Let Caesar be Caesar. Please unnerf him.

[FENRIS]

For once, I'll add my own 'personal' opinion on this: for me, Caesar is one of the great generals of history, but I consider (and many modern historians too) that his talent is not so much on the tactical aspects of the battlefield (although he is damm good at seizing the right points and right decisions) but more on his strategic sense of organization and anticipation...for me, his Alexandria campaign is a mastery of planning and trapping opponents in what appears to be a blunder on his side but is in reality a carefully calculated gamble...Caesar had one thing that was decisive: Fortuna (= luck).

Another genius said: I know he is a good general, but does he have luck (a small obscure Corsican general which, IMHO too, is better than Caesar!! ... and not saying this because I have some family in the island )

[HanBarca]

" These battles are famous because the outcome was unexpected,"

Actually the Great commanders can anticipate a lot and calculate. Hannibal had perfectly understood the Roman way of warfare, breaking the ennemy center. He had to hold in the center, so that his cavalry wings would destroy the ennemy cavalry and then attack the ennemy by behind and destroy it. This was the Macedonian system improved by the Carthaginians with much more cavalrymen.

The consuls were elected every year and were not professional soldiers, thus quality was changing but the the legionnaries knew what to do => Break the ennemy line.

"Pompey at his best was only a good commander, and maybe not even that."

Yes this why they called him "Pompey the Great" after defeating plenty of ennemies... Napoléon, Fred II, Alexander were also just... good commanders

Pompey was notoriously sensible to flattery, particularly if it came from noble patricians. The "Great" title was first asssigned to Pompey by Sulla, who desperately needed his support in the civil war against Marius.
From Wikipedia:
"After this string of victories, Pompey was proclaimed Imperator by his troops on the field in Africa; once back in Rome, he was given an enthusiastic popular reception and hailed by Sulla as Magnus (the Great) – probably in recognition of Pompey's undoubted victories and popularity, but also with some degree of sarcasm."

[HanBarca]

The problem with this view is that the primary sources this is based on come directly from Caeser.

True, but the historical facts speak for themselves:
conquest Gaul, Gaul revolts, reconquest Gaul, move to Spain, defeat Pompeian army there, move to italy, occupy Rome, move to Greece, Defeat Pompey at Pharsalus, pursuit him in Egypt, get blocked in alexandria by egyptian civil war, lift the siege and win the egypt civil war, move to asia minor, defeat Pharnace, move to rome, seize power, move to africa, defeat the Optimates army at Tapsus, move to spain, defeat Pompeian Army at Munda, move to Rome.

[Taillebois]

Why not play with randomised generals stats.

[yellow ribbon]

Why not play with randomised generals stats.

too many generals in game, you would simply substitute them. only problem would be any CiC, but you have two of them (M.A.)

an interesting question, is any military genius effected by the randomized stats anyway?

[yellow ribbon]

its rather impractical to measure military success as some do. I.e. Napoleon was famous for his "fort" where he read about ancient sources, including battles, maybe the urban legend is true and he did even know Sūn Wŭ. Fredericus Rex was also sensible for mistakes done by military leaders thousands of years ago.
Alexander, Caesar, as well as Napoleon or even modern figures like Patton, never managed to use their skills over a longer distance, implementing them over officers far away. however, while expecting battles, they were open to different approaches. Far off from perfect or methodologically, but innovative enough to puzzle the enemies.

how is this expressed in Ageods games? I figure its the fact that high strategical values lead to a seldom inactive commander... but stats are not all in this balancing...

[Franciscus]

Yes. There is also the small detail that strategically, perhaps the players decisions count a bit more than Caesar stats...

[yellow ribbon]

well, the common player is faster with exploiting the situation than the AI... even against Pocussian AI...

for the leaders, just as a practical example of Caesar:

he needed time until ALESIA to use ever again a cavalry attack. For years he never did it before, seeing Roman Cav. even being defeated by chariot carried fighters on foot.
in Alesia, where no clear flank existed, he could rely on the cav., not to be worried that the center breaks for loosing the cav.. Having both centers under hard pressure, he surprised his men, as well as the foe

[vaalen]

Why not play with randomised generals stats.

Then we lose all sense of history. The unique qualities of the leaders are a crucial part for getting the feel of the conflict, at least for me.

[vaalen]

For once, I'll add my own 'personal' opinion on this: for me, Caesar is one of the great generals of history, but I consider (and many modern historians too) that his talent is not so much on the tactical aspects of the battlefield (although he is damm good at seizing the right points and right decisions) but more on his strategic sense of organization and anticipation...for me, his Alexandria campaign is a mastery of planning and trapping opponents in what appears to be a blunder on his side but is in reality a carefully calculated gamble...Caesar had one thing that was decisive: Fortuna (= luck).

Another genius said: I know he is a good general, but does he have luck (a small obscure Corsican general which, IMHO too, is better than Caesar!! ... and not saying this because I have some family in the island )

I think you could make an excellent argument that Caesar was maybe the luckiest general of all time. As for his tactical skill, I think his tactics at Pharsalus were masterful. He was the first Roman general since Scipio Africanus to change the traditional three line deployment of the Romans, by using a hidden fourth line, which no Roman general had ever done before. He used this to overcome Pompeys overwhelming advantage in cavalry. And he ended up outflanking and hitting in the rear an army that outnumbered him more than two to one. Not too many generals have ever pulled that off since Hannibal did it at Cannae.

He also thinned out his lines so his outnumbered legions could match the frontage of Pompeys legions, and avoid being outflanked while the fourth line strategy was implemented. Another innovation, which was very rare for roman generals.

True, he did not show this kind of tactical genius in most of his battles, but he had it when he needed it.

[lycortas2]

Caesar was a good general who was incredibly charismatic, maybe a 5-4-3 with a large number of traits.
Pompey never showed any particular greatness as a general, i would rate him at 4-2-3 with maybe aristocratic trait, maybe one other.

Mike

[jack54]

....But maybe that historical result was the fluke, .

Bertram, your entire post (#16) was one of the best I've seen, but this line in-particular got me. I will use it often. LOL

Edit: I had to add this also "history itself is a one-time event, and thus isnt really suited as a basis for conclusions."

[Hobbes]

Bertram, your entire post (#16) was one of the best I've seen, but this line in-particular got me. I will use it often. LOL

Edit: I had to add this also "history itself is a one-time event, and thus isnt really suited as a basis for conclusions."

I agree. A very good post. In a football match every decision taken by players and referee changes the game completely from that moment on
(whether there is free will to make a decision is another argument) - even though the eventual outcome will often be the same. In a battle
individual decisions have less impact especially at the level of the individual soldier but in a dynamic environment like a battlefield the butterfly effect
must be quite apparent.

Cheers,
Chris

[l'canadien]

la good solution would be to allow player to change setting of the main leader of each side. would be a good new stuff !

[brownie]

In my game Caesar has increased to 6-7-7. But is still vulnerable (which is good).

[ATTACH]20367[/ATTACH]

[Boomer]

Nice result there, brownie. Shows that it is at least possible for Pompey to get the upper hand against Caesar.

I'm actually surprised this discussion doesn't come up more often regarding history games. Keeping events or characters too much like the historical path and the game loses its fun factor and flexibility. Stray too far and the usual criticisms of going off the historical narrative pop up. Caesar's an excellent flash point for this issue, considering just how often Caesar nearly lost his army and/or head during his campaigns. He was nothing if not a gambler... even if he was a gambler that usually staked all and won.

But how do you model historical anomalies that so often cropped up during crucial moments in world history? If a game based on the Roman empire was to be truly historical, it would have to account for last minute betrayals, bribes, dynastic marriages, constantly shifting alliances, sudden illnesses, and a dozen more flukes, accidents, suicides, and disappearances than could possibly ever be integrated into a top-down turn based strategy game.

In the end I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that we play these games for fun, and to try our own hand at recreating or changing historical events. Whether Caesar has an attack rating of 6 instead of 7, or if Pompey's legions would have had a higher experience level is, in my mind, splitting hairs. Slightly altering Caesar's ratings is a far cry from barbarians wielding laser guns or Cato and Marc Antony having a light-saber duel in the Forum.

[Spharv2]

Two things, one on each side:

Caesar's "luck" - Undoubtedly, he was rather lucky sometimes, but in general, people make their own luck. Not always true (The order confusion at Chickamauga that led to the Confederate win for example), but more often than not. And Caesar was a master at moving fast and catching his enemies where they didn't expect him. A lot of his luck comes down to this and his ability to inspire his troops to greater efforts, even when he himself made mistakes in deployment or use of them.

Pompey was a upper level good to great general, but he wasn't a natural. This is much like the timeworn Montgomery vs Patton debate. Pompey had to learn the craft in Spain against one of the best Republican commanders in Sertorious. Pompey had a slower methodical approach to action. He would prepare everything, then move with overwhelming force where Caesar would run in as fast as possible and let the chips fall where they may. But when everything was prepared, he could move with great speed, as his victory over the pirates shows. Honestly, I think modern militaries would be hard pressed to do what he did in a few months in that campaign. And, remember, he didn't particularly want to fight a battle at Pharsalos. He wasn't convinced his army was ready, his tactics show that he was certainly not convinced of his army's ability against Caesar's legions, and unless you're the Parthians, you're not winning these battles based on only cavalry superiority. The infantry was king in these battles.

[brownie]

After the downloading the official patch it looks like Pompey is a 5-3-4. Caesar is a 6-6-7.

[solops]

Everthing I have read in Caesar's memoirs and other sources suggests that Caesar consistently did a better job of preparation, training and contingency planning than Pompey. That "made" a lot of his luck and made him look like a better battlefield general....or, maybe that is what a superior general is...