Total War: Rome...its shipped. Thoughts?

before I got distracted by Sims 2 I beat it with Egypt and Gaul on the long campaign. Are you destroying enemy temples when you first conquer the city? It’s murder to only have a +5 bonus to happiness and being unable to build it any higher. Other then that always exterminate the populous when you conquer to lower problems and pump out peasants every time you slide toward rebellion. Some cities I had 6+ units holding it under control…

I flat don’t understand your money problems though I never had a problem with money in any game i played. I always build this way Loyalty structures, econ structures, then military.

The easy way to deal with a fractious city is to pull all the troops out, let it rebel, then take it back and slaughter the populace. In fact, slaughtering people seems to be the best solution to a myriad of problems, and doesn’t seem to have any downsides.

This aspect definitely needs some tweaking in a patch. While squalor and civic revolt were in fact not at all uncommon in the ancient world, it probably shouldn’t be quite this bad.

I’ve beaten the game as the Greeks ( easier than most factions - wealthy, excellent heavy infantry and you generally find yourself forced to deal with the Romans early before they begin pumping out those uber-cohorts ). Didn’t have any overwhelming cash issues, as expansion along the Mediterranean seaboard generates just enormous trade income. Also I micromanage everything, every turn - I never use any automanage functions. Don’t know if that ends up with me being more efficient or not, but A.I.'s being A.I.'s, probably does.

Generally speaking I try to make trade- generating structures my highest build priorities ( ports are pretty much the absolute early priority ) and as with most players, I’m sure, I don’t spend much on non-essential military buildings in most cities. Also I deliberately discourage city growth as much as possible, building farming improvements only when forced and never temples that encourage civic growth. I do work to build squalor-ameliorating and happiness/law producing improvements as quickly as possible ( usually a half-notch below trade improvements in priority, depending on the situation ). Staying on top of squalor early helps a lot - seems the farther you fall behind there, the harder it is to control further on down the line.

'course the dumb-ass A.I. seems to hate building things like sewers, leaving late-game acquisitions revolt-ready cesspools :). Unfortunately the best solution seems to be to always exterminate the populations in newly captured towns and take the breather afforded by that to try and get back on top of the situation. You may have noticed that even that it isn’t always enough. Hence the need for the tweaking.

Otherwise you should take Darkhold’s advice and always, no matter how spiffy they are, destroy captured temples from different cultures and build your own. This is the only thing that helps reduce negative cultural effects. And move your capital to as central a location as possible ( or possibly shading a bit towards problem areas) to cut corruption as much as is humanely possible.

  • Tamerlane

Well, I had a long response written but it just got eaten. :(!! I wanted to thank everyone and had comments for all that responded.

Basically it boiled down to: I haven’t been destroying the enemy temples, thinking they would make the people happy…I usually repaired them in fact. My soft hearted (or soft headed) 20th century mentality got the best of me. :slight_smile: Most of the other advice is stuff I am already doing…except that I have been encouraging growth instead of discouraging it as Tamerlane suggested.

Its really sucked. My latest game I am playing the Selcudi (something like that…basically Greek remnants from Alexanders old empire I assume. Great unit mix of Greek pikemen, Roman style legions, heavy horse and armored elephants…I LOVE armored elephants!! :)), and early on I had no money or revolt troubles at all…or bad plague troubles either for that matter. I was able to expand through the Egyptian empire and through Persia (Turkey) with no problems amassing 500k with no sweat. Its when I tried to expand to take out Rome that my problems started…a constant drain on resources on the fronteer as cities revolted (killing 200-300 troops every turn that needed to be replaced) and running at a deficit as far as trade goes (I guess because enemy troops were constantly interdicting the cities). Eventually (somewhere around the Northern Italian Alps and 2/3rds of the way up the Spanish peninsula) I ran out of steam…and money. Then it was a long slow decline/retreat.

I’m definitely going to try this out…it never occured to me to just walk out and let it revolt right away. I’ve been trying to stick it out and paying every turn to restore my regiments to full strength…something that was costing me 1000’s per turn in every city that was revolting!

Thanks for the advice by everyone! I appreciate the responses. I’ve been pretty frustrated…usually I win these games even at the hardest levels pretty easily. Its frustrating to win every battle tactically with ease and then lose because of the constant revolts (not to mention the constant plagues)!

-XT

Just be careful. I did this in Sinope, and the Egyptians had the rebels under siege the same turn. Normally not a problem, but at that moment I had a fragile ceasefire going with the Egyptians since I was still focused on kicking the Brutii’s butts clear to Moscow and consolidating my naval supremacy over the Scipii. No time to deal with barbarians during a civil war.

One odd thing I’ve noticed is that income seems entirely divorced from population - now, that farming income would be fixed regardless of population makes sense, but I don’t understand why trade income doesn’t vary. This results in big cities running at huge apparent deficits, though the deficits are misleading, because they are a result of troop support costs being divied up between cities on a per capita basis. The big cities are still (usually) making more money than the small ones, but they’re making less per capita, so they show deficits on the strategic map.

The game is taking me forever. I’ve only finished one main campaign, took me three weeks. I started another as the Seleucids, but for various reasons was compelled to do a hard drive wipe and reinstall, and when I loaded my save games I got errors trying to save. I’m guessing maybe because the game thinks the Seleucids aren’t unlocked, so I shouldn’t be playing them. Anyways, I’m now playing a short campaign with the Scipii and have knocked out the Carthaginians, who I guess I’ll try next. Unfriendly starting position for them, though.

I’ve noticed that as well…I have huge cities that are running (according to the strategic map anyway) huge -1000’s per turn deficit’s. However, go to individual city screens and they are running small surplus’s (usually).

I’ve also noticed that the trade mechanics are easily disrupted by single events…to catostrophic effects sometimes. I’ve seen where I’ve had a turn based surplus of, say, 10k coming in. A single city gets the plague or is put under siege, and suddenly I’m running a -7k deficit! Thats a 17k turn around…on a single event. Something is not right there.

The big campaigns take forever (unless you play one of the Roman factions…even then they are long). Seleucids…thats the one. They are my favorite country so far. I liked the Egyptians too. I tried the Carthaginians, but they have no bowmen (and my tactics uses bowmen a lot)…just slingers and spear throwers. Has anyone else noticed that the Roman bowman have more range than the other countries (at least longer than any of the ones I’ve played so far)? This doesn’t seem to me to be historically accurate…I thought the Romans never really developed the bow well, and relied on mercenaries. Why do their bows have more range?

-XT

Yeah the main-screen numeric income value for cities is actually worse than useless ( except early on for small cities ), as not only does it not tell you anything useful, it can actually be misleading. Nobody glancing at it is going to be able to figure out what it means in real game terms unless you are some kind of mathematical savant. That was a poor bit of interface design.

Nothing will kill your enemies quicker than a total blockade of their ports. And vice-versa. Not easy to pull off as there is a bad tendency for the AI to overbuild fleets ( to the detriment of their land forces ultimately, though it does come in handy to counter this tactic :wink: ), making the achievement of naval supremacy difficult. I’ve done it with an unfinished Carthage campaign, but it is hard.

Trade income is all-important and the key to trade income is the Mediterranean. Which is why factions like the Parthians ( very fun to play - the Cataphract/Persian Calvary combo rolls over just about everything except ahistorical chariot-heavy armies like Egypt ) can struggle a bit economically until the break out into the west.

I like them too. Best non-Roman unit mix and good early economy. Only problem is the exposed starting position. Haven’t finished a long game with them, but have done a short one, run a long one halfway and a few more a little ways - I’ve decided you must hit Egypt immediately and try your damndest to secure at least two or three allies on your borders very early.

In RL not a really a viable threat to Rome after the battle of Magnesia in 190 B.C.E., but no reason you can’t change that :).

Hate them. There are any number of ahistorical deviations in this game ( for example the Parthians shouldn’t even be in the picture as a power quite yet in 270 ), but they are the only one I find cripplingly annoying. Plus I can’t get the hang of using chariots - for some reason the AI is vastly better at it.

Because the Roman factions are just flat-out overpowered in general :D. Actually Cretan archers ( recruitable as mercenaries ) are the best single archer unit, I believe. But the Romans have been really bulked up in some areas, particularly in terms of late-period calvary, which is just wayyyy too effective. Roman calvary should at best be adequate, not overpowering as it currently is - it was almost never the arm of decision in the Roman army.

  • Tamerlane

Well…yes. :slight_smile: I assume you mean they should basically be along the Greek model as they, too, were left overs from Alexanders empire (and the fief of one of his surviving generals)? Setting history aside (or suspending it in this case), I really liked them…tactically they are quite flexable IMO (thought I think that the Seleucids are the ultimate in tactical flexability). They have quite a few archer type units, including archer chariots which are pretty useful. I’ve found the best thing with chariots is to get plenty of room and then charge them at single regiments en mass…very devastating. The Seleucid’s also get a chariot unit, but I’ve found their two heavy cavalry units MUCH more effective…and you just can’t beat armored elephants. They have a ranged attack AND a devastating charge capability, and seem well neigh invulnerable to everything except fire. I LOVE seeing them toss troops up in the air with their tusks!! :stuck_out_tongue:

Definitely. Its nearly impossible to lose with any of the Roman factions. They are also very difficult to beat in a stand up fight with many of the other factions. I’ve had my best success’s with the various Greek factions…pikemen/phalanx units seem to be pretty unwieldy (as they probably were in real life), but put them in the right formations with support of other units and they are pretty much unbeatable.

Late-period Roman cavalry (in the game anyway) is as good as any other cavalry unit in the game except the elephant units. The late era legion units are pretty much the same…VERY tough.

I hope they fix this in the inevitable patch, but I pretty much ignore it now. The only thing I look at are the various build icons, the ‘you’ve got plague’ skull icon (or the siege icon), and the colored faces…which usually range from blue to red on my fronteer right now. :stuck_out_tongue: :wink: :frowning: :mad:

:smiley:

-XT

Anyone notice this? Rebels outside of Jerusalem include the unit type “Judean Zealots.” Part of the description reads:

They are often chaotically organized into many seperate groups, sects, fronts, movements, factions, and so on. Their loyalty may be to Judea, but each group is its own ‘one true’ resistance movement, or people front, or popular front.

Heh. Splinter!!

There’s another Life of Brien reference in the construction summary description of the aquaduct - something along the lines of “What have the Romans ever done for us? This, that’s what.”

errr…should read “peoples’ front” of course

lol…no, I never noticed that. ‘Follow the sandal!’…‘No…follow the gorde!!’. :stuck_out_tongue:

I took your advice about bolting from cities that go red…seems to work pretty well so far, though I’m still early in a new game. I’ve also been systematically surpressing alien religions by destroying ‘pagan’ temples right and left! I haven’t seen much of an effect yet…but its been fun so far!

-XT

Ack. So I just started a Seleucid campaign, since their troop mix intrigues me. I just get up to producing halfway decent troops (levy pikemen and greek cav) and start planning to move on the Egyptians in a few years after I’ve amassed a bit of an army, and what happens? The Egyptians besiege Damascus, Pontus besieges Tarsus, and the Parthians (who were supposed to be allies, no less) besiege Hatra, all in the same turn. First the corrupted savegame, and now this. Apparently, fate doesn’t want me to resurrect Alexander’s empire.

What I usually do is try for a (temporary) alliance with the Parthians and Pontus, then build militia phalanx units in my fronteer cities (that way when they besiege you you’ll be able to defend them for a while). These units suck, but they are cheap and you can fill your cities with them. I then build up the capital as a military center and create my field armies there. Once you get a few generals wrap a field army around them and then send them out to intercept any Egyptian incursions (until you have enough force to take the Egyptian coastal cities near you). There is also a rebel city to the north east of your starting cities that I like to take early on…you can take it with Militia Phalanx units and other scraps. You should be able to destroy any army the Egyptians (or the other two…though watch out for the Parthians heavy cav…they get it early on and its pretty nasty) put in the field even with the crappy units you get initially if you get a good mix of troops. Basically once you start taking Egyptian cities they will lose steam and go on the defensive, and once you take them out you will have enough of a base to expand into all the neighboring territories…and you’ll have all those cool units that the Seleucid’s have.

-XT

Bringing this thread back from the dead… since I’ve only now managed to play a bit of Rome !

Its fun… but I really liked the Medieval version… so I’m not totally convinced.

I’m having trouble with the units appearance… after all my Junnii are all red and have spears. Duh… in the middle of a battle I just treat my Hastati, Principies and Triari the same way. Medieval was easier to visualize things.

Roman Names are all alike ! Argghh… whenever I get a “family member this or that” message I don’t know who they are talking about.
Ships are neat… though I agree that tactical combat would be nice. Maybe a few choices before auto combat like (defensive, retreating, all out attack… probing attack. Yep I played Empire in Arms board game)
Economic **management of the cities ** suck… huge cities give me less tax than smallish and conquered ones ! Building development takes SOOO LOOONGG
**Senate Missions ** are wierd… wierd… I’ve been blockading ports all over the Mediterranean for no apparent reason :slight_smile:

Empire building is quite hard… things are quite spread out and roads and ships are VERY necessary and historically correct. I started in northern Italy… and the Gauls are pesky barbarians. Especially far from the coast.

Tactical Combat is a bit unwieldy I thought... didn't flow as it did in Medieval... but then I'm rusty. I think units get tired just marching (not running) way too fast. I have to setup my troops as forward as possible. I don't like the lack of variety of Roman troops until now... War Dogs are wierd... havent been able to use them well. Still haven't played that much yet.

Well, I’ve been playing the new Pirates game and World of Warcraft lately, but I still fire this one up occationally…and probably will be playing it for the next few years if TW: M is any indication. :slight_smile:

Actually this isn’t true…and not a good idea. Triari are spearmen…they should be in the front line. Principies are like pre-legion troops (if I’m remembering correctly)…also first line troops, but they use throwing spears and then short swords. Hastati are lighter troops who should be in the second line (or retreated when melee combat starts). They have more throwing spears so can keep up a more sustained barrage. Usually what I do is use my Triari to act as psudo-phalanx troops, holding the enemy in place. If I have Principies I use them the same way. My Hastati I use on the flanks to bombard the enemy with spears then I hit the enemy units being held by my front line troops in the rear (I use my cavalry in a similar way…at least my Roman cavalry. Elephants are a bit different :)).

There are certainly less units with TW: R than TW: M…if you are looking at the Romans at least. However, in TW: M I usually only used a few troop types anyway in my armies, so its pretty similar.

When the message comes up that you have a new family member (or someone is marrying into the family which happens more often) then click on the magnifying glass and look him over. If he has good skills in administration send him out to be a governor of one of your cities. If he’s got good combat then form an army around him and send him into the field. Its best to send them out when they are still young…I’ve notices that the older guys seem to die quicker in the field.

I think they missed the boat (so to speak :)) by not putting in a tactical aspect to the sea combat. I hope they correct this eventually…maybe in an expansion or in the next proposed game (Napolianic wars supposedly).

Ya, the economics are a bitch. Build up your trade routes, especially your sea routes. Look to conquere cities that will give you a trade advantage instead of simply a strategic advantage…like coastal cities. Build up your health infrastructure first, then trade…then military. I usually build up my capital to be my major military city…its the best place since thats also where the generals/governors start off. :slight_smile: I also found that a slower pace in taking new cities than in TW: M works best. Get your economics down, move slowly, don’t over burden your empire with a lot of excess troops. I go with garrison troops in the interior, better troops (usually archers with a few cavalry and a few regiments of Legion troops…just in case)…and a single field army used to attack new cities. In my recent games I usually just buy off attacking armies unless they are part of the royal family and unbribable.

Pick and choose your missions is my advice. Basically the senate will eventually turn on you reguardless of what you do, and this will bring you into war with all the other Roman factions. Usually doesnt’ happen to me until I have quite a few territories under my belt. But I don’t just do all the missions anymore…and I don’t go to war with the Greeks, say, if I’m playing the Julii…no point as my armies will never get there and it blocks my trade with them. As far as I’m concerned the Senate can usually go pound sand unless they are asking me to do something I want to do anyway.

BTW, blockading is very effective, especially to empires that are crunched for money.

Its a more difficult game overall than TW: M was. I find it much more challenging…and a lot more fun to boot. Tactically the enemy are a lot smarter than TW: M IMHO, and strategically its more challenging. With the Gauls I basically took over all their coastal posessions, then I kept a field army ready for when the Scipii faction would lose bases in North Africa (they always seem to leave too few garrison troops and their cities are constantly in revolt) and the islands around Italy. I also took out the Spanish coast line…my goal was to control all the islands in that part of the med. plus the entire coast line. Once I have that I push into the interrior and take out the Gauls then turn on Rome and take over Italy…and win the game. :slight_smile:

Actually, I think the tactical combat is much better in TW: R than in TW: M. I’m not sure what you mean by it doesn’t ‘flow’…I’ve found it flows much better. You can’t run your units everywhere…and even if you march them you should think ahead to give them a bit of a rest before tossing them into battle (if you can). I usually use cavalry on the attack to force the enemy to march about until I get them into a corner and then I march up just out of range with my main force, rest for a bit, then attack.

Roman troops certainly lack variety…but that was reality afaik. Would be nice if they had some cool auxilliaries like the real Romans did, but I think they’ve kept it fairly accurate. Some of the other nations actually have cooler units and better mixes…and are more enjoyable to play. I almost never play the Romans anymore. For one thing they are too over powered so its really not challenging.

Wardogs are unleashed against committed cavalry. If enemy cavalry is engaged with some of your troops bring the dogs up and attack em from the flanks or the rear. The enemy cavalry will almost always bolt in that situation (as long as they are elephants).

-XT

This annoyed me too, until I figured out what was going on.

In fact, huge cities produce far more tax income than small cities. However, they are also made to pay for the upkeep of far more troops. I believe city income is a sort of diminishing marginal returns thing, so that income doesn’t scale in a linear fashion with population. Troop upkeep fees, however, are divied up on a straight per capita basis. This often results in small cities showing large surpluses, and large cities showing large deficits, but the truth of the matter is that you’re actually pulling way more income from the big city. The manner in which city income is shown is singularly unhelpful. I really wish there were better tools for looking at your financial situation - a little spreadsheet of sorts showing city incomes with military expenses not factored in, or something.

Hoping they fix that in the proposed expansion this year. Basically I just ignore the city icons on the strategic map these days except the ones showing building or population happyness. I look at the overall funds coming in and try and just wing it from an economic perspective.

-XT

I forgot to bitch about the victory options after you win a town…

I besieged a smallish and far off Gaulish town following a Senate request… and I thought I could just basically “capture it” and raze it and leave. Surprise surprise… that 3rd option leaves you with a small and worthless city ! ggrrrr

The enslaving option also sucks a bit… or not ?

I never enslave or simply capture…I put the towns populations to the sword almost every time. The reason is…revolt. If you capture a town of folks who aren’t like yourselves, they will rise in revolt faster if you don’t slaughter them. Besides, it maximizes the money you get from taking a town. There really aren’t any downsides to slaughter…in the game at least. :slight_smile:

-XT

I’ve been playing this game pretty much exclusively since I got it…but I can really only play on the weekends, and not to much then.

Here’s a few things:

No, enslaving doesn’t suck, especially against larger towns, since the population is distributed to your towns. This can really help boost your towns up above the 2000 population limit. Below 2000 population and your cities are essentially worthless for building troops.

I have the larger cities concentrate on building one line of military buildings. One city will upgrade stables and always build the best available cavalry, one will build barracks and build the best infantry, one practice ranges and build the best archers, etc. Since you can only build one unit per turn, or every other turn for elites, it doesn’t make sense for a core city to be able to make several weak unit types, much better to be able to make only one superior unit type.

If you are having cash problems, it is probably because you have too many units. I really noticed this one time when I was playing as Carthage and netting about 3K per turn. Then I sent an uberstack into battle against the greeks, and got totally creamed…their archers owned my slingers, my iberian infantry couldn’t compete with their cheap hoplites, my general got killed by a lucky shot, my elephants went berserk, it was a complete disaster. Once the bulk of your troops rout you are finished, even if you can rally them they will be devastated. By the end I had a few slingers who were out of ammo trying to compete with small formations of surviving hoplites. Even 40 slingers can’t fight hand to hand against 6-10 hoplites, even if you hit them from behind. The hoplites chased my guys around and around the battlefield until the timeout…a crushing defeat.

Anyway, next turn I noticed I was rolling in cash, and I started paying more attention to the support costs of troops. For Carthaginian slingers, the support cost is greater than the recruitment cost! All those units add up to a huge cash drain. So my new strategy is to garrison my cities with as few troops as humanly possible, even if it means they are vulnerable to attack. So what if a crummy border town gets taken? I can always take it right back, and I won’t have wasted hundreds of denarii a turn supporting garrison troops that probably won’t be able to stand up to a determined attack anyway.

The key is destroying enemy armies in the field, then walking into his undefended cities. In my current game I really noticed this. As the Selucids, I was in a 5-way war against every one of my neighbors…greeks, egypt, parthia, pontus, and armenia. I was holding on, but just barely. But the enemy factions would throw a big stack at me, and I’d defeat it. Then they’d scrape together another stack, and I’d defeat that. THEN I’d move in and attack them. I’d find that their cities were very lightly garrisoned, because they’d raided the garrisons to make expeditionary forces. Right now all those powers are either exterminated or down to one or two provinces.

Oh, and I noticed that Tamerlane had the same experience I did as the Selucids, all neighbors attacking. I have a theory about this. I think the enemy AI has something equivalent to core provinces. If you own one of his cores he will always DOW you. I was very energetic grabbing up the various rebel-owned cities at the beginning, in the theory that I could grab them before the other powers and get a really good economy going without having to DOW anyone else. But every time I grabbed a rebel province in a power’s sphere of influence, they would attack me next turn. And no one ever wants to make peace if you have one of their cores.

Of course, in a game like this you have to have enemies or you can’t expand. It’s just that you want to wipe out one faction before you move on to your next victim. But the Selucids seem to be a very powerful faction, except against Parthia. Those militia hoplite units that take the place of town watch are really strong troops that can be used on the front lines. A cheap hoplite wall screens your archers, and your chariots, light cavalry and elephants can wheel around and slaughter units that dare to go into melee with your hoplites. That’s how Alexander the Great did it, and it works like a charm in the game.

The only faction I had real problems with were the Parthians, with their missile cavalry and heavy cavalry. True heavy cavalry is pretty rare in this game, and so is true missile cavalry. Javelin armed light cavalry is nice, but they run out of ammo very quickly and then are merely light light cavalry. The parthian missile cavalry could shower my hoplites with arrows and the hoplites couldn’t respond. Move up archers and the missile cavalry retreats out of range and the heavies show up to crush them. Try to catch the missile cavalry with your cavalry and they run around and around the map and refuse to engage. My only recourse was to slaughter the infantry and missile units and wait for the timer to run out, or hope that the missile cavalry would break or I could catch them on some terrain feature. I couldn’t compete with the missile cavalry on the field, so I had to take the cities ASAP. And in city assaults the advantages of missile cavalry are negated, since they can’t stop your troops from taking the town square and it is much easier to trap them and force them into melee. Luckily the Parthians only have a few cities at the beginning of the game and they are all within striking distance of the eastern Selucid cities, except for some godforsaken hellhole waaaay up north in Scythia. I’ve built a one-boat Caspian fleet and have loaded it up with a few troops, they should be enough to wipe out the last one.

One more thing. You don’t have to disband cut up units if you can’t repair them, you can just combine them. Drag and drop one unit card onto another. This is a great way to preserve veteran troops by combining two weak veteran units rather than repairing them. This also makes repairing a battered uberstack much easier…you can bring slighty damaged units up to full strength by combining, then you only have a few heavily damaged units to repair.

Oh, and the Selucid retinue type of “Priest of Asklepios” totally rocks, and you can combine them with Chirugeons. A general with both can recover huge numbers of “dead” troops after a battle. I’ve had units heal back 30 soldiers.

Another thing. Elephants are cool, but never ever ever autoresolve a battle where you have elephants, even if you’re just attacking a few peasants. The elephants invariably get massacred. Always. I don’t know why, my elephants usually do fine when I control them. And never ask your elephants to go through a gate in a city with stone walls. You’ll lose most of them to boiling oil. Infantry and cavalry take a light hit from the oil, but you’ll lose half or more of your elephants. And since elephants are usually a bitch to repair (captured cities usually don’t have an elephant resource), you’ll have to ship them back to africa to repair them…better off just leaving them outside even if it means not having overwhelming force.