XGM vs XC???

[Ferdiad]

That looks very similar to EB.

 

[Zarax]

We did have some inspiration from EB although our system is also influenced by XGM and optimized for BI.

 

[Ferdiad]

I've noticed that western barbarians factions(especially Germans) chain rout fairly easily.Could their morale be made higher?Or are they suppose to spam loads of warbands 'cos thats what I'm facing right now.

 

[Zarax]

Western barbs are more cost effective man per man but they perform poorly under AI.
Gauls are supposed to rely on druids to help their morale while germans have bersekers and night raiders that will scare enemy infantry.

 

[Ferdiad]

I havn't seen one night raider in 35 years and berserkers die like flys to sustained arrow and pila barrages.But I suppose I'll try pontus or something harder next game.

 

[Zarax]

Germans tend to be vulnerable to missile fire, as I said AI doesn't handle barbs well...

Pontus or seleucids should be a pretty big challenge indeed.

 

[Hurlbut]

But me likes missiles!!!! Nothing is more fun than slaughterng hoplite stacks with slingers!



And cav too.

Yes yes. But the 2 hp system allow for more incidences of troop routing rather than fighting to the last man most of time.

 

[Rahwana]

Yes yes. But the 2 hp system allow for more incidences of troop routing rather than fighting to the last man most of time.

change that yourself in the EDU
that just involve find and replace in Notepad ++ (since we all know that XC teams all dislike 2HP XGM concepts)

 

[Grimbold]

Hello im an XGM player and was looking at the XC forum to see if its worth trying.

I've already noticed that several people have been comenting on this subject, but i'm looking for a definite answer.

If my memory doesnt fail me, XC aims for historical accuracy and realism. So, which battle system does XC use? On comparative terms, is XC battle system the same as the current 1 HP XGM system?

 

[Zarax]

XC uses a system that is slower than XGM 1hp but keeps some more missile effectiveness than XGM 2hp, close combat uses half lethality as XGM (so closer to 2hp) and missiles are slightly more accurate but with somewhat shorter range to represent effective combat use rather than paper strength.
Morale is more of a factor and unit role emphasis is stronger so that sending skirmishers against cavalry or western barbarians against elephants will result in epic failures.

As a somewhat extreme example, this is an historical battle happening in the first turn as seleucids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVYD3PfOvvw

Like in history, one unit proved to be the battle turner in an otherwise almost hopeless battle.

 

[Grimbold]

XC uses a system that is slower than XGM 1hp but keeps some more missile effectiveness than XGM 2hp, close combat uses half lethality as XGM (so closer to 2hp) and missiles are slightly more accurate but with somewhat shorter range to represent effective combat use rather than paper strength.
Morale is more of a factor and unit role emphasis is stronger so that sending skirmishers against cavalry or western barbarians against elephants will result in epic failures.

As a somewhat extreme example, this is an historical battle happening in the first turn as seleucids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVYD3PfOvvw

Like in history, one unit proved to be the battle turner in an otherwise almost hopeless battle.

Ok i understand.

I've decided to give XC a try and started where i left in XGM, with playing a Pergamum campaign (Hard/Hard ; 100 size ; land bridges off) for the first time...well this is the 2nd .

According to the info you've provided, i'd like some examples put into context, such as cretan archers charging and holding their line for abit agaisnt say peltasts(the long shielded ones) or levy phalangites.
Greek hoplites also seem to be very powerfull, to the point of holding their act together even when surrounded.

On a different note, i guess what it is said about XC being different than XGM when it comes to being more realistic and not fielding loads of stacks is true. I started producing more expensive units and that immediatly had an impact on my economy which went from 5-7k to 2k per turn.

 

[kesa82]

According to the info you've provided, i'd like some examples put into context, such as cretan archers charging and holding their line for abit agaisnt say peltasts(the long shielded ones) or levy phalangites.
Greek hoplites also seem to be very powerfull, to the point of holding their act together even when surrounded.

On a different note, i guess what it is said about XC being different than XGM when it comes to being more realistic and not fielding loads of stacks is true. I started producing more expensive units and that immediatly had an impact on my economy which went from 5-7k to 2k per turn.

Hmm, not sure this will be of any help --but I like talking about this mod. *shrug*

I obsessively play the Greek States. I had to take Rhodes early on, it was quite the priority to get it , because of the trade bonus. Strategically, trade is absolutely vital to my Greeks because , one, they are lousy farmers, and two, because I prefer stacks full of Armored Hoplites, Athenian hoplites, Spartan Hoplites , Periokoi, and Cretan Archers. ( Cavalry ? Forget cavalry. As Greeks, decent heavy cavalry requires super barracks , and when you finally can spare the time and money to build super barracks, typically the barracks will be far, far, far from your front lines in the war. So as Greeks you better love infantry. )
ALL these troop types I just described are expensive to buy, expensive in upkeep. AND, actually, just like I said about the cavalry , The Athenians, the Spartans , the Cretans, They all have to be shipped back home to be retrained / receive replacements. And, of course, that is typically far away from where war is raging. Logistics is a big issue in XC.
Even my standard armored Hoplites are at present a logistical headache.
I'm currently fighting deep in Germany, and so far the nearest Greek City barracks where I can retrain them is in the south of Italy.
I have been known to fight a unit to extinction, but some of these Hoplite units have been with me a long time, and they have silver Chevrons.
Now a unit with silver chevrons simply fights better. But there is the emotional factor as well ; Hitler wouldn't simply discard / disband his 1st SS Liebstandart like Kleenex would he? I likewise get attached to my silver chevron Hoplites.

Tactically : Rome went to war with me. Rome had built all its high level barracks in Italy. I easily drove the Romans out of Italy. So no Hastati, Principes, or Traiari for the Romans. They are now throwing stacks of Vigiles at me .
So they are as good as whipped, right ?
Nope. As I said, I'm operating deep in Germany, far from my barracks, and the Romans had built nice Auxillary barracks in Germany, where they now pump out lots of German Heavy cavalry.
How do my Hoplites deal with heavy cavalry ? To be brief ; They don't. They never have.
Granted, I win the battles. But,
I'm far from my barracks, and you can guarantee that in every encounter that darned German heavy cavalry will kill off at least 60 of my silver chevroned Hoplites. Every victory carries me ever farther away from my barracks.
I CAN build Levy Hoplites in Germany.
---Except ; Levy Hoplites against German heavy cavalry ?
No, the Romans would , in short order, roll my borders right back to Italy. this would give the Romans time to re-consolidate, they would re-gain the Tin and Amber Trade routes,( part of which I conveniently built up for them. ) And the war would continue for another 50 years.
In the mean time, the Celts and the Sythians get bigger and bigger , my border towns are still small , it is only a question of time before they attack , and multi-front wars can be logistically paralyzing.

I often quit playing the game / XC mod for a few days, not because I'm bored, but in order so that I might stop and think through, " Ok, what am I gonna do now ?? "

Well, Tactically, unit versus unit, I'm not sure how XC really compares to other mods. But, like I said, logistics is a big deal in XC.
Speaking of Hitler, it seems like every game I play in XC mod I wind up facing a logistical and strategic situation that resembles that of the Axis powers in WWII : A defensive posture really isn't an option long term. I will just lose long term. I must advance . But there is , definitely, such a thing as biting off more than you can chew. As Greece, its going to take me 10 or 30 years to develop my newly acquired empire in Germany, to build bulwarks. But there are enemies on 4 sides, and they are not going to politely wait 30 years for me to build fortress Germany.
And this isn't ten years into the game, its 150 years into the game. Greece is a vast empire.

 

[Grimbold]

Well GCS is my favourite faction aswell, but i cant say the same when considering XC. In this mod, GCS lose their diversity when it comes to army roster.

I dont know much about greek army history, only that at some point they had to abandon their traditional hoplite fighting style and adopt one more similar to that of Macedonian phalanx. Yet i dont not like this adaptation in XC. The GCS cleary has a disadvantage when fighting a Macedonian or Seleuced phalanx due to their very short spears, and as GCS, i love my phalanxes, its a key of my army.

Maybe its just my inexperience with the mod and its armies, but i went with a 4-6 phalanx units supported by 4 units of peltasts , 1 or 2 archers and 1 or 2 slingers, lead by a general or two. This setup was proving successfull in the east agaisnt TPE and TSE, but i just started war agaisnt macedon and my army got slaughtered by a mix of typical macedonian units supported by a bunch of Falxmen, which by the way had no battle experience.

I understand that concept that RTW envolves alot of micro managing, but XC takes it to another level and in my opinion slows the pace at which a campaign develops.

For example in XGM in my Pergamum campaign i'd control half of Asia Minor (Pontus controls the other), Rhodes, Crete, Tarsus, Antioch and parts of Egypt and i'd be swimming in money, while in XC with similar empire i would still probably be limited to one or maybe 2 stacks.

Is this realism? I think i read that XC aims for reality because it wouldnt be possible to field the armies as you do in XGM. I know that sometimes there's ridiculous amounts of armies in XGM to the point of spending long turns fighting them off, but for example the Roman Empire managed border garrisons or maybe even legions in several key points of the empire.

 

[kesa82]

Well GCS is my favourite faction aswell, but i cant say the same when considering XC. In this mod, GCS lose their diversity when it comes to army roster.

Well, in any TW version or mod , personal eccentricities and tastes are bound to play a big role. In my particular case, I have an absolute fetish for Corinthian helmets, Linothorax armor , pleated miniskirts , and the big round Hoplite shield. So, as you might guess, my armies tend to be quite dated regardless of what I can build. Indeed, that is partially the reason I'm slow to expand into Asia Minor. Asia Minor already has plenty of Greek colonies -- Yes, Hellenistic Greek colonies, which build barracks which produce Macedonian -type Phalanxes and Thorakai ( ? Greek troops who strongly resemble Roman Hastati / Principes. ) not my beloved old-school Hoplites.

I dont know much about greek army history, only that at some point they had to abandon their traditional hoplite fighting style and adopt one more similar to that of Macedonian phalanx.

Same here . I hope nobody notices ! As I just indicated, I absolutely love the traditional Greek roster. ( that is, I love the clothes. The Corinthian Helmets, big round shields, the pleated miniskirts. ) As I role-play it, the Greek Empire ( Which was never really an empire anyway, it could hardly even be called a Confederacy ) would have held onto its dated equipment. In my personal view, all else being equal, it is best to stick with what is proven. Beyond that , " It's the economy, stupid " ; the better economy, the better logistical system, wins wars. Not necessarily the best technology, or the quality of troops.

That's my role-play .

Maybe its just my inexperience with the mod and its armies, but i went with a 4-6 phalanx units supported by 4 units of peltasts , 1 or 2 archers and 1 or 2 slingers, lead by a general or two. This setup was proving successfull in the east agaisnt TPE and TSE, but i just started war agaisnt macedon and my army got slaughtered by a mix of typical macedonian units supported by a bunch of Falxmen, which by the way had no battle experience.

Again, its me talking. Someone elses experience may be entirely different ?? Your Archers / peltasts, even Cretan Archers and Rhodian Slingers , SUCK. I use Cretan Archers , but in a highly specialized role, and that role is not in the field. I use them in defense inside castles. And in sieges, after my Ballistas take out the towers , I bring up my Cretan archers to whittle down the troops on his walls. They have the protection of the walls, so I don't kill hundreds, but it is generally better to face a unit of 60 rather than a unit of 120.
Macedonians have good heavy cavalry , as I already said, Heavy cavalry always has given my Hoplites fits. My hoplites only perform minimally well against Macedonian Phalanx , and, yes, Zero-experience Falxmen . My solution ? Again, logistics. My solution is : More Hoplites. Heavy cavalry can't hit me in the rear if it can't get around my line. All these Hoplites cost a lot of money. So, the Number One Priority for Greece is not even its army, but TRADE. Upgrade a road, upgrade a market, upgrade a port, and tell the army it has to make do in the mean time. Try to fight just one enemy at a time. ( yes, that's easier said than done. ) This necessarily means quick and total wars. For Example ; Macedon attacked me . I Threw EVERYTHING at Macedon. I took EVERY Macedonian province even if it was out of the way. Worst case scenario, if the province is too far afield, and I just cant hold it, destroy every destroyable building in the place and exterminate the populace for cash, even if that renders the province sterile for 30 years.
Then Thrace attacked. Same thing. Then Rome attacked , and as I have already described, I'm hunting Rome to extermination deep in Germany and Gaul. Ironically, to be so ruthless, and to be so trade and development oriented, all my wars have been defensive wars ! Extermination as self-defense!

I understand that concept that RTW envolves alot of micro managing, but XC takes it to another level and in my opinion slows the pace at which a campaign develops.

For example in XGM in my Pergamum campaign i'd control half of Asia Minor (Pontus controls the other), Rhodes, Crete, Tarsus, Antioch and parts of Egypt and i'd be swimming in money, while in XC with similar empire i would still probably be limited to one or maybe 2 stacks.

My Greek Empire stretches from Byzantium to ......I just took my first province on the Baltic in Germany . Excluding garrisons, which are quite small in almost every case, I depend on development to keep them happy . Very often my initial move is to exterminate the populace if for no other reason than 600 people tend to be happier with a new bath house than do 6000.
Anyway, with such a vast Empire I have two full stacks and a third half -stack.
That's it.
I suspect I'm a bit of a miser where the Army is concerned, but, still, it seems that is about all I can afford if I want to keep building temples. And I love to build temples.

I'm not one of the authors of this mod. And in any case, I only speak for me. I'm more , much more, of a " Total Development " , rather than a " Total War " , type person.
I'm into Role play in a big way. For example, in my family tree I don't just keep an eye on my best generals. I'm more interested in, " Did my minor Spartan governor in Sardica ever get married? The Spartan line of the family isn't making many babies. He did get married ? Oh ! What's the girls name ? How old is she ? " That sort of thing. I absolutely Love the Polytheistic variety of the ancient world , because I absolutely love to build all these different kinds of temples. Temples ? Apparently for many people temples are an after-thought.
Like I said, I only speak for me, but XC Mod SEEMS to be much more of a Total Development , role-play -type mod. And so far I have found that rather rare in Total war , in RTW, in MTW, ETW, whatever.

I love playing with my toy soldiers. But in my own case, at the end of the day, my army exists to keep the bad guys away .........so I can beautify Greece , so I can bring Aphrodite and Demeter and Aristotle to these poor , unfortunate, ignorant barbarians .

Is this realism? I think i read that XC aims for reality because it wouldnt be possible to field the armies as you do in XGM. I know that sometimes there's ridiculous amounts of armies in XGM to the point of spending long turns fighting them off, but for example the Roman Empire managed border garrisons or maybe even legions in several key points of the empire.

Well, given my Corinthian Helmet fetish, I'm hardly a pure realist myself. Still, it seems to me that Rome was hardly the Russian steam roller. How come Rome never conquered Germany ? It was closer than Judea for example . I think it was a case of, the bean-counters did the math, and Germany was going to be too little profit , for too much expenditure. In my humble opinion, the Roman Army was not monolithic , it was just that the Romans were very good at juggling many balls in the air. And, indeed, when the Roman army became an end in itself, when the next Roman soldier on the payroll became more of a priority than the taxpayer, that's when the whole edifice started to crack. When they forgot that the empire was a MEANS, not an END.
But that's my opinion. I didn't even live in ancient Rome , so what do I know ?

I've already written a book, but I'll add one thing. I like to play one faction over and over. And even within one game, I'll save at a particular point, then play a period of 30 or 50 years using different strategies in each case. That is, I will pretend that my faction invented war gaming 2,000 years before the German General Staff did. And, like they did ( before Hitler entered the picture ) I'm war gaming my campaigns before I fight them "for real".

 

[Zarax]

Well GCS is my favourite faction aswell, but i cant say the same when considering XC. In this mod, GCS lose their diversity when it comes to army roster.

Err... GCS as actually access to more units than it did in XGM and they can get some unique and powerful units in many areas, although good cavalry requires of course quite a bit of development.
Also, a short boat trip to anatolia with a general will give you access to an extremely varied and abundant mercenary supply, well able to take care of any deficiency in your roster.

I dont know much about greek army history, only that at some point they had to abandon their traditional hoplite fighting style and adopt one more similar to that of Macedonian phalanx. Yet i dont not like this adaptation in XC. The GCS cleary has a disadvantage when fighting a Macedonian or Seleuced phalanx due to their very short spears, and as GCS, i love my phalanxes, its a key of my army.

GCS did adopt the phalanx in our time-frame and in XC you get macedonian style phalangites with the marian reforms (IIRC just like in XGM), although those come later than in XGM given the slower development pace.

Maybe its just my inexperience with the mod and its armies, but i went with a 4-6 phalanx units supported by 4 units of peltasts , 1 or 2 archers and 1 or 2 slingers, lead by a general or two. This setup was proving successfull in the east agaisnt TPE and TSE, but i just started war agaisnt macedon and my army got slaughtered by a mix of typical macedonian units supported by a bunch of Falxmen, which by the way had no battle experience.

Well, your army line was adequate but without cavalry support falxmen will chew through your light infantry.
In such a scenario tactically I'd focus all my missile units on the thracians which are the units that will suffer the most (given their little armor) and will help the odds of your peltasts against them.

I understand that concept that RTW envolves alot of micro managing, but XC takes it to another level and in my opinion slows the pace at which a campaign develops.

For example in XGM in my Pergamum campaign i'd control half of Asia Minor (Pontus controls the other), Rhodes, Crete, Tarsus, Antioch and parts of Egypt and i'd be swimming in money, while in XC with similar empire i would still probably be limited to one or maybe 2 stacks.

As Kesa said, XC is a lot more about development than XGM and quite a bit harder on the strategic side. M/M is the suggested difficulty unless you're playing an easy faction like Rome.
Anatolia is a very rich region (comparable or better than greece itself on many aspects) but it requires time and money to properly develop its economy, especially given how many factions compete there.

Is this realism? I think i read that XC aims for reality because it wouldnt be possible to field the armies as you do in XGM. I know that sometimes there's ridiculous amounts of armies in XGM to the point of spending long turns fighting them off, but for example the Roman Empire managed border garrisons or maybe even legions in several key points of the empire.

XC requires a pretty different mindset to strategy than XGM.
With most factions your first priority is to develop your economy in order to sustain your income, which will give you enough money to pay a decent army.
In order to get a booming economy you will need to take a macroregion (like Italy, Anatolia or Greece for example) and develop roads, ports and markets while protecting your trade lines from piracy and enemy lines.

It is possible to get quite rich but it takes time, if you had an empire the size of the roman one (which took the entire game time-frame to make) you'd be swimming in money and able to field large armies.
I've managed to turn a faction like the seleucids (which are imho the hardest in the game) from rags (your starting economy is abysmal) to the point I had several hundred thousands saved and could afford to waste it in gifts or elite heavy armies.
This of course took something like 150 years, but changing history shouldn't be an easy feat after all.

To close this, remember that behind every Alexander or Hannibal there was a Philip or Hamalcar that worked for years and years to provide a solid starting point for expansion.
Without that, a "raiding" economy will provide plenty of victories but they will be ultimately Pyrrhic ones.

 

[a-woowie.doowie]

@kesa82 Wow, your Greek Empire seems to have taken the unordinary turn. Would be really intresting to see it if you could post it. I myself pretty much always stay away from barbarian lands since I find them to be more trouble than they are worth.