[rtw] casualties of war

none · Post by **none** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:17 am

i've learned something about myself after playing rome: total war for a few hours: i'm a wuss. you see, i'm too afraid to lose soldiers. my battles are a mess of feints, counter-feints and all maneuver. i'm reacting to my enemy's movements and only committing when i absolutely have to (re: after maneuvering for so long, one of us gets sloppy and our lines finally cross). so far, i've been lucky and won my battles. but it's only a matter of time before i meet some wanna be guderian or patton. sigh.

Two Sheds · Post by **Two Sheds** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:21 am

Which faction are you fighting the most so far? I was able to get away with that sort of thing a lot of the time against the Gauls when I played my Julii campaign, but the Macedonians in my Brutii campaign are a completely different story. I mean, when they send 2000 light lancer cavalry charging headlong in a line into my Hastati and Velites (this was early in the campaign, so no Principes or Triarii yet), there's really not much maneuvering one can do.

That one didn't end very well.

I've tought them the error of their ways since then, however.

tals · Post by **tals** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:50 am

It always horrifies me that even small battles come up with reasonable sized casualties, so even a 400 v 400 battle your're looking to loose (or I am!) around 40 people - which doesn't sound to bad until you think about it

Must have been horific stuff

knob · Post by **knob** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:27 am

I'm pretty bad about it, too. But I've convinced myself to just take the losses and move on. And it also made me be much more intelligent with my units.

And woo! I'm finally popular to march on Rome itself. Unfortunately, I only have about 26 or 27 regions under my control, so I still have a ways to go.

none · Post by **none** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:59 am

yes, the gauls do tend to scare easily. i've defeated them in many battles just be maneuvering troops (usually cavalry) into a threatening position. suckers.

tals · Post by **tals** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:05 am

So far I find most forces once surrounded tend to rout - not that this would surprise me! One command I really would like is a controlled withdraw, rather than the current one which turns the soldiers - backs now facing the enemy they are very vulnerable.

Tals

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:11 am

Controlled withdrawal really wasn't possible in ancient times. Any movement by part of an army backwards would have been seen by the rest of the army as a retreat, leading to an immediate retreat and most likely subsequent route by all units. It may have happened a few times, but if it did it was rare. Right off the top of my head, I can't think of any ancient battles where what you want in the game actually happened, though I will give it some further thought.

Grifman

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:19 am

Well, my play as the Brutii wasn't too succesful...those damn greeks and their spearmen

They're TOUGH.

Anyway, I'm also an incredible wuss with the casualties, save for with peasants. They're dumb, they can die all they want

tals · Post by **tals** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:50 am

Grifman wrote:Controlled withdrawal really wasn't possible in ancient times. Any movement by part of an army backwards would have been seen by the rest of the army as a retreat, leading to an immediate retreat and most likely subsequent route by all units. It may have happened a few times, but if it did it was rare. Right off the top of my head, I can't think of any ancient battles where what you want in the game actually happened, though I will give it some further thought.

Grifman

Good point, it sounds straightforward but in truth probably wasn't.

It does intriques me, how good is the 'simulation' of the game is compared to actual ancient battles and ancient battle practice.

Tals

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:02 am

tals wrote:
Grifman wrote:Controlled withdrawal really wasn't possible in ancient times. Any movement by part of an army backwards would have been seen by the rest of the army as a retreat, leading to an immediate retreat and most likely subsequent route by all units. It may have happened a few times, but if it did it was rare. Right off the top of my head, I can't think of any ancient battles where what you want in the game actually happened, though I will give it some further thought.

Grifman
Good point, it sounds straightforward but in truth probably wasn't.

It does intriques me, how good is the 'simulation' of the game is compared to actual ancient battles and ancient battle practice.

Tals

The problem with ancient armies is seen in your initial proposal for a way to do a controlled retreat. Once the battle had started, it was very hard for a commander to change plans - he had to go with what his original plans were. There were really very limited ways of communicating - maybe trumpets, signal flags, but I can't find that these were used that much. The only influence a commander had was on the spot, where he was at the moment. That's why a unit of the army seeing another unit fall back in some of planned retreat would route - they wouldn't understand what was going on, it would look like a retreat - they'd decide to "run" also.

The Greek/Macedonian, or "Hellenistic" style was for the general to lead in the attack, as Alexander. This gave an example to his men, but rendered him incapable of influencing events elsewhere. The Roman style was to command from the rear, to move from point to point as it was perceived to be needed, dealing with threats, encouraging soldiers, etc. But even that was limited to what a commander could see. (FYI, just been reading a new book out on Roman generalship, so this is all fresh in my mind).

So, you see, if you play the game as most do, you are the uber general, able to control every unit every second, so this isn't very realistic, since most ancient armies just lined up and went at each other, with very little control from the generals once the battle started. But the game also has a very interesting "general' mode, where you can only see what the "general" unit sees, and can only control units near you - the others are under AI control. This would be the most realistic way of simulating battle with the game. It's there as a game option, but it's much more difficult as you can imagine

Grifman

tals · Post by **tals** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:11 am

Yep I saw that option. It also held the option to release the camera totally - I briefly did that but after your words I think i'm going to tie it back to at least the units.

I think the trouble with going for the general only view would be that although it does recreate the actual battle simulation it doesn't fully.

I'm assuming that before a battle a general would get together his captains and discuss the various strategies, what they were aiming todo etc. The AI in the game just isn't up to this, so if we leave the units they will just act very poorly with very little strategy by themeselves. I know several battles i've focussed on one set of units to realise that another side of the battle is loosing it as i've not paid enough attention to them. I guess we should think of ourselves as individual captains of the different units

Possibly the best way would be a form of battle strategy control before the game and then a general only view - again possibly not a good simulation as the sub commanders would have their own intelligence and be able to react to changing events. That said close up to the units you get a totally different view to the distant view the game can give. So muling this one over they've probably done the best they could on this aspect. Certainly for me I always feel a little like the General in Gladiator when the battle starts - awesome at times.

In terms of battles, were battles really this quick - most of mine are less than 1/2 hour - always surprised me how quickly a battle can be.

Tals

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:01 am

Complex tactics would have been hard to carry out, even with a pre-battle "council of war". Most armies simply lined up and went at each other. Anything other than that most tactics/strategies were usually based upon specific positioning of units before the battle.

For example Hannibal at Cannae placed his weaker Celtiberian infantry in the middle with his stronger infantryon the wings along with his cavalry. Under Roman attack his weaker middle sagged, but his wings held firm, while his cavalry drove off the Roman cavalry and hit the Romans in the rear. The Roman infantry ended up surrounded and were massacred. Great tactics by Hannibal but it was all based upon pre-battle positioning. It would not have worked if the Roman commander had gone with a formation that had a light middle and heavy wings - unlikely but possible. Then there would not have been much Hannibal could have done as his troops were already positioned - it's very hard to move troops in the face of the enemy.

Scipio did a very similar thing at Illipa in Spain against Hasdrubal. For several days both armies marched out of their camps, faced each other, then marched back. Each time, the Carthaginians put their heavy Libyan infantry in the middle, Spanish allies on the wings. The Romans did the same - heavy Roman legions/Italian allies in the middle, weaker Spanish allies on the wings. But Scipio finally decided to attack one day, and beforehand he reversed order - one Roman legion/Italian allies on each wing, Spanish allies in the middle. When they got to the battlefield, this wrongfooted Hasdrubal, it was too late to change the position of his army. Upon a sign from Scipio, both Roman legions advanced and attacked the Spanish allies on the wings, while the middle of his formation - his Spanish - advanced but did not engage the Libyans - they merely pinned them.

Hasdrubal could do nothing. If he sent his Libyans to attack the Roman Spanish, they'd be in danger of encirclement if his wings collapsed. If he attacked the Roman wings from his center, his center would be in danger from the Roman Spanish. In the end his wings collapsed, he fought a brief retreat with his Libyans, then his line collapsed into a route. So again, it was all based upon pre-battle positioning, not anything really fancy, like unit A moves here, then unit B fallsback, but unit C attacks here, etc. They just didn't have the tactical command and control to do anything like this.

You can emulate this in the game, playing general mode. Decide the position of your units - maybe put all cavalry on one wing to overwhelm, then, maybe put heavy infantry on the wings, light infantry in the middle, etc. Then the battle is up to whatever your general can do on the spot, and what his subcommanders (AI) can do elsewhere. You may not trust that AI, but that's a separate issue

As for length of battles, this is a game, remember? It's not meant to historical in length. Some ancient battles went on a very long time if both sides were well led, good morale, roughly equivalent strength. Others were overly quickly especially if one sides morale was worse than the other. The game models this aspect pretty well - most of the killing occurs when one side runs.

Grifman

Ronin · Post by **Ronin** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:27 pm

Complex tactical manuevers were well nigh impossible in ancient warfare. As Grifman has said, most battles were won and lost before the battle even started. Hannibals victories against the Romans were some examples. Caesar's victory over Pompey the great is another one at Farsala.

Pompey had a massive cavalry force compared to Caesar's, but Caesar managed to counteract this by hiding a few cohorts of Legionairres amongs his own Cavalry. When Pompey's horses charged they quickly swept by Caesar's own horses and moved on to the flank of Caesar's main infantry body. At this point the concealed Legionairres charged, and insted of throwing their Pila, they used them as spears to inflict horrible facial injuries on the horsemen (at Caesar's instruction) The horses fled, and Pompey no longer had the advantage.

Controlled withdrawal was also near impossible, and only the elite of the elite could manage to pull it off. To give an idea of the fragile psyche of soldiers in this time, Caesar was breaking through the infantry left in during his last battle at Munda. The opposing general tried to reinforce this line by sending one of his legions from the right wing across the formation and into battle. However the Legions in the center intepreted this movement as a retreat and began to stream from the battlefield, effectively ending it.

What book are you reading Grif? I have a few others I could point you too if you're interested.

bluefugue · Post by **bluefugue** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:29 am

none wrote:i've learned something about myself after playing rome: total war for a few hours: i'm a wuss. you see, i'm too afraid to lose soldiers. my battles are a mess of feints, counter-feints and all maneuver. i'm reacting to my enemy's movements and only committing when i absolutely have to (re: after maneuvering for so long, one of us gets sloppy and our lines finally cross). so far, i've been lucky and won my battles. but it's only a matter of time before i meet some wanna be guderian or patton. sigh.

I'm a little bit this way too, always wanting to jockey for perfect position, never wanting to commit my troops when a lot of them might get killed. Sorta like McClellan.

Imagine how much stronger the impulse must be to avoid a fight on any but the best terms, when there are real lives at stake.

knob · Post by **knob** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:31 am

Napoleon wrote:Well, my play as the Brutii wasn't too succesful...those damn greeks and their spearmen

They're TOUGH.

Anyway, I'm also an incredible wuss with the casualties, save for with peasants. They're dumb, they can die all they want

I didn't have any problem at all with the Greeks. My trick was to go after them as soon as I possibly could. By turn 5 or so, I was already taking out the Greeks and the Macidonians.

The greeks still exist some 200 turns later, but they only have two provinces left and I really don't have the desire to take them out since I'm focusing most of my attention to the west.

knob · Post by **knob** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:44 am

If you guys want to list some of your books, I'd be grateful. I've never read any books on that period, so I'd like something pretty easy to pick up and get in to. I'm not picky other than that.

And is a Controlled Retreat the same as a Feigned Retreat? If so, didn't the Mongolians do that? They'd pretend to fall back, and then attack again (I don't know all of the details).

tals · Post by **tals** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:23 am

If you guys want to list some of your books, I'd be grateful. I've never read any books on that period, so I'd like something pretty easy to pick up and get in to. I'm not picky other than that.

Or any good web resources on the era as well.

Tals

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:04 am

I feel guilty slaughtering entire towns or enslaving them. It is just so... barbaric!
I find the whole period fascinating for its lack of value for human life. The slaughters were incredible, and so frequent!

none · Post by **none** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:53 am

is it actually better to exterminate or enslave the population of a conquered town? i've been assimilating them and haven't noticed anything bad as a result. in fact, one of the towns i've conquered is now my largest and also most lucrative. shrug.

Snow · Post by **Snow** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:31 am

Ok, just for fun, here are a few traits for the generals here

None:
* Kills With Kindness - Too concerned for the comfort of his soldiers, this man is a popular but ineffectual leader.
* Lily-Livered - The sight of blood makes this man go pale, an unfortunate trait in one who is expected to command
* Over-Cautious Attacker - This man's caution in the face of the enemy is disheartening to his troops.

EduardoX:
* No Taste for Blood - This man apparently has little interest in proper Roman traditions, like the Games.
* Dresses Like A Foreigner - This man's effeminate taste for foreign culture and lifestyle is seen as unpleasant and not "Roman".
* Nervous Near Slaves - Rebellious slaves cause this man deep unease. If slaves can turn on their masters, then no-one is safe!

Snow · Post by **Snow** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:40 am

none wrote:is it actually better to exterminate or enslave the population of a conquered town? i've been assimilating them and haven't noticed anything bad as a result. in fact, one of the towns i've conquered is now my largest and also most lucrative. shrug.

Enslave if you want some instance population in towns run by governors. Slaves also become a trade resource that makes money and happiness. It also makes it easier to get a handle on a culturally different town by shipping off some of the population. Who knows, your general might even pick up a few usefull slaves for his retinue. I like my big towns closer to Rome, not off in the far flung reaches of the empire. Anyways, you need fodder for the games. Ok, the game doesn't model this by I'm still thinking it when I play.

Exterminate the population when you need to move fast, raise funds and don't want to worry about leaving troops behind for quelling rebellions. Do it enough and your generals get good at it and make even more money

Occupy Roman settlements. They're easy to assimilate, and do you really want to kill the people that will call you Ceaser?

Snow · Post by **Snow** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:55 am

Valael wrote:If you guys want to list some of your books, I'd be grateful. I've never read any books on that period, so I'd like something pretty easy to pick up and get in to. I'm not picky other than that.

There are a lot of dry but interesting books out there. I have one that's dry if you attempt to read it straight through, but it has lots off good pictures of the troop types throughout Rome's history and the tactics they employed. It also details Rome's major foes such as Carthage and Gaul. Here's the amazon link
Warfare in the Classical World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in the Ancient Civilisations of Greece and Rome
I always have this one out a read bits of pieces as they interest me. Oh, as you might have noticed in the title, it also includes Greeks.

I just started Rubicon : The Last Years of the Roman Republic
based upon a recommendation on the now defunct GG boards. It's "accessable" history. In other words, it flows more like a story than a litany of dry facts. It covers the last five years of the Republic to Empire. You'd recognize lots of references from RTW here. So far so good, but I've really just started.

Ronin · Post by **Ronin** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:29 am

I just finished Rubicon and to me it was an excellent read. It really gives you an idea of how Warfare and politics in Rome were interelated. (And in some cases it was hard to tell the difference)

I'm currently rereading Caesar's Legion which is written in the same style roughly as Rubicon. Coming out at the end of this month is Nero's Killing Machine by the same author.

Finally there is In the name of Rome. A little dryer in its presentation, but it talks about how succesful Roman generals operated.

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:03 am

none wrote:is it actually better to exterminate or enslave the population of a conquered town? i've been assimilating them and haven't noticed anything bad as a result. in fact, one of the towns i've conquered is now my largest and also most lucrative.

It depends where the town is, and what you want to do with it.

Essentially, the more people you keep in a town, the harder it is to control: the more squalor you're likely to start with, the larger the garrison you're going to need to control unrest & negate the culture penalty, etc. The fewer people you keep in a conquered town, the more true the reverse becomes.

The other major factor is a town's distance from your capital, and that one's harder to solve (while it is easy to move you capital, this can have drastic effects on public order in the rest of your empire, so you probably don't want to do it too often).

I've found that I can handle several categories of disorder, but not all of them. So in towns very close to my capital, I'll just occupy the settlement (high unrest & culture penalty, but no distance penalty). In mid-range ones I enslave the population (mid-level unrest, culture, and distance penalties), while in long-range ones I exterminate the populace (minimal unrest & culture penalties, but high distance penalty).

The other consideration, of course, if what you want the town for.

If you want it to be an industrial centre in its own right, then Occupy it, or else you'll have to wait a long time for it to build itself up again (someone had the bright idea at one point that you could train Peasants in other cities, and then disband them in newly Enslaved or Exterminated towns to rebuild them quickly, but I haven't tried this yet). If you really need the production, this might make it worth your while to deal with more disorder than you would otherwise want.

If you just want the territory, you're probably better off Enslaving the populace - that way the people will get shipped back to your major cities where they will be more use than sitting on an unproductive frontier.

So to answer your question, there isn't a single good answer. It's the hallmark of a well-designed game that each of three options has siginificant pros and cons and forces you to make an intelligent choice for each separate situation.

- Ash

knob · Post by **knob** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:13 am

If I'm not going to occupy a settlement, I'll almost always enslave it, just because the population doesn't go to waste then.

I only exterminate if they revolt. And occasionally, I just feel like being an asshole and slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians just because I can.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:37 am

Valael wrote:If you guys want to list some of your books, I'd be grateful. I've never read any books on that period, so I'd like something pretty easy to pick up and get in to. I'm not picky other than that.

I've posted a list of books and websites here:

http://totalwar.wargamer.com/bmw.html

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:45 pm

Ronin wrote: Finally there is In the name of Rome. A little dryer in its presentation, but it talks about how succesful Roman generals operated.

Yes, I'm reading that one now. Very good book.

Grifman

Kelric · Post by **Kelric** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:16 pm

Kill them! Slaughter them all! Crucify them along the roads and send them to the carrion feeders!

In the beginning of the game I mostly occupied cities but would ocassionally enslave them. This would still have been when I was expanding into Gaul as the Jullii. As I moved farther away from the heart of my Empire though it got too aggravating to try and keep rebellion down with cities of 20,000 people so I would just slaughter everyone. If a town was particularly tough to control I would destroy all the buildings I could in that town, withdraw and let them rebel, conquer it again and slaughter them all the way down to 400 people (seems to be the minimum). It works pretty well. Though it's more fun than practical.

Octopus Overlords

[rtw] casualties of war

[rtw] casualties of war

Re: [rtw] casualties of war