Just started RTW and seems a bit easy ?
John Snow
I picked up a copy of RTW a few days ago and have started on
medium:medium. After about 10 hours of 'learning' game play I have
just about destroyed the gauls and fought various other nations. So
far nobody has really caused me any problems and apart from losing a
few units in battles when I have done silly things I have been finding
I always get at least 5:1 kill ratios.
Does the game get harder as it progresses or would I be better off
re-starting on a more difficult level now that I understand how things
work ?
Thanks
DocScorpio
"John Snow" <john...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:58401419.04101...@posting.google.com...
I read a couple of posts here which say that the RTW AI is somewhat
braindead compared to that of MTW. I didn't play MTW enough to be able to
make a comparison, but so far I'm finding the game fairly easy on medium
difficulty. I auto-resolve most of my battles because, so far, I like the
game's turn-based, strategic aspect more than its RTS tactical aspect (looks
like a bunch of ants running around on my counter-top). This is a very FUN
game and I can now see why it got so much buzz here after its release. I'm
going to stick with my current "medium" campaign because I simply don't know
if things are going to get more difficult deeper into the campaign (Julii,
controlling the whole north, Sardinia and Carthage at present).
Grackle
if you declare war on one of them before you're good and ready, you'll get
all the challenge you can handle, right before they wipe you off the face of
the earth.
"John Snow" <john...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:58401419.04101...@posting.google.com...
marcus
settings) and things are definitely getting more difficult.
This game has one overriding feature -- it is freaking bloody logical.
For lack of roads you might get three stacks of armies stuck in central
europe when you really need to pull them out toward spain where you have
three cities on the edge of rioting and not enough troops and generals
-- and the brits bring in heavy chariots that scare the ** out of your
old-style cavalry. You do have newer units in italy, but do you take
send them to tackle the brits where you know it will be *years* until
you get them back, send them to quell the rioting in spain and push the
corinthians completely off the continent, or keep them in reserve for
the onslaught you are expecting from the east.
A two front war possibly deteriorating into a three front war.
The gauls were a cakewalk . . .
Cheers!
Patrick B
>
> Does the game get harder as it progresses or would I be better off
> re-starting on a more difficult level now that I understand how things
> work ?
>
It does get harder, but it gets harder in the sense that a larger
empire is more difficult to manage. The military end of the game just
gets easier as the game goes on. You get better units and more of
them the longer the game goes. Conquering an empire is the easy part.
Where it gets harder is in holding your empire together. You get
more different cultures, larger distances from your capital, and
mounting levels of squalor.
As a Roman, you are also surrounded by allies who are garaunteed not
to stab you in the back, you get senate missions to do for extra money
and free military units, and your generals get bonus stats from senate
offices. You will find the game harder when you play as a non-Roman
faction where you get nothing of the sort and are surrounded by rivals
from the start.
It has taken me 3 starts with the Parthians to come up with a
situation that isn't hopeless within the first 12-15 turns. And even
so, I have armies from Pontus massing in my northern territories,
expecting a sneak attack any time now from them, I have Egypt
attacking my southern flank, just beat a full stack of them back from
Seleucia, and my main offensive in the East has stalled out at Antioch
as I am obliged to hurry reinforcements north and south to bolster my
defenses -- armies that were intended to keep my offensive momentum
going towards Tarsus.
Jens Nober
> Hi
>
> I picked up a copy of RTW a few days ago and have started on
> medium:medium. After about 10 hours of 'learning' game play I have
> just about destroyed the gauls and fought various other nations. So
> far nobody has really caused me any problems and apart from losing a
> few units in battles when I have done silly things I have been finding
> I always get at least 5:1 kill ratios.
>
If you find the combat too easy try the realism mod for RTW.
I also had 5:1 or 7:1 kill ratings on the hardest level of the original
RTW. With the mod im down to 1.5:1 or 2:1 (3:1 somtimes when Im lucky
and have the right counter for the enemy's units). Combat now really
feels less arcady.
bye
Jens
Nats
where both the Cartheginians and Greeks have wiped me practically out of the
game. If you think the Gauls are easy try the Scipii for a real challenge.
Im also however playing with 'huge' armies which definitely makes for longer
battles and more tactics. Instead of concentrating all of your troops in a
small area, using huge armies means that you need to spread out the battles
more which means you have less control. Its much more difficult.
I tried the realism patch but didnt like it much after a while to be
honest - although some of the units the patch removes are a bit daft and I
like the way it introduces slingers instead of archers for the romans etc,
the patch introduces quite a few strange bugs. I'm now playing the original
game again but with slow down mods applied (both walking speed and damage
inflicted) which seems to be the best way for me. Besides although the dogs
and head hurlers are daft at least they provide some variation to the game.
I think I'll wait for the next official patch.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Jens Nober" <jno...@web.de> wrote in message
news:2to642F...@uni-berlin.de...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 19/10/2004
John Snow
I'm trying to think back to the start of the game - was there an
option there to switch on the 'huge' armies that you mention ? I can't
remember one....
Thanks
John
Nats
affect the campaign you enter after setting it - I cant see it changing a
saved campaign halfway through but you can try it to see. Certainly huge
armies make the battles far more spectacular.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"John Snow" <john...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:58401419.0410...@posting.google.com...
Nats
change from large to huge armies actually double the amount of men you have
in each unit so for example instead of 2 sided battles with at the most
3-4000 on the battlefield you now get around 7-8000 men! Quite a jump!
Certainly makes for more difficult control and makes the battles that bit
more realistic. Perhaps the reason why the game AI seems to be lacking in
the smaller armies is becuase the AI was meant to fight huge battles like
this? I dunno but will test it out in a few battles to see if the computer
AI is any better. Certainly Ive had my generals and armies wiped out by the
Greeks and Cartheginians in Sicily without much of a fight!
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"John Snow" <john...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:58401419.0410...@posting.google.com...
Patrick B
The army size option isn't available in-game. It's in the options
menus from the main screen when you first load the game.
The battlefield becomes a much smaller place to maneuver in when you
play with the bigger armies. One effect of this not mentioned yet is
that it becomes easier for enemies to successfully rout off the map
before you can run them down. I have many more enemies escape since
switching to huge army size, whereas before I almost always got
complete kills of the enemy army.
John Snow
from medium:medium difficulty and onto huge battles and hopefully get
my backside kicked into next week.
Thanksgain.
John
marcus
phenominal -- and I expect true to life. The Roman armies, when they
could be brought to the field in good order, were dominant. It is the
circumstances around the battle that make the difference, and creating
favorable circumstances is what the game is about.
Oh, and gold is king.
Nats
news:4177FB71...@welby.com...
> The level of realism created by circumstances such as you describe if
> phenominal -- and I expect true to life. The Roman armies, when they
> could be brought to the field in good order, were dominant. It is the
> circumstances around the battle that make the difference, and creating
> favorable circumstances is what the game is about.
Ive certainly found that playing RTW on very hard battles and hard campign
map settings with huge units chosen really does make a massive difference to
the whole gameplay - for a start less ships seem to be made for a start as I
think they cost more?
But more importantly the battles are now huge involving affairs where you
ahve to carefully manoeuver your troops - Greek hoplites for example really
become a threat now because with huge units they stretch almost across the
whole battlefield - its difficult to get around them to hit their flanks! It
also looks bloody frightening!
And of course you lose a bit of control as often several skirmishes appear
all over the battleground so you need to be a pretty good general to keep
tabs on everything thats going on.
The best way to play the game with huge units IMO is to use the slower
movement and slower damage mods and no battle timer mod - that way you can
really fight some enormous battles and take your time over them. Ive just
fought a seige where I was to assault a Cartheginian stronghold. The enemy
had reinforcements moving up incl elephants and I had some reinforements
behind me. There was an almighty ruck when I managed to get into the
stockade and fought off the elephants (scare them and then they drop like
flies against hastati!). Eventually I managed to fight till there was only
one enemy man left holding the square and my men all routed (they had been
fightening a bloody long time!). But when I ended the battle I was actually
suprisingly given a win becuase I had decimated the enemy! Brilliant battle
it was too.
Similarly in normal battles Ive found them to be much more enjoyable affairs
with huge units selected - if you have two major armies meeting plus
reinforcements you can end up with 8000-10000 men around!
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
Nan Wang
> By the way it makes quite a change to the amount of troops you have - the
> change from large to huge armies actually double the amount of men you have
> in each unit so for example instead of 2 sided battles with at the most
> 3-4000 on the battlefield you now get around 7-8000 men! Quite a jump!
> Certainly makes for more difficult control and makes the battles that bit
> more realistic. Perhaps the reason why the game AI seems to be lacking in
> the smaller armies is becuase the AI was meant to fight huge battles like
> this? I dunno but will test it out in a few battles to see if the computer
> AI is any better. Certainly Ive had my generals and armies wiped out by the
> Greeks and Cartheginians in Sicily without much of a fight!
So the only way to make the game more challenging is to increase the amount
of micromanagement?
Nats
news:clovru$ls0$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Depends what you want out of the game. If you like the battles then huge
units does make them more enjoyable but is by no means for everyone. If you
like the strategy part on its own autogen the battles and play on very
difficult and you will have quite a challenge. I would certainly like to see
anyone complete as the Scipii and autogening the battles! For me the game
doesnt include any 'micromanagement' issues - its pretty simplistic compared
to the likes of Civilisation in fact.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 25/10/2004
Pete
news:clqf9u$sqp$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
Here's a great site for mods.
http://www.twcenter.net/downloads/db/?act=search&sub=02&cats=all
The one I use which helps the AI (and yourself in some cases) is the
kill speed mod
http://www.twcenter.net/downloads/db/?mod=65
Highly recommend it. It adjusts the HP for troops but also doubles the
damage for missle attacks. So your hand-to-hand combat lasts much
longer and one charge of cavalry no longer scatters units (which is
something I find too easy to do VS the AI) but missles are just as
effective. I've had some awesome battles with it as you really get some
long bunched up battles (on huge) just like the movies :P and having to
hit units repeatedly with cavalry to break them is just nasty hehe.
I find the strategy part really lacking, in my first game (Julli) I've
noticed that the AI doesn't need money. I'm in the civil war and was
hoping that the Brutti would go backrupt as they had this massive army
and I could see there money plummeting. Well even after hitting their
cities with assassins, shutting down ports, spreading plague etc. they
have had no money for 10 turns (most cities are in the negative for
thousands) and they can still support a full army. So all my strategic
works seems to be wasted as the army doesn't need upkeep after all.
Pete.
Nats
putting spies in their cities which creates revolts. Ive got rid of the
Cartheginians that way. Depends on how much money they have I assume - the
Brutii may have had loads of spare cash to withhold a few sieges and
remember that they also get trade via roads as well. The only way to shut
down towns is to siege and blockade.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Pete" <pe...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9591C8F96F90...@207.35.177.134...
Pete
news:clvsed$21o$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:
> Well Ive certainly managed to shut down the odd civ by blockading
> ports and putting spies in their cities which creates revolts. Ive got
> rid of the Cartheginians that way. Depends on how much money they have
> I assume - the Brutii may have had loads of spare cash to withhold a
> few sieges and remember that they also get trade via roads as well.
> The only way to shut down towns is to siege and blockade.
>
Well apparently if your troops don't get paid (it applies for yours also)
they don't disband/revolt. So you CAN build a massive army quickly to the
point where your finances start to plummet due to upkeep costs and you
won't lose that army once you go bankrupt. That's what happened to the
Brutti in my game. Tbey quickly built a massive 15+ fully loaded armies
and in the graphs you could see their finances just plummeting and hitting
zero in a couple of years. But it seems once you do go bankcrupt, even
though you can't build buildings, you won't have your troops leaving due to
lack of pay (upkeep).
I guess I was unlucky that the Brutti build a massive realistically
unsustainable army in my game, which basically made me have 20+ boring
battles to get my last 5 cities I needed.
V'ger
I would echo the sentiments of others here that playing with huge armies
improves the game. Playing some of these mods does, as well. I'm playing
Rome Total Realism 3.2 with the Total Combat mod and New Provinces. One
thing, if you play that mod with huge units you'll need to put farm growth
back up to what it is in vanilla or the AI will strip themselfves bare.
I'm playing Parhia and after relatively brief wars with Armenia and Pontus
I've been in continous war with the Selucids and it's now in the 180's BC.
I'm money tight and only have 3 standing armies. 2 with 9 horse archers and
one assault army with spearbaras and archers that just got torn up attacking
an equal-sized Sel army in a confusing battle in the woods where they had
elephants.
I destroyed their army, except for the elephants, but got very chewed up
(mostly by elephants, but also by some charges by their phalanxes). I even
managed to kill a few elephants and route them. (THROUGH my troops!) And
that was my best effort against elephants in the field so far.
I have managed to take 2 cities in Asia Minor from the Sels while losing
none of my own, but it's been a near run thing, trying to head off their
large armies with my horse archers. Unfortunately, none of the cities I've
taken were major cities for them and I'm seeing more elephants in their
armies. The only counter I have for that is archers.
I'm trying to build up a second assault army (I'm almost there) to march
from Susa and take one of their key cities. I really need to shut off their
elephant production or I'm going to be in trouble. Even winning (as I have
so far) against elephants means large losses for my armies that take much
time to replace.
I'm playing Hard strat/Medium tactical and find this much more challenging
than my first, Scipii campaign.
Too much is never enough,
V'ger gone
Andrew
"V'ger" <Vg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kR1td.8419$714....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Now I know I'm missing something. I have ver 1.1. Medium difficulty. Playing
the Imperial campaign. I use the cheat 'map reveled (or something like
that). I get my ass kicked everygame! I start in my 2 starting cities and
grab 4 rebel towns with very low population. That's the best I've go. Then I
don't have enough money. The someone bounces on my ass. End of game.
I read everything I can find on the web. I do try to get an economy going.
And you're talking about ver 3.2 - Where did you get that? Plus I'm only
allowed to start with 1 of 3 Roman families. Aparently you're not.
Talk about missed the boat! I missed the whole fleet! Help, please?
Thanks in advance.
Wylie Wild
for MTW it was very much lacking. But have they improved it?
I mean - war isn't all about winning battles- the strategic and logisitic
element was crucially important too. That's why Hannibal never managed to
defeat Rome despite wiping out +30% of Rome's troops. Carthage also never
managed to send him enough reinforcement either.
In the old 386 games like Romance of Three Kingdoms - logistics played a
vital role - if you invaded an enemy province without adequate food
supplies - you lost - and had to pull out at the end of the round.
So did they incorporate more of this stuff into the RTW?
shadows
> In the old 386 games like Romance of Three Kingdoms - logistics played a
> vital role - if you invaded an enemy province without adequate food
> supplies - you lost - and had to pull out at the end of the round.
>
> So did they incorporate more of this stuff into the RTW?
No. Dead troops stay dead though so you do have to send in
reinforcements which can grind a campaign to a halt. Usually I
found I launch one big army and one smaller one behind it to
reinforce or hold captured territories.
Good game. Just to need up the difficulty settings and play with
"large" army settings.