced in relation to Carthage too.

[FlashHeart07]

Hmm. I have no problems fighting them in my campaign. Might be a dumb question but you are playing at normal battle difficulty?

[Roskilde grenadier]

Hmm. I have no problems fighting them in my campaign. Might be a dumb question but you are playing at normal battle difficulty?

I'm not playing Carthage, but I see that in every campaign, Carthage has quite some trouble defending against Syracuse. I don't know what it is about Carthage, but they seem quite inept at defending their own capital..

[FlashHeart07]

I'm not playing Carthage, but I see that in every campaign, Carthage has quite some trouble defending against Syracuse. I don't know what it is about Carthage, but they seem quite inept at defending their own capital..

The thing about Carthage and Syracuse is that the AI have trouble with the water and sailing. Mening that they will build alot of armies and navies but they cant put them to use. That is why Syracuse usually dominates Carthage. But my previous post was about the garrisson tropps and that I have no trouble in dealing with them

[Unactuality]

The thing about Carthage and Syracuse is that the AI have trouble with the water and sailing. Mening that they will build alot of armies and navies but they cant put them to use. That is why Syracuse usually dominates Carthage. But my previous post was about the garrisson tropps and that I have no trouble in dealing with them

If that is the case, then why doesn't it work the other way around? Syracuse has no difficulty embarking armies to conquer overseas targets such as Carthage and Sardinia.

More likely Syracuse's consistent victories are due to it having the single focus of defeating Carthage while Carthage's efforts are nearly always scattered between multiple fronts. CA solved this by splitting Carthage into subfactions, which is fine for the AI, but dissatisfying when the player wishes to control them. I'm not sure if there is a good solution within the framework CA gave us, but my first instinct is to give Syracuse a very defensive AI personality if they don't already have one. I don't think anyone has a problem with Syracuse kicking Carthage out of Sicily, as long as they don't regularly become the new Mediterranean hegemony.

[BazzBrother]

I'm not playing Carthage, but I see that in every campaign, Carthage has quite some trouble defending against Syracuse. I don't know what it is about Carthage, but they seem quite inept at defending their own capital..

In my experience, Syracuse dominates Carthage for the first many turns

but always succumbs in the later half, with a major come back from carthages power in the Iberian peninsula

[Ano2]

I have noticed that some of the garrisons have very similar stats to regular levies, probably some slight nerfs are needed. I'm sure 1.0 will take care of the issues but it is good to be reporting them.

[Butan]

I find the garrisons easily destroyable if you send at them equal or superior numerical forces.
Its true that some garrison units can stand and fight, but except for the best ones they will all fall to a matched regular army.


I find that the garrisons are just as the devs wanted them to be : you can not roflstomp empty villages/cities anymore without an overwhelming force.

[Marcquez]

Carthage also has a big empire and not enough armies (or money) to support this early game.
see http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-reduced/page3

[Dresden]

Syracuse has one direction to go and it happens to be the direction that it hates the most diplomatically - Carthage.

Carthage and Rome have multiple directions. They are frozen into inaction from their choices and circumstances. The AI in this game is fairly awful at handling multiple fronts.

[Cope]

Syracuse has one direction to go and it happens to be the direction that it hates the most diplomatically - Carthage.

Carthage and Rome have multiple directions. They are frozen into inaction from their choices and circumstances. The AI in this game is fairly awful at handling multiple fronts.

Could the Roman Houses mod help fix this? Four different Rome factions (inc. SPQR) each of which are strongly allied (like+300) and each of which confederate at some point in the game based on a scripted event. Even if they didn't confederate, they'd still be strong and they could each have bad relations in different directions to try and avoid the multiple fronts syndrome. Just a thought for 1.1+

[Dresden]

I don't really like the ahistorical nature of the Roman houses, although the one with the addition of the Roman senate is interesting. My preference would be a fully coherent Roman faction that also expands...unfortunately that seems difficult to achieve.

I have also seen some games where Carthage actually expands well into Spain and even Gaul. I would like to remove some of the hatred between Syracuse and Carthage at the start but I can't find the startpos past event values (the db ones don't work). Also until last update, Syracuse started with way overpowered units as well.

[Doktor Soviet]

I don't really like the ahistorical nature of the Roman houses, although the one with the addition of the Roman senate is interesting. My preference would be a fully coherent Roman faction that also expands...unfortunately that seems difficult to achieve.

I have also seen some games where Carthage actually expands well into Spain and even Gaul. I would like to remove some of the hatred between Syracuse and Carthage at the start but I can't find the startpos past event values (the db ones don't work). Also until last update, Syracuse started with way overpowered units as well.

I wouldn't change the diplo value between Carthage and Syracuse, since historically they pretty much did hate each other, but maybe giving Carthage a bigger starting army in Sicily would help them expand? Plus, Carthage always seems financially weak when I play as it; for the largest trade power in the Western Mediterranean these guys are pretty poor. I feel like all major factions probably need a monetary boost, at least when they are controlled by the AI.

[Cope]

I don't really like the ahistorical nature of the Roman houses, although the one with the addition of the Roman senate is interesting. My preference would be a fully coherent Roman faction that also expands...unfortunately that seems difficult to achieve.

I think a fully coherent Rome is as similarly ahistorical as is a divided Rome: Rome was, in my opinion, never some centralized nation-state. For the most part, its expansion was spearheaded by ambitious and over mighty generals trying to prove themselves like Caesar, Pompey, Mark Antony and so on. It's power was usually divided, if not formally, between competing generals and aristocrats. Honestly one thing that has always intrigued me so long is how the Roman Empire stayed intact for so long considering the amount of backstabbing, divisions and murder that took place. As we all know, it destroyed itself in the end (pretty much).

Of course the idea of having three families run three different sections of Italy is not really accurate, but I think it operates in the spirit of Rome. That is that power was devolved to throughout the Empire and victory for individual generals was as much about self-promotion and power for one's self as it was power for Rome. You wouldn't even necessarily have to have three families, you could just have three Rome's all allied. I mean the fact of the matter is I've played hundreds of hours of Rome II and I've never seen Rome build a powerhouse Empire like other factions are capable of doing.

As you say, getting a single Rome faction to expand is difficult because of the AI. Sure you could give it extra money, but then the human player would also get that extra money. I think the only other alternative would be to change the diplomacy to make Rome friendly with pretty much everyone except Carthage. On another note, and I can't prove this, but I think factions which are expansionist and deviant (a la Rome, Carthage, Egypt) tend to do worse than expansionist but reliable factions like the Suebi.