rome doesn't feel 'Roman'

[unmerged(56754)]

To me, it just doesn't. Sure, I've only played the demo a couple of times, it seems like an okay game (But is plagued by many features, it seems the worst aspects of EUIII have been forced in just for annoyance) but I just don't understand how this matches the time period.

My knowledge on Rome is limited to some primary school, books and RTW , but this, similar to EUIII doesn't simulate the time period well.

Firstly, i always though Rome was build by it's army, even in the days of Republic, I'm sure rome fielded one of the best armies in the world. In EUIII they offer no advantages or disadvantages when fighting a Greek Phalanx or Barbarian horde. They just have a set value as heavy infantry, and this can only be altered by adding in some archers ...... now thats a poor way of simulating Roman military tactics. Build an exact unit with a different name, but put them with 1,000 archers to beat the enemy.

I'm sat round waiting for Barbarians to attack me before I can start colonising. Instead of expanding my borders, I have to wait until they deciede there going to come, before I can colonise. It seems way to EUIII but someones got rid of New world and Im colonising Europe.

Why get rid of vassels as peace settlements? I want to force this place to become a client kingdom, this happened historically all the time, why not include it?

Fighting total wars in EUIII was a pain, why do my Roman's have to be on every Island fighting every enemy at once?

Can anyone explain to me the AVC date thing? I can't work it out.

It seems nations didn't go for peace back then, it was eitehr a white peace or I have to give up 375 gold becuase I'm winning.

What is wrong with the map? Why have such a small area? Why include on the minimap Russia or East Europe when it's all permanent terra incognita?

Thw whole retreating into enemy provinces is way to long to explain.

Next time when I want to play a Rome game, I'm going back to RTW. Building the empire isn't, sit around and wait to be attacked.

But what I lvoe most is how wars are presented, in EU;Rome, having 2,000 Romans versus 2,000 Barbarians makes no difference, its up to a random dice roll. In RTW, its about using tactics, 2,000 principles will probally easily deal with this warband, they should attack with large numebrs.

Also, what I like most of RTW to EU:Rome, is when I beat an enemy, they don't walk past me into my heartland, they're forced back, and can only be reinforced in their own towns/provinces. Not wander past my victorious apperently sleeping army, followed next month by 2,000 reinforcements simply walking past.

 

[King]

To me, it just doesn't. Sure, I've only played the demo a couple of times, it seems like an okay game (But is plagued by many features, it seems the worst aspects of EUIII have been forced in just for annoyance) but I just don't understand how this matches the time period.

My knowledge on Rome is limited to some primary school, books and RTW , but this, similar to EUIII doesn't simulate the time period well.

Firstly, i always though Rome was build by it's army, even in the days of Republic, I'm sure rome fielded one of the best armies in the world. In EUIII they offer no advantages or disadvantages when fighting a Greek Phalanx or Barbarian horde. They just have a set value as heavy infantry, and this can only be altered by adding in some archers ...... now thats a poor way of simulating Roman military tactics. Build an exact unit with a different name, but put them with 1,000 archers to beat the enemy.

I'm sat round waiting for Barbarians to attack me before I can start colonising. Instead of expanding my borders, I have to wait until they deciede there going to come, before I can colonise. It seems way to EUIII but someones got rid of New world and Im colonising Europe.

Why get rid of vassels as peace settlements? I want to force this place to become a client kingdom, this happened historically all the time, why not include it?

Fighting total wars in EUIII was a pain, why do my Roman's have to be on every Island fighting every enemy at once?

Can anyone explain to me the AVC date thing? I can't work it out.

It seems nations didn't go for peace back then, it was eitehr a white peace or I have to give up 375 gold becuase I'm winning.

What is wrong with the map? Why have such a small area? Why include on the minimap Russia or East Europe when it's all permanent terra incognita?

Thw whole retreating into enemy provinces is way to long to explain.

Next time when I want to play a Rome game, I'm going back to RTW. Building the empire isn't, sit around and wait to be attacked.

But what I lvoe most is how wars are presented, in EU;Rome, having 2,000 Romans versus 2,000 Barbarians makes no difference, its up to a random dice roll. In RTW, its about using tactics, 2,000 principles will probally easily deal with this warband, they should attack with large numebrs.

Also, what I like most of RTW to EU:Rome, is when I beat an enemy, they don't walk past me into my heartland, they're forced back, and can only be reinforced in their own towns/provinces. Not wander past my victorious apperently sleeping army, followed next month by 2,000 reinforcements simply walking past.

Well I think you have probably already made up you mind. But just for your information AVC (or AUC) stands for Ab urbe condita and it is measure of time from the founding of Rome. Also if you march armies in barabarian provinces they are more likely to rise up and attack them.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

Well I think you have probably already made up you mind. But just for your information AVC (or AUC) stands for Ab urbe condita and it is measure of time from the founding of Rome. Also if you march armies in barabarian provinces they are more likely to rise up and attack them.

Ah, I also must apologise, I do think its a good game an allows players to have a great go at playing a great game. I just don't understand some issues. I hope they get resolved and Ill pick up a copy in minutes.

edit: also, how would I work out the time in comparison to BC or AD?

 

[delra]

I don't get what you're saying. In RTW AI was too stupid to retrain its units. They actually never were reinforced.

This game is far more Roman than any of the TW games. Maybe less Roman than RTW:EB mod (http://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_romani_units.html) but well, EB guys are already working on porting their stuff into EU:R and many say it's far easier and shorter ride than modding RTW.

But even vanilla, the way it is in demo, would be my favourite game of 2008. Not mentioning that many features (pirates, weather?) are missing in the demo breaking the gameplay a bit.

 

[Kubelwagen]

Ah, I also must apologise, I do think its a good game an allows players to have a great go at playing a great game. I just don't understand some issues. I hope they get resolved and Ill pick up a copy in minutes.

edit: also, how would I work out the time in comparison to BC or AD?

AVC (auc) refers to the founding of Rome, in 753 BC. So if its 533 AUC, it's 220 BC.

 

[unmerged(96377)]

Many things still need to be changed: supply system, diplomacy, combat, ...........................!!! I already increased the rate of battle loses, and it proved to be much realistic, but it still needs improved AI behavior.

 

[Van Diemen]

Not mentioning that many features (pirates, weather?) are missing in the demo breaking the gameplay a bit.

I have the impression that the demo is already the full version of the game, just with some handicaps. Like having only 30 years to play, only being able to play with Rome and Carthage etc.

 

[Manziel]

Firstly, i always though Rome was build by it's army, even in the days of Republic, I'm sure rome fielded one of the best armies in the world. In EUIII they offer no advantages or disadvantages when fighting a Greek Phalanx or Barbarian horde.

this also annoys me. i have 2 legions (=20 cohorts) standing in bononia that are attacked by ~19 000 barbarians. and guess who loses?
this cant be serious, i am sure, the romans would have never lost a defensive battle against an enemy equal in numbers when they can chose the battlefield

 

[delra]

this also annoys me. i have 2 legions (=20 cohorts) standing in bononia that are attacked by ~19 000 barbarians. and guess who loses?
this cant be serious, i am sure, the romans would have never lost a defensive battle against an enemy equal in numbers when they can chose the battlefield

Your leader must be really weak...

 

[stuie]

this also annoys me. i have 2 legions (=20 cohorts) standing in bononia that are attacked by ~19 000 barbarians. and guess who loses?
this cant be serious, i am sure, the romans would have never lost a defensive battle against an enemy equal in numbers when they can chose the battlefield

That's not good. That tempers my enthusiasm for this game.

 

[Tai-Pan]

I have the impression that the demo is already the full version of the game, just with some handicaps. Like having only 30 years to play, only being able to play with Rome and Carthage etc.

I think most of those hopes are pinned on the fact that the demo was only 310(?)mb where as the full game is either 600 or 800 mb. I can't be bothered to find the actual quote, but Johan did say one of those.

Although yes I get the same impression you get.

 

[unmerged(95074)]

I'm not sure why one should take your opinion seriously when you say "Rome doesn't feel Roman" when your knowledge limits itself to primary school (no offense intended). I just want to say, if anything, Rome's army in the days of the republic wasn't exactly much to look at. It was a farmer militia army, and it lost a lot more battles than it won. One would need to stop thinking Rome fielded ultimate, disciplined, heaviest-of-the-heavy infantry unstoppable armies in those times, as it is obviously a hollywood point of view.

If you're wondering how Rome was built if not for its army, I'm not sure if I'm the one to answer that question. If you're interested I urge you to make researches by all means. I can say quickly though, with no expertise by all means, that Rome was probably built through its political system and life-and-death attitude toward warfare.

I guess you can keep playing RTW all said and done, but I do hope you have that Europa Barbarorum mod installed or otherwise that game is just horrible.

 

[delra]

You know, those 500MB that is a difference between the demo and the full game has to contain a lot of goodies... God knows what features we've still haven't heard of.

What I was saying was that even if there's no difference between the demo and the full game feature-wise, it's still an excellent game.

So show some patience, it's only a week of waiting left. You can play and judge after that.

 

[Van Diemen]

I think most of those hopes are pinned on the fact that the demo was only 310(?)mb where as the full game is either 600 or 800 mb. I can't be bothered to find the actual quote, but Johan did say one of those.

Strange. I thought that the EUIII demo wasn't very much smaller than the full game and the demo did have all the features of the full game except for some handicaps.

 

[JaJeNiektoIny]

I think most of those hopes are pinned on the fact that the demo was only 310(?)mb where as the full game is either 600 or 800 mb. I can't be bothered to find the actual quote, but Johan did say one of those.

Although yes I get the same impression you get.

After you install the demo, it takes about 800MB.

 

[crazy canuck]

As to the OP, I think most of the problem is that you dont understand the game mechanics very well.

To colonize you must move you troops into the area to weaken the barbarian presence there - just like the Romans did

Client kingdoms are in the game. They are the ones that pay Tribute to you -just like the Romans did....

The battle mechanics have been addressed in other threads so I wont repeat them here other than to say that Paradox has already stated that they are working on them - hopefully for the next patch.

Lastly, this game is so much more strategically then any Total War game. Total war is a pretty weak strategy game used as an excuse to get to the tactical level of the battles. Paradox games are strategy games that have the tactical level abstracted.

My dream game would be a strategic game built to the level of a paradox game with tactical level battles. But for now if I want to play a strategic game I play Paradox games.

 

[unmerged(63589)]

As previously posted, blame Hollywood.

The early Republican Rome fielded an army just like any other city state: a milita of farmers gathered for seasonal warfare before returning to harvest. In the early days (ca. 500-200 BC) the Roman army consisted of a legion raised each year for campaigns that rarely lasted longer than one season. Image of the hardcore crack trooper of a legionary is still far in the future.

Even the Cohort-system wasn't in place yet, but the legion was formed in maniples of hastati, principes and triarii by experience and each soldier buying his own equipment. Further, leading the army was a task appointed to the consuls, not generals of high experience but politicans with varying military experience and skill. Don't take much imagination to relize that the campaign history of early Rome was far from perfect and whole armies were lost in the hands of incompetent Roman leaders.

The history of the professional soldiers begins from the Marian reforms as late as 107 BC, when Gaius Marius reformed the army into legionary one. Only after the reforms could the poorer class be recruited into the army which previously was restricted to those wealthy enough to supply their own equipment. Marius arranged unified arms and standardized training for all legionaries who now were recruited as professional soldiers, instead of seasonal volunteers. After the reforms, for the first time in it's history did Rome have a year-out standing professional army with Cohorts and legionaires.

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Client kingdoms are in the game. They are the ones that pay Tribute to you -just like the Romans did....

I fear the other kind of client-state won't be in the game: namely the one where Rome provides luxury goods and other wares in return for military assistance along the frontier.
Which is basically the way Rome secured (in three or four different fases iirc) a large part of the Germanian border in the first century (if not later) after the plan of Augustus failed.

 

[SirGrotius]

I fear the other kind of client-state won't be in the game: namely the one where Rome provides luxury goods and other wares in return for military assistance along the frontier.
Which is basically the way Rome secured (in three or four different fases iirc) a large part of the Germanian border in the first century (if not later) after the plan of Augustus failed.

My understanding is that this would be outside the current scope of the game (time frame). You are able to "negotiate" with barbarian hordes, but why would a true Roman sink that low!

 

[The_Carbonater]

Early game I would say that the selucids (spelling error?) or Greeks/Macedonians had better troops