Rome 2 ,, 70turns in, and Rome cant expand due to Massillia

[RadRipRepRepublicRebelTrooper]

Massillia keeps taking velathria and ariminum,, Its been back n forth taking these 2 settlements for 70 turns.. Anyone have the same experience/?.. How powerful has your rome become?

[Myrmidon]

Escrito originalmente por RadRipRepRepublicRebelTrooper:

Escrito originalmente por Myrmidon:

VH/Hard on Campaign/Battle always been hesitant about legendary because it's not noticably harder but the save restrictions means bugs can ♥♥♥♥ an entire campaign which is just really unfair.

Oh goodie so im playing hard/hard now,,, ill have to try vh/h to see if theres any difference.. Hows the politics, is it manageable?.. I know i wont play on legendary,, but can you save manually?

The thing with total war is the AI intelligence is the same from easy to legendary the only differences are levels of aggression whilst applying handicaps to the player and buffs to the AI with regards to battle stats and ecconomy. It's all very artificial and really strictly speaking total war doesn't even have AI but 'regurgitating script box' doesn't have the same ring to it.

On VH the AI gets huge ecconomy buffs. VH battle is a bit ridiculous because you'll get things like peasant spearmen kicking the ♥♥♥♥ out of triarii one-on-one which is just immersion breaking in it's level of sillyness. Hard they get buffs but it's not extreme and it balances out the fact humans can out strategise AI on the battlefield etc.

[ubermensch]

Escrito originalmente por Migz - DH:

If your expectation is that Rome and/or Carthage will be superpowers every game, you should know that that's not going to happen for balance reasons.

Superpowers? Hell Id be content if they remain decent regional powers. But half of the time they don't because either they get swarmed by barbarians or the AI is just too poor to manage the country properly. Carthage gets extra shafted considering how its campaign starting position is. I wish it had more direct control and access to territory in Africa as opposed to having so many useless client states. That often just drag more into conflicts as opposed to alleviate them.

[Elliott]

Escrito originalmente por Myrmidon:

Escrito originalmente por Elliott:

Rome has never amounted to anything in my Grand Campaigns I even remember Rome being ruled by some African tribe at one point, heck sometimes the etruscans beat them.

The AI can't really play Rome properly because Rome is strong on the defensive and has so many nuances to their strategies. The number 1 rule for pretty much every barbarian faction that ever faced Rome was "don't let them get into formation". AI can't use testudo properly, they can't form squares or cohesive shield lines. It doesn't matter if it's Roman heavy infantry legionaries, levy spearmen or hellenic pikemen, the AI will use them all the same way.

It might be something to do with how their units stack up in auto resolve, since all AI v AI battles are settled in this way and can lead to vastly different outcomes from manual battles.

I think also Romes starting position is difficult for the AI as theres mutiple threats at the start with carthage likely to declare war in the first 5 turns and Veneti to the north. So when Carthage attacks the Rome AI will dash over to counter even if it was just one move away from killing the Etrsucan League thereby letting the Etruscans build up again.

And thats how it goes for Rome dashing up and down Italy failing to make complete kills while the other factions nibble off their settlements one by one.

The most succesful AIs seem to be ones that have a fairly streightforward path of expansion or a backed up into a corner meaning they have less threats.

[Alwyn]

I know that the conversation has moved on from the question 'how powerful has your Rome become?', but for what it's worth, in my Carthage campaign, Rome controls southern and central Italy, Corsica and Sardinia, plus Lilybaeum in Sicily.

Elliott's analysis of the problems facing AI Rome sounds good to me. As I see it, the expansion I'm seeing isn't too bad for Rome in the 3rd century BC. Historically, as I understand it, Massilia allied with Rome and remained independent until 49 BC. This means that the city of Massilia fell to Rome on turn 223 (if my quick calculation is right) - that's quite late in the Grand Campaign.

I guess when we think of Rome we think of actual history and the idea that Rome was 'destined to rule the world'. But was the rise of Rome actually inevitable, or could early Rome have been sacked again (as it was in 390 BC)? People playing the Rise of the Republic seem to often say that they're surprised that Rome isn't doing better. Maybe Rome's ascent was due partly to luck as well as good strategy and management?

Perhaps (as others have suggested, for game balance reasons) the 3rd century BC start of the Grand Campaign was intended to create a situation in which different historical outcomes can happen? From the viewpoint of the early 3rd century BC, Rome might rule the known world (especially after the Marian reforms, which historically happened in 107 BC (turn 165, unless I'm mistaken) but so might another powerful faction - maybe the Seleucids, the Egyptians or the Arverni?

Of course, that doesn't mean that it would be bad thing to improve the AI (to help Rome expand), or to use a mod which makes Roman expansion more likely. I see the attraction of Rome becoming an empire and providing a late-game challenge for a player using any other faction.

[RadRipRepRepublicRebelTrooper]

Escrito originalmente por Myrmidon:

Escrito originalmente por RadRipRepRepublicRebelTrooper:

Oh goodie so im playing hard/hard now,,, ill have to try vh/h to see if theres any difference.. Hows the politics, is it manageable?.. I know i wont play on legendary,, but can you save manually?

The thing with total war is the AI intelligence is the same from easy to legendary the only differences are levels of aggression whilst applying handicaps to the player and buffs to the AI with regards to battle stats and ecconomy. It's all very artificial and really strictly speaking total war doesn't even have AI but 'regurgitating script box' doesn't have the same ring to it.

On VH the AI gets huge ecconomy buffs. VH battle is a bit ridiculous because you'll get things like peasant spearmen kicking the ♥♥♥♥ out of triarii one-on-one which is just immersion breaking in it's level of sillyness. Hard they get buffs but it's not extreme and it balances out the fact humans can out strategise AI on the battlefield etc.

It all sounds so dissappointing, but it seems total war will be following a paradox strategy now.. where they can keep adding improvements hopefully with dlc.. I know paradox is a dlc cash ♥♥♥♥♥..btu still im willing to pay if it improves gameplay mechanics..

What i am noticing with this carthage campaign is Gaetulli and Pergamon have expanded better than Rome at my dismay. I have never seen Gaetulli hold 6 regions before...and Pergamon from what i can see has 10 regions...

Escrito originalmente por Elliott:

Escrito originalmente por Myrmidon:

The AI can't really play Rome properly because Rome is strong on the defensive and has so many nuances to their strategies. The number 1 rule for pretty much every barbarian faction that ever faced Rome was "don't let them get into formation". AI can't use testudo properly, they can't form squares or cohesive shield lines. It doesn't matter if it's Roman heavy infantry legionaries, levy spearmen or hellenic pikemen, the AI will use them all the same way.

It might be something to do with how their units stack up in auto resolve, since all AI v AI battles are settled in this way and can lead to vastly different outcomes from manual battles.

I think also Romes starting position is difficult for the AI as theres mutiple threats at the start with carthage likely to declare war in the first 5 turns and Veneti to the north. So when Carthage attacks the Rome AI will dash over to counter even if it was just one move away from killing the Etrsucan League thereby letting the Etruscans build up again.

And thats how it goes for Rome dashing up and down Italy failing to make complete kills while the other factions nibble off their settlements one by one.

The most succesful AIs seem to be ones that have a fairly streightforward path of expansion or a backed up into a corner meaning they have less threats.

This might be one of the reasons why Gaetulli and Pergamon have expanded so well. They have their backs to the sea,, or are in the corner of the map..They have one way to expand. With his Carthgae campaign, Rome did declare war on me on the 4th turn and Masillia wants to be friends.. But now 90 turns in,, Rome has made peace with me and wants to trade.. but by this point i have the whole of north Africa and spain,, taking it slow and building up economy, as the loyalty in politics is expensive..

Escrito originalmente por Alwyn:

I know that the conversation has moved on from the question 'how powerful has your Rome become?', but for what it's worth, in my Carthage campaign, Rome controls southern and central Italy, Corsica and Sardinia, plus Lilybaeum in Sicily.

Elliott's analysis of the problems facing AI Rome sounds good to me. As I see it, the expansion I'm seeing isn't too bad for Rome in the 3rd century BC. Historically, as I understand it, Massilia allied with Rome and remained independent until 49 BC. This means that the city of Massilia fell to Rome on turn 223 (if my quick calculation is right) - that's quite late in the Grand Campaign.

I guess when we think of Rome we think of actual history and the idea that Rome was 'destined to rule the world'. But was the rise of Rome actually inevitable, or could early Rome have been sacked again (as it was in 390 BC)? People playing the Rise of the Republic seem to often say that they're surprised that Rome isn't doing better. Maybe Rome's ascent was due partly to luck as well as good strategy and management?

Perhaps (as others have suggested, for game balance reasons) the 3rd century BC start of the Grand Campaign was intended to create a situation in which different historical outcomes can happen? From the viewpoint of the early 3rd century BC, Rome might rule the known world (especially after the Marian reforms, which historically happened in 107 BC (turn 165, unless I'm mistaken) but so might another powerful faction - maybe the Seleucids, the Egyptians or the Arverni?

Of course, that doesn't mean that it would be bad thing to improve the AI (to help Rome expand), or to use a mod which makes Roman expansion more likely. I see the attraction of Rome becoming an empire and providing a late-game challenge for a player using any other faction.

What difficulty are you playing on to have a strong Rome... Did Massalia befriend you early on, or did Rome declare war too early on you?.. I feel Rome didnt declare war on you to later..This is something new,, i like how you calculated the year and turns... So ill continue on past turn 200, and see what happens?..