I feel like Stilicho had an easier time in real life

[HN12]

I love this game, but Jesus ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Christ, the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ WRE is impossible. I mean, right now, about 50 turns in, I still have most of Italy, all of Iberia, and about half of Gaul, but that's not going to last. The Byzantines are a bunch of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ who broke our alliance for no reason, even though I actually sent an army to save Constantinople from the Visigoths. 5th-century Scotland apparently has a population of several million with more money than both Romes combined, since the Picts can field about eight or nine full stack armies, the Geats are even stronger than the Picts, the Ebdanians are somewhere in between the Picts and the Geats. The common peasant rebels are often better equipped than the Roman legions, the Roman separatists are fielding several full stack armies with better soldiers than my own, demolishing all of my cities and armies. Stilicho right now is level 7, having destroyed dozens of full stack armies, yet even after suffering a major, decisive defeat, no one EVER accepts peace unless you give them 19,000 gold, and then two or three turns later they attack you anyway. I gave the Saxons Burdigala, and they didn't give a ♥♥♥♥, they still don't like me (not even willing to accept a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ trade agreement) because of my "great power". In truth, if the Saxons were to attack me, I'd be dead immediately, so I don't understand what they're worried about.

Mediolanum was taken briefly by separatists, Rome was recently sacked by the Ostrogoths, Ravenna has been obliterated by the Visigoths (despite long-standing peace between us), my allies in Africa are only good to deal with rebellions, and despite many decisive victories, the hordes never ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stop. I can't take any settlements without fighting a long, drawn-out battle because the autoresolve is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ terrible and the AI can magically spawn full garrisons like two or three turns after taking a region (and were the Picts garrisoning towns with over 1,000 men?), and last but not least: the Huns. The Huns have not left me alone since probably turn 20. They aren't doing much except constantly raiding, which is causing famines every turn unless it's autumn. I feel like if Flavius Stilicho was alive now and playing Attila, he would probably have a harder time holding the West together than he did in real life. I did play one time with a mod that breaks the Romans up into several vassal states, but they made it incredibly easy, and so I was able to destroy all of the migrating tribes within the first few years. Now these poorly equipped levies from Scotland and Sweden are destroying everything in their path, and there is no such thing as a "decisive" victory, since immediately after obliterating one army, the AI has about three more ready to attack you. Again, Stilicho and later Aetius I think had it easier when all that ♥♥♥♥ was actually happening. At least the Goths actually helped the Romans against the Huns, instead of just saying "No, ♥♥♥♥ that, I can take 'em all on", and what's worse than that is they actually ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ can.

Anyway, Stilicho, if you're reading this, do NOT bother going to fight the Goths in Greece, because the Byzantines are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ useless and about 6,500,000 Scots are preparing to invade Gaul.

[Greq7]

Have you tried this mod?:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1423731243&searchtext=autoresolve

All these issues I have been trying to repair. If you ever have time to check on my mods, visit my workshop and I'm sure you could find something.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1425665954 is another mod of mine that makes celts and nordic factions a litlle bit weaker on the campaign. Let me know what you think if you decide to try any of my mods.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1418153519 for example will change starting attidutes towards Rome. Some of the Barbarians will admire Rome for the first few years and this will definitely help with initial progress of WRE especially.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1406772785 is selfexplanatory.

To keep Romans longer on the map you might need "Roman Civilisation" mod or one of submods for ERE or WRE depends what you want from the game
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1507931643

[Raider Deci]

He sure did. He did not have to contend with scandinavians sailing over and the brits going everywhere.


But it is far from impossible. That idiot of a ruler needs to go fast just to reduce the risk of dealing with separatists. You have to make the most of every crappy unit you got, spam spears & go with merc-cavs when you need them.
In the beginning you need to predict some of the opening moves of the AI and be selectivly aggressive. Delete everything unecessary in your provinces that isnt food or happiness. Some factions can be taken out during the first turns and raze their cities and create precious buffer-regions.

Yep the eastern romans isnt gonna do ♥♥♥♥. At best they will be alive until the sassanids come knocking and theres that.

The AI and especially the romans are getting obliterated by auto resolve. Constant 2vs1 situations since they cannot seem to plan ahead very well.

[HN12]

I did create a few buffer zones (sort of) by subjugating the rebel factions (I got Gaul, Italia, and Septimania), but Gaul was overwhelmed by the Langobards, and I couldn't help because the Huns were invading Italy, the Italia faction was destroyed by rebels, and Septimania is useless. At first, things were actually going pretty well: I beat back the Quadians and Iazyges, the Saxons were driven out of Germany and then settled in Aquitaine where they're at the very least neutral towards me. The Goths were mostly leaving me alone, and I had a non-aggression pact with the Vandals. Then, Greece was overrun by the Visigoths, and I decided to help (I know that it doesn't really make a difference in-game, but I still wanted to help my fellow Romans). Turns out this was the fatal error, since a civil war broke out and the separatists ended up becoming insanely powerful. Not long after that civil war started, two full stacks of Geats invaded Britain and the Langobards started storming into Gaul. From there, everything's just gone to hell (not to mention that the damn climate change makes it difficult to campaign in Gaul during the winter). They keep making a big deal about how Attila is now born and before long he'll be rampaging through my lands, but hell, he's still like 20 years off, so who cares? The ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Swedes are a bigger problem than Attila.

[Mile pro Libertate]

As crazy as the WRE situation may seem in game, it is actually pretty historical.

Originally posted by Deci:

He sure did. He did not have to contend with scandinavians sailing over and the brits going everywhere.

Historically there were Britons going far and wide as the WRE continued its death throws. The Scoti raided all around the west, south and southeast coast of Britain, to the Netherlands, and large numbers of Britons were given land in Gaul in return for stopping their insurrections or supporting rival emperors, hence modern Brittany, France.

The Saxons and others penetrated deep into Britain and raided down the coast of Gaul into Aquitaine. By a combo of Pictish, Scotic and Germanic invasions, Britain itself was officially a write off by 410 AD, if not earlier in fact.

Originally posted by Deci:

But it is far from impossible. That idiot of a ruler needs to go fast just to reduce the risk of dealing with separatists.

Also historical. Bagaudae were rampant throughout the WRE, and many areas were what we would now call "no go zones." When Aetius comes on the scene, he has ask for safe passage and beg for troops from the successor states de facto ruling "Roman" Gaul to go fight Attila. The situation had been chaotic in Gaul for a while though, long before Aetius.

Originally posted by Deci:

You have to make the most of every crappy unit you got, spam spears & go with merc-cavs when you need them.

Spear armed troops had become mainstays again for the Late Roman Army.

Some of the most effective professional troops were buccelarii, who were mounted and essentially "merc cav" (although they also were fully able to fight on foot as well).

Originally posted by Deci:

Yep the eastern romans isnt gonna do ♥♥♥♥. At best they will be alive until the sassanids come knocking and theres that.

The ERE historically didn't do anything to assist the West at the time of the game either. In fact, the game is somewhat less chaotic in this respect, because at least in game ERE is your ally: in actual history, Arcadius and Honorius went to war with each other in 395 basically as soon as their dad died :)

[steev_z]

WRE is really easy if you know what to do (even on legendary)

[Ultrabot]

Originally posted by Deci:

But it is far from impossible. That idiot of a ruler needs to go fast just to reduce the risk of dealing with separatists. You have to make the most of every crappy unit you got, spam spears & go with merc-cavs when you need them.
.

Yes.

I can't remember if it's a random trait he gets, but he will always have bad traits, and in my playthrough he had one that caused negative public order in every province! Get rid of him as soon as you can, get Stilicho in.

[HN12]

Originally posted by Mile pro Libertate:

As crazy as the WRE situation may seem in game, it is actually pretty historical.

Originally posted by Deci:

He sure did. He did not have to contend with scandinavians sailing over and the brits going everywhere.

Historically there were Britons going far and wide as the WRE continued its death throws. The Scoti raided all around the west, south and southeast coast of Britain, to the Netherlands, and large numbers of Britons were given land in Gaul in return for stopping their insurrections or supporting rival emperors, hence modern Brittany, France.

The Saxons and others penetrated deep into Britain and raided down the coast of Gaul into Aquitaine. By a combo of Pictish, Scotic and Germanic invasions, Britain itself was officially a write off by 410 AD, if not earlier in fact.

Originally posted by Deci:

But it is far from impossible. That idiot of a ruler needs to go fast just to reduce the risk of dealing with separatists.

Also historical. Bagaudae were rampant throughout the WRE, and many areas were what we would now call "no go zones." When Aetius comes on the scene, he has ask for safe passage and beg for troops from the successor states de facto ruling "Roman" Gaul to go fight Attila. The situation had been chaotic in Gaul for a while though, long before Aetius.

Originally posted by Deci:

You have to make the most of every crappy unit you got, spam spears & go with merc-cavs when you need them.

Spear armed troops had become mainstays again for the Late Roman Army.

Some of the most effective professional troops were buccelarii, who were mounted and essentially "merc cav" (although they also were fully able to fight on foot as well).

Originally posted by Deci:

Yep the eastern romans isnt gonna do ♥♥♥♥. At best they will be alive until the sassanids come knocking and theres that.

The ERE historically didn't do anything to assist the West at the time of the game either. In fact, the game is somewhat less chaotic in this respect, because at least in game ERE is your ally: in actual history, Arcadius and Honorius went to war with each other in 395 basically as soon as their dad died :)

Yes, but the Celts and Scandinavians didn't have high populations, and while they might have raided around in Gaul, they certainly weren't sending waves of huge armies to establish kingdoms there. Even by Attila's invasion, the Romans did still hold most of Gaul, and those who had settled there were mostly Germans, like the Visigoths. I just wish the focus of the invasions was less on the damn Celts and Scandinavians and more on the Goths, since they were the actual successors to Rome.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by jhspencer:

Originally posted by Mile pro Libertate:

As crazy as the WRE situation may seem in game, it is actually pretty historical.



Historically there were Britons going far and wide as the WRE continued its death throws. The Scoti raided all around the west, south and southeast coast of Britain, to the Netherlands, and large numbers of Britons were given land in Gaul in return for stopping their insurrections or supporting rival emperors, hence modern Brittany, France.

The Saxons and others penetrated deep into Britain and raided down the coast of Gaul into Aquitaine. By a combo of Pictish, Scotic and Germanic invasions, Britain itself was officially a write off by 410 AD, if not earlier in fact.



Also historical. Bagaudae were rampant throughout the WRE, and many areas were what we would now call "no go zones." When Aetius comes on the scene, he has ask for safe passage and beg for troops from the successor states de facto ruling "Roman" Gaul to go fight Attila. The situation had been chaotic in Gaul for a while though, long before Aetius.



Spear armed troops had become mainstays again for the Late Roman Army.

Some of the most effective professional troops were buccelarii, who were mounted and essentially "merc cav" (although they also were fully able to fight on foot as well).




The ERE historically didn't do anything to assist the West at the time of the game either. In fact, the game is somewhat less chaotic in this respect, because at least in game ERE is your ally: in actual history, Arcadius and Honorius went to war with each other in 395 basically as soon as their dad died :)

Yes, but the Celts and Scandinavians didn't have high populations, and while they might have raided around in Gaul, they certainly weren't sending waves of huge armies to establish kingdoms there. Even by Attila's invasion, the Romans did still hold most of Gaul, and those who had settled there were mostly Germans, like the Visigoths. I just wish the focus of the invasions was less on the damn Celts and Scandinavians and more on the Goths, since they were the actual successors to Rome.

Yes, it does seem weird to have different groups than the historical ones, but that is what you get with sandbox gameplay.

I would say it is also mostly six of one and half a dozen of the other: if a stack of say Geats is raiding Narbonne, does it really matter that it isn't a stack of Goths? The bottom line is it's a large group of Germanic style invaders :)

As for what the WRE holds, historically Gaul was only nominally Roman Empire in the 400s. It was de facto ruled over by barbarian polities that had settled there, such as the Visigoths in Aquitaine, and by a patchwork of Roman warlords and independent cities who had fallen to bagaudae.

Like I mentioned, Aetius illustrates this, because his "Roman" army that fought Attila was in reality a host of a bunch of different successor peoples, a host he had to put together through diplomacy and personal charisma and relationship with barbarian leaders. He was not able to in fact command or dictate that they even fight for "Rome," let alone order their movements around: he put the force together just like a Medieval leader would assemble a host, and it was just as tenuous.

After Aetius leaves the scene, the relationships and arrangements went with him, and later guys like Majorian have to start from scratch, fighting off rival Roman warlords, reasserting authority over Bagaudae regions, and making deals with barbarian successor realms. Stilicho, Aetius, Majorian and others illustrate that this was personal rule and warlordship, not unitary, imperial government; "continuity of government" was a figment.

Even earlier in the 300s Gaul and Britain were in flux as various Roman warlords made bids for the Imperial title and fought amongst each other from regional powerbases, and there was still bagaudae as well.

There hadn't been an actual, unitary imperial rule in Gaul (and many other areas as well) since around 250 AD. From that point on you have this constant flux, with a warlord establishing authority for a few years, then he dies or is killed by a rival. Entire regions breakaway as independent realms (for example Carausius in 290s), and the frontiers were ever more porous and barbarians running rampant periodically in imperial territory, often with cooperation from Roman usurpers/warlords (for example the Great Conspiracy in Britian during mid 300s, and Julian's situation and campaigns in the same era within Gaul and Balkans).

[Raider Deci]

Rome killed off itself between 200-300 in my opinion. The rest of the issues is just rings on the water.

Atilla and friends despite being defeated was the final nail in the coffin.

[Ultrabot]

The system itself became unsalvageable I agree, the only way to survive became to slowly cede itself out of existence. The breakdown of the integrated nature of trade and regions becoming more self reliant was irreversible. The army itself was set up in a way that seemed more concerned with limiting the power of generals; even if Stilicho had not been turned on by his political enemies. Another day, another crisis, death by a thousand external cuts, and poison running through the political structure.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by Deci:

Rome killed off itself between 200-300 in my opinion. The rest of the issues is just rings on the water.

Awesome way to sum it up :)

[Ēarendel]

Originally posted by Deci:

Rome killed off itself between 200-300 in my opinion. The rest of the issues is just rings on the water.

Atilla and friends despite being defeated was the final nail in the coffin.

Rome still had dioceses (Administrative districts) in the complete regions of North Africa, Gaul and Dalmatia by 300, and continued well into 400s when the incursion of Germanic tribes began.

The crumble began after Flavius Aetius death around 454, when the Goths overtook the crumbling Roman machine in Gaul and Hispania

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arelate

[Raider Deci]

Originally posted by Dajjal:

Originally posted by Deci:

Rome killed off itself between 200-300 in my opinion. The rest of the issues is just rings on the water.

Atilla and friends despite being defeated was the final nail in the coffin.

Rome still had dioceses (Administrative districts) in the complete regions of North Africa, Gaul and Dalmatia by 300, and continued well into 400s when the incursion of Germanic tribes began.

The crumble began after Flavius Aetius death around 454, when the Goths overtook the crumbling Roman machine in Gaul and Hispania

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arelate

What I was on about was the measure of actual control from the central goverment. Think of it as a ladder.
As Mile pro Libertarte pointed out actual roman was questionable in alot of places which ran in a sort of proto-fuedal way and it got worse as time moved forward. Something thats miles away from how it looked around say 150 where Rome really was in control. The countless civil wars exhausted men and resources damaged the empire to the brink of no return. Where Rome earlier could suck up defeats from other foes and keep going they now couldnt. Later strifes between east and west didnt exacly help.

[HN12]

Originally posted by Mile pro Libertate:

Originally posted by jhspencer:

Yes, but the Celts and Scandinavians didn't have high populations, and while they might have raided around in Gaul, they certainly weren't sending waves of huge armies to establish kingdoms there. Even by Attila's invasion, the Romans did still hold most of Gaul, and those who had settled there were mostly Germans, like the Visigoths. I just wish the focus of the invasions was less on the damn Celts and Scandinavians and more on the Goths, since they were the actual successors to Rome.

Yes, it does seem weird to have different groups than the historical ones, but that is what you get with sandbox gameplay.

I would say it is also mostly six of one and half a dozen of the other: if a stack of say Geats is raiding Narbonne, does it really matter that it isn't a stack of Goths? The bottom line is it's a large group of Germanic style invaders :)

As for what the WRE holds, historically Gaul was only nominally Roman Empire in the 400s. It was de facto ruled over by barbarian polities that had settled there, such as the Visigoths in Aquitaine, and by a patchwork of Roman warlords and independent cities who had fallen to bagaudae.

Like I mentioned, Aetius illustrates this, because his "Roman" army that fought Attila was in reality a host of a bunch of different successor peoples, a host he had to put together through diplomacy and personal charisma and relationship with barbarian leaders. He was not able to in fact command or dictate that they even fight for "Rome," let alone order their movements around: he put the force together just like a Medieval leader would assemble a host, and it was just as tenuous.

After Aetius leaves the scene, the relationships and arrangements went with him, and later guys like Majorian have to start from scratch, fighting off rival Roman warlords, reasserting authority over Bagaudae regions, and making deals with barbarian successor realms. Stilicho, Aetius, Majorian and others illustrate that this was personal rule and warlordship, not unitary, imperial government; "continuity of government" was a figment.

Even earlier in the 300s Gaul and Britain were in flux as various Roman warlords made bids for the Imperial title and fought amongst each other from regional powerbases, and there was still bagaudae as well.

There hadn't been an actual, unitary imperial rule in Gaul (and many other areas as well) since around 250 AD. From that point on you have this constant flux, with a warlord establishing authority for a few years, then he dies or is killed by a rival. Entire regions breakaway as independent realms (for example Carausius in 290s), and the frontiers were ever more porous and barbarians running rampant periodically in imperial territory, often with cooperation from Roman usurpers/warlords (for example the Great Conspiracy in Britian during mid 300s, and Julian's situation and campaigns in the same era within Gaul and Balkans).

In that case, they should have better simulated this (it may be sandbox, but there ought to at least be a historical route possible), by having the various Germanic tribes actually settle throughout the West, rather than just plunder a bunch of cities then leave, and make them more willing to accept peace. That way you could, playing as the West, establish tenuous vassals of the Germanic states. The problem with the way it's set up now is that the AI is ultra-aggressive and will either let itself be destroyed by your armies or refuse to give up until it's conquered your entire country. While I love the challenge of playing as the west, the problem is that you never get the sense of satisfaction when you finally defeat the invading barbarians, since they never stop coming, and immediately after dealing with them, you've got civil wars and rebellions to deal with.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by Dajjal:

Originally posted by Deci:

Rome killed off itself between 200-300 in my opinion. The rest of the issues is just rings on the water.

Atilla and friends despite being defeated was the final nail in the coffin.

Rome still had dioceses (Administrative districts) in the complete regions of North Africa, Gaul and Dalmatia by 300, and continued well into 400s when the incursion of Germanic tribes began.

The crumble began after Flavius Aetius death around 454, when the Goths overtook the crumbling Roman machine in Gaul and Hispania

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arelate

Administrative divisions and officials alone don't indicate whether there is actually administration going on.

Also very critical to remember here, is even if governance and administration is there, the jurisdictions and such on their own don't tell us of the nature of it. The dioceses, to use your example, were coopted by the Christian Church and that is the primary reason, by far, that the diocese system survived, and still survives to this day.

There is the ostensible and nominal power, and arrangement of power, and then there is the actual power and arrangements.

Look at modern day Syria, for example. Assad is still nominally president of a nation-state, which still has the same borders, jurisdictions, governance, etc. on paper. If we look at a map, Syria is still marked out as it has been for decades. But none of this changes the reality that well over half of the state is de facto outside the Syrian state's control, and that a bunch of foreign states and non-state entities are moving in and out of Syria, doing as they please.

The mythos and cultural impact of Roman imperium was such that it took many, many years for power mongers to stop using pretenses and titles of the imperium, but the situation on the ground was a very different thing.

I think Deci refers to it well as "proto-feudal."

The unitary state structure we think of with the Roman imperium really broke down with the Crisis of the Third Century, and it never asserted itself again, not in a way that was able to survive intact the transition or changeover of rulers, or for more than a few years at a time.

It's hard to really say you have a true imperium when generals commanding entire theaters may or may not follow orders, or they routinely hold the state ransom for advancement and political concessions, not to mention having a civil war about every 20 years. And when foreign powers are not only usual arbiters in how those civil wars play out, but have, at the least, semi-autonomous areas that they hold within your empire, if not full blown ability to snub what the imperial center declares.

The weird thing with Roman history is that so many people apply a different criteria to it, or different rules, than they do other empires.

If we assessed the Roman Empire the same way we look at the Babylonian empire, the Assyrians, the Ottoman, or whoever, we'd be saying that the Roman Empire collapsed around 230 AD, or thereabouts...but instead we keep up with this mythic history, that the empire "finally collapsed" somewhere at 476 to 500, or even more of a hoot, that it "survived in the east till 1453." >_>