Some military advice.

[Jarlhen]

This isn't the first time I play this game. I bought it when it first came out since I was ridicolously pysched over a Europa Universalis but ROME! I tossed it away shortly after a few hours since I realized what a shallow and wasted opportunity this game was. But recently I came across my old copy again and started playing. For a couple of days now I've quite enjoyed myself. I've sort of come to terms with the lack of depth and that it's a light version of a strategy game, meant for those that don't want the hassle of individual troops but still want to be able to conquer the world in a few hours. But the other day I encountered one of the big reasons to why I put this game to the side the first time, and I can't really come to terms with this so I thought I'd ask here for some advice.

See, it seems as if your success in battle has to do with one thing and one thing only. Your commander. If your commander has 1 more in martial than the enemy, you will win. Troop composition, amount of men, terrain, does not generally matter. Naturally there's exceptions to every rule but generally speaking. Is it supposed to be like that? Am I supposed to lose to 5k barbarians with my 40k army because their commander has 1 or 2 more in martial than mine? Am I supposed to get my hiney kicked every time some 1k army of Carthage lingers on with their super 9 martial commander, losing 10-50 men for every thousand I lose? Is that reasonable? I'm perfectly aware that those sort of things happen in war, they do and always have. But I don't think they happened 8 times out of 10. Is this the way the game is designed? Is there any way around this or any way to at least even things out a little? It's hardly my fault that I don't produce commanders with level 7 or higher for every army I have. Clearly the computer does, whether it's as barbarians or a civilized nations.

If I'm given 2 or 3 commanders with 8+ martial this game is over in a couple of days. Help me out here and give me some advice. It's not that I mind getting beaten, I get beaten in EU 3 constantly and it's part of the fun. Always winning isn't fun. But when 1 little point in a skill which you have no control over decides everything, it sort of sucks the fun out it.

 

[unmerged(152202)]

This isn't the first time I play this game. I bought it when it first came out since I was ridicolously pysched over a Europa Universalis but ROME! I tossed it away shortly after a few hours since I realized what a shallow and wasted opportunity this game was. But recently I came across my old copy again and started playing. For a couple of days now I've quite enjoyed myself. I've sort of come to terms with the lack of depth and that it's a light version of a strategy game, meant for those that don't want the hassle of individual troops but still want to be able to conquer the world in a few hours. But the other day I encountered one of the big reasons to why I put this game to the side the first time, and I can't really come to terms with this so I thought I'd ask here for some advice.

See, it seems as if your success in battle has to do with one thing and one thing only. Your commander. If your commander has 1 more in martial than the enemy, you will win. Troop composition, amount of men, terrain, does not generally matter. Naturally there's exceptions to every rule but generally speaking. Is it supposed to be like that? Am I supposed to lose to 5k barbarians with my 40k army because their commander has 1 or 2 more in martial than mine? Am I supposed to get my hiney kicked every time some 1k army of Carthage lingers on with their super 9 martial commander, losing 10-50 men for every thousand I lose? Is that reasonable? I'm perfectly aware that those sort of things happen in war, they do and always have. But I don't think they happened 8 times out of 10. Is this the way the game is designed? Is there any way around this or any way to at least even things out a little? It's hardly my fault that I don't produce commanders with level 7 or higher for every army I have. Clearly the computer does, whether it's as barbarians or a civilized nations.

If I'm given 2 or 3 commanders with 8+ martial this game is over in a couple of days. Help me out here and give me some advice. It's not that I mind getting beaten, I get beaten in EU 3 constantly and it's part of the fun. Always winning isn't fun. But when 1 little point in a skill which you have no control over decides everything, it sort of sucks the fun out it.

you have not played the game enough to make assumptions like this, if you are not using Vae Victis.. you need to be. just rome alone is not very good, I highly suggest and everyone else will agree with me. get the expansion pack.

there are many percentages you need to look at in combat, morale being one of them. before attacking again, or defending. wait a month or two for your morale to rise, it doesn't matter the size of the army. if you have no morale you will lose. use rivers and defense bonus to your advantage. having a strong general is important, but not necessary.

it is also usually good to split your armies up, since you have a 40k army. make it two 20k armies. i'm guessing your playing as rome, right?

 

[Jarlhen]

I know all those things, and I take all those things into account but it seems to make no difference. This isn't the first time I play. I've not played one or two fights here. Granted it's not a few hundred thousand, but we're up to few hundred and the results are always the same despite morale, terrain, manpower, tech. 1 point martial wins the fight.

 

[wolffrnd]

First, definitely get Vae Victis. This improves the game by a huge amount.

Second, you will eventually find that Morale is one of the most important aspects of Land Combat, and for winning battles against better generals. Also, defense is important too. Defending in certain provinces will give your opponent penalties that can overcome how good their general is.