Total War: Alexander the Great

thirdmantackle

anybody get this 'download only' expansion for Rome: Total War??

its meant to be quite cool

Sand

I heard rumours of it initially a few months ago and its eventually turned into something solid despite an annoying reluctance on that part of CA to actually confirm it.

TBH, initial views on it havent been that great. More of the same as far as I understand. The only way they were able to model Alexanders rapid conquest of a huge area was to include fewer cities and larger provinces than in RTW. No escape from Rome: Total Siege.

Well, at least weve got Medieval 2: Total Siege; Return of the Siege to look forward to....

theCzar

Firstly: In Medieval, the only way worthwhile to take a city was by siege, 4 turns or so of easy living for your troops, where the enemy lose 25% a turn. In Rome, there was much more city assaults, because it was worthwhile. You can conquer a city without unsupportable losses, saving time. Also, the AI sallies forth and doesn't lose much each turn. So I think "Rome: Total Siege" is a fairly sarky exaggeration.

Secondly: What exactly is the benefit of small provinces and buckets of cities? I love the TW series, and am interested to know the benefit of the myriad of addons that subdivide the existing provinces, which I've always found well balanced.

Pugsley

In R:TW Ive only actually ever sieged about 4 or 5 cities of the several hundred Ive taken over the years, M:TW was insane though, Id siege about half the castles in that as it was so much safer

thirdmantackle

well in fairness, in Medieval times the siege was the principle method used to take castles

The Romans had some of the most advanced siege engineering in world history and could easily assualt large cities.

I don't like the way in RTW that even the barbarian tribes can built siege towers etc as easily as the Romans to assault a city. They should all have to use ladders!

Pugsley

thirdmantackle wrote:

I don't like the way in RTW that even the barbarian tribes can built siege towers etc as easily as the Romans to assault a city. They should all have to use ladders!

Would be interesting if you had to build siege ladders etc at a siege workshop, they could move the catapults over to it aswell, Catapults at the Archery range never made much sense to me (its called a catapult range, but yet it trains elite archers too, odd). Maybe have it so only ladders can be built without specialised equipment, or infantry (sappers), would slow the game down alot though.

Sand

In Rome, there was much more city assaults, because it was worthwhile. You can conquer a city without unsupportable losses, saving time. Also, the AI sallies forth and doesn't lose much each turn. So I think "Rome: Total Siege" is a fairly sarky exaggeration.

No its not. You want to take a province you have to siege the city - especially since bribery was pretty much removed as an option. 50 terretories to win, + Rome.... thats a lot of sieges. Whether you spend 4-10 turns (or more) waiting outside the city or whether you go through the (extremely repetitive) motions of storming the city is your own decision. What will never happen is that you win a historic victory, annialate the enemy army and the local city decides to open its gates rather than be sacked, their men killed, their families enslaved. No instead, theyll fight to the last peasant...

The concept of storming the walls of a city was rare because even a successful assault of guarded walls would inflict serious casualties on the attackers. The Greeks fought wars practically annually but cities were rarely conquered for that reason. And as Alexander proved, they knew a thing or two about warfare. What most often happened was one of two things - either a faction in the city reached terms with the besiegers and betrayed the defenders (as happened in Eretria when the Persians were let in by aristocrat collaborators - and this was a factor in the Athenian decision to abandon their walls and march to face the Persians at Marathon), or The besiegers ran out of food and had to move off. Stormings were the exception, not the rule. Sieges rarely lasted long - Athens was financially ruined by the cost of supporting a siege of minor city in the early stages of the Pelopenessian War.

Alexander conquered the Persian Empire in 8 years despite not seeing most of it, let alone marching about the place sieging every little walled hamlet. What actually happened was the satrapies saw which way the wind was blowing and decided one distant Great King was as good as another so better to join the winning team. This cannot occur in a TW game.

CA have never been able to model a decent diplomacy system and an AI that can challenge you, let alone a model that could accurately represent something like this. The concept of very few cities to make it possible to get to India in 16 turns is just papering over the cracks.

Secondly: What exactly is the benefit of small provinces and buckets of cities? I love the TW series, and am interested to know the benefit of the myriad of addons that subdivide the existing provinces, which I've always found well balanced.

Its an awkward workaround to stopping rushes. A half decent Carthaginian player can smash Rome in about 6-7 turns from their starting position. The only pause theyll receive is the Senate army, and even they can be beaten. This is unsatisfying (no epic series of Punic Wars between the two heavy weight titans of the western med? No comeback for Rome from the total defeat at Cannae to eventual total victory at Carthage itself?) and highlights how shoddy the AI is (that you can beat it so easily). So to stop rushes, they simply put more obstacles/walls in your way. The other option (one I use) is to "take it easy" on the AI and play with one arm behind my back. This is also unsatisfying.

Generally speaking what would be required to stop rushes is to present a somewhat believable recruitment and supply system. Stop treating anceint armies as some sort of standing professional force of full time volunteers. Stop ignoring the fact that if you plan to send 50-60,000 men off to conquer Egypt you need to have some plan on how youre going to feed them - especially if a siege develops. Also, this was an era where Carthaginian generals were often crucified by their own men, you cant ignore that your men might like to go home to their wives after a few months/years - even the ambitions of a loved, ever victorious war leader like Alexander was laid low by the fact his army was homesick and wanted to go back home. These were the limiting factors on expansion, the armies themselves and the ability to support them abroad.

CA have not signaled any inclination to actually do anything like this. Instead of innovating and taking a look at improving things, theres a retreat to M:TW nostalgia. Which will treat feudal armies, politics and and loyalties like modern nation states with profesional military forces. And in which you can, as France, skip the whole Hundred Years War and rush England in about 6-7 turns before conquering the entire continent in another 50 or so turns. Hard to get excited about MTW:2 when the challenge will be presented by an AI thats just there to make up the numbers.

Maybe have it so only ladders can be built without specialised equipment, or infantry (sappers), would slow the game down alot though.

The real problem would be that it would simply highlight the stupidity of the AI even more. The AI is already desperately poor and unable to really expand - instead the move a few stacks about and wait for you to conquer them. I read an article/thread on AI behaviour and the painstaking research a guy had done on it - the AI is brain dead. Truly. It parked 20 stacks on Sicilly and never sieged the neutral city beside it, because those 20 were *support* stacks, and the *active* stack couldnt land because the 20 stacks were taking up all available landing points. It cant cope with the situation as it is, placing additional restrictions that it wont be able to handle will only assist the human player. The AI will have zero chance of providing competition.

bizmark

Sand wrote:

I read an article/thread on AI behaviour and the painstaking research a guy had done on it - the AI is brain dead. Truly. It parked 20 stacks on Sicilly and never sieged the neutral city beside it, because those 20 were *support* stacks, and the *active* stack couldnt land because the 20 stacks were taking up all available landing points. It cant cope with the situation as it is, placing additional restrictions that it wont be able to handle will only assist the human player. The AI will have zero chance of providing competition.

Very good post sands any chance you can point me in the direction of that ai article/thread?

Sand

Very good post sands any chance you can point me in the direction of that ai article/thread?

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=63614

Thats the thread, the particular post where he shows the problem with Carthage/AI in general is....http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1123455&postcount=23

thirdmantackle

Its a pity that the various provinces cannot subdivide into smaller territories with smaller settlements once they are conquered by rebels. this would more accurately reflect the tribal divisions which occured

another thing is that you never see a rebellion in barbarian territories. Surely they argued with amongst themselves just as much as the Romans did??

the whole diplomatic area needs to be looked at definitely

Sand

Its a pity that the various provinces cannot subdivide into smaller territories with smaller settlements once they are conquered by rebels. this would more accurately reflect the tribal divisions which occured

another thing is that you never see a rebellion in barbarian territories. Surely they argued with amongst themselves just as much as the Romans did??

the whole diplomatic area needs to be looked at definitely

What Id like to see - dreaming here, but hey - is armies recruited much as mercenaries.

Say youre playing the Roman Republic. The Senate gives you some misson and allocates forces to carry it out - you dont get to recruit a standing army, instead levies are drawn from the citizens so you get a pretty balanced army (you get velites/hastati/principes/triarrii and latin allies in their proper proportions - not loaded to some favoured troop type like you get with the current system where hastatti are completely obsolete when Principes show up). This would be A) good for gameplay and historically accurate. Romes armies, like most armies of the day were amateur volunteers.

Then off you go. Enter barbarian territory. Your arrival sparks one of two reactions. Either theyre intimidated by your army and dont challenge your passage. Or they "rise up" and form a horde to battle you. The horde should only appear after you enter the province, so you get the chance to be ambushed.

If youre not just passing through, but are targeting their settlement then the horde should be automatic and should move to fight you, rather than cowering behind the walls. The horde should again be balanced, a good strong army able to give you a fight - the AI in the normal game is so often unable to build and maintain a strong army. Often theyre low quality cannon fodder. If you win a crushing/heroic victory then the settlement should auto-surrender. No siege. Only if theres still a reasonable chance of the siege failing should it actually occur.

All this time, youre on a timer. You can only keep your Senate granted army together for a limited period of time. If your General is famous/popular and/or successful, then that time is extended. If they are on the coast supported by a fleet - that time is extended, if they are near Roman or Allied territory - that time is extended, if they have good roads behind them (supply lines) that time is extended...etc etc.

However, if theyre stuck in place - as at a siege, that time is reduced drastically because they cant move about to forage for supplies etc etc. So a siege could fail because the besiegers couldnt maintain their forces long enough to win it. This again, was historically the case, and it provides game mechanics for what was practise of that era in warfare.

Id also like to see you gaining gold for each turn in enemy territory or square your troops to reflect looting and to allow raiding...i.e. if youre bordering barbarian territory they mightnt technically be at war with you, but warbands will appear and enter your lands looting so youve got to chase them down and slaughter them - more senate missions.

At the end of the campaign - when the timer runs out, or before - then the army auto returns to Roman territory and disbands. You gain some prestige if youre successful, if your general did anything great. More prestige you gain, better chance of winning senate elections or getting assigned to govern a province. More chance that if you decide to revolt against the Senate that more than 8 guys will fight for you...

/me shrugs....ah, never going to happen anyway.

Pugsley

Sand wrote:

/me shrugs....ah, never going to happen anyway.

Most probably, because its too complex for a regular joe soap gamer, and the Total War series isnt a realistic game tbh (with more and more myth units every release), maybe if something like that could be added in the R:TR mod, but I dont know if the engine is flexable enough to allow that sort of modding. After a read of that AI post, dear god I knew there were some pathing issues but never knew they were THAT bad, thats insane.

Dont really get how you think getting newer units obsoletes the older ones though, I tend to have several full armies (in some cases 10 or more) so prefare to have low upkeep armies, as with hoplites the difference between the top and bottom tier hoplite isnt enough to justify that they cost 4 times more and have half the unit size, and double the build time, not to mention you have to get high tier units to a high tier barracks to reinforce them, dont like running around with squads of 4 men,tend to reinforce when their down to below half stength (talking about RTR, but also appleis to RTW), and the only expensive units I carry around tend to be cavelry that are able to cover my flanks and rear against light cavelry (as greek generals are infantry, and hoplites arent fast enough to intercept light cavelry to stop them pounding my archers).

Oh yea and I never play Rome so I know nothing of the senate missions, dont like full heavy infantry armies, tend to bore me because their too leniant when you f*ck up, you barely even get punished for being flanked most of the time (hence I play macedonia usually, if their pikeys get flanked they go squish).

Sand

Most probably, because its too complex for a regular joe soap gamer,

No more complicated than RTR auxilliary system tbh. Its just basically "mercs" on a timer to complete an objective. If anything, it removes the complexity of deciding what troops to recruit.

Dont really get how you think getting newer units obsoletes the older ones though, I tend to have several full armies (in some cases 10 or more) so prefare to have low upkeep armies, as with hoplites the difference between the top and bottom tier hoplite isnt enough to justify that they cost 4 times more and have half the unit size, and double the build time, not to mention you have to get high tier units to a high tier barracks to reinforce them, dont like running around with squads of 4 men,tend to reinforce when their down to below half stength (talking about RTR, but also appleis to RTW), and the only expensive units I carry around tend to be cavelry that are able to cover my flanks and rear against light cavelry (as greek generals are infantry, and hoplites arent fast enough to intercept light cavelry to stop them pounding my archers).

Every soldier you deploy is one less citizen generating tax/farm/trade income, so imo if you want to get the best compensation for that lost income you want to deploy the best value troops you can get. Hastatti and Principes are too similar. They carry out the same function, Principes are just better at it. Once you can build Principes, why build Hastatti? Its not like theyre *that* much cheaper than Principes.

I most often play RTR as the Selucian Empire, and my strategy doesnt allow for large armies. Everything is small, light, fast and efficient. Every unit has to have a particular job and be absolutely necessary. No passengers. No full stack armies, instead 3 or 4 stacks of 5 or 6 units each. Pointless having a full stack army when you only need 3 or 4 units to successfuly storm a city. Better to be storming 5 cities each turn rather than one city with a full stack army.

Everything else is disbanded or purposely sacrificed in battle so the few survivors are practically 0 upkeep but I can retrain them in one turn for emergencies. Everything is poured into building an infrastructure that can support the sort of military you want.

I use mostly auxilliary troops starting off, and only auxilliary skirmishers (cheapest upkeep) to garrison cities. Whatever few "Macedonian" style troops survive the purge are sent to fight the Ptolemies.

Its a very tough early game because youre fighting a half dozen battles every turn with mini-armies, but thats the Selucian Empire for ya. You need to be a real penny pincher and min-maxer to hold it together.

Oh yea and I never play Rome so I know nothing of the senate missions, dont like full heavy infantry armies, tend to bore me because their too leniant when you f*ck up, you barely even get punished for being flanked most of the time (hence I play macedonia usually, if their pikeys get flanked they go squish).

Well, the Senates disabled anyway but was just using them as an example. I have started games with them. I much prefer their new roster to the old. The battle with Phyrrus is nice, but easily won and after that its total siege time.

Pyr0

Pugsley wrote:

Dont really get how you think getting newer units obsoletes the older ones though

It can really depend what on what faction you're playing and how late in the game it is. When playing as Rome for example in the mid-late stages you have the reformation of the army, which brings in a lot of differnt units, so you're left over with the older units from earlier in the game. The differnt legions available after that are not *that* different in stats apart from maybe the Urban and Preatorian Cohorts and other heavy cavalry. I find myself recruiting newer stronger units as I get them and either disbanding any old(very old) units or keeping them on guard duty around the place, getting rid of rebels lets say.

thirdmantackle

barbarian cities shouldn't have big walls around them, if an enemy army turned up on their doorstep they fled to the hills and didn't cower behind walls...

garrethg

Rome was a huge step back for the series, the strategic portion has all the subtlety of a brick in the face - Blitzkrieg or nothing. There’s no purpose in maintaining an army in the field. It’s ahistorically either defend a city or assault a city and that’s it. The tactical battles aren’t much better as, in their wisdom, they sped up the melee combat resolution so much that it makes the concepts manoeuvre and reserves irrelevant. M:TW deeply impressed me as the only real time tactical battle system I’ve ever played where holding troops in reserve really mattered. I hope the Series goes back to it roots in Medieval 2 and provides thoughtful real time combat.

Silver Shadow

garrethg wrote:

There’s no purpose in maintaining an army in the field. It’s ahistorically either defend a city or assault a city and that’s it.

And leave all the choke points wide open for armies to enter and cause damage to your land while you have your army stuck in a city.:eek:

Sand

And leave all the choke points wide open for armies to enter and cause damage to your land while you have your army stuck in a city.

The AI figures its targets by basically picking the nearest city it is not allied to that it can reach by land (typically, oversea invasions are absolute last resorts) and that it can "see". What helps discourage it is large garrisons in that city. Armies, regardless of numbers/position do not factor into its calculations if they are outside the city walls. And armies deployed in a Province (outside a city) do not factor into Public Order calculations.

Ye Olde "Build a fort in a choke point and garrison it with 1 unit of peasants/skirmishers" or the even better "Find a bridge and stand on it" Stratagems are useful facing hordes and stuff, but the only reason to have armies in the field is to train generals by running down rebels with small armies. Army movement is far too slow to actually justify needing to hold bridges/passes/highways - if army movement was realistic for a 6 month turn, then youd absolutely have to hold the Alps passes to stop Hannibal wandering into Italy on a rampage. As it is - it would take 7 or 8 game turns to make the same trip so theres no need to hold passes. Youll see him coming long, long, long before he gets there.