1st Punic War - Rome strategy/experience?

[bob.]

I suppose there are at least some people here that have already played (and won?) this scenario as the Romans. (Against other players, not AI as that is not a problem at all).

So, can you tell me how to best play as Rome exactly? Because in my current game, 4 years into the war, I have seriously no idea what to do. I am talking of this one, my "enemy" writes an AAR about it: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?29113-War-Over-Sicily-First-Punic-War-MP-AAR/page2
We are already over 60 turns into the war, so this AAR is not of the current situation.

So anyway, this is what I am faced with right now:
The Carthaginians have massed an EXTREMELY huge army under Hanno Senior who is a 3-6-3 general by now I think. And I really mean huge, it was nearly 120.000 when I last encountered it and I guess it might be up to 130.000 now. Meanwhile my total forces (that means WITH the Syracuseans) are less less than 80.000. And this disparity in numbers coupled with Hanno Senior being such a great general means that I really can't win against this army. I can hold out in Syracuse and Messana, but what does that use me if I can't advance at all?

My navy is really big but what does that use me if the Carthaginians just leave theirs at port because they don't need it?

So, how do you break such a stalemate? Will I ever receive additional troops or something?

In the real 1st Punic War the Carthaginians as far as I know never won any larger battle against the Romans in the field (except Africa) and the Romans had only about 40.000 troops! That means I am quite sure that the Carthaginians never had troops of these absurdly high number on Sicily did they?

I also played another game as Carthage, it lasted for about 5 years and I won in the end by holding Sicily. I absolutely DESTROYED the Romans in the field and there was absolutely nothing they could do against me.
Frankly, I really think it should be the other way around! Sure, the mercenary armies of Carthage were nothing to neglect in reality, but they certainly weren't able to wreck the Romans like this!

Now, when I say this please mind you this is just an assumption of mine and I really don't want to say "this is how it should be" but just an idea... wouldn't it make sense if:
- the Carthaginian African army stayed locked forever until the Romans land in Africa - after all this army is composed mostly of Carthaginian citizenry soldiers and these were only meant as home defense!
- you couldn't buy mercenary replacements but only new soldiers, thus the mercenariy troops numbers would - like in reality - slowly get smaller and smaller. or as an alternative, replacements that cost at least triple of what they cost right now
- new mercenaries don't spawn in Sicily so there is an incentive to actually have secure transport lines
- less, WAY LESS supply in all of Sicily to prevent massing of one huge army

[Franciscus]

[HTML][/HTML]In the upcoming 1.02b patch the CAR army in Africa will be locked permanently, indeed (unlocked of course if Romans land in Africa)

[bob.]

That's good news and should balance it out a lot better IMHO. The additional 30.000 troops of the African army really matter a lot!

[dans221]

I think the balancing problem is a little bit deeper than that. It seems that Roman legions can generally win against anything in frontage-limited situations. So now to balance it out, the scenarios tend to give non-Romans larger forces which means they rule open areas. This is also true of the Pyrrhus scenario -- Pyrrhus never had anything close to the 90,000 troops you assembled in your Pyrrhus campaign. I'm not experienced enough to say with certainty what the solution would be, but it seems to me like the best way to balance this out would be to introduce battle tactics. For the Second Punic War for instance, how will they balance it out? How would Hannibal's (historically) numerically inferior army ever defeat Roman armies with the current engine? Historically, he did it through his excellent cavalry and flanking, but cavalry doesn't seem to matter very much in the current engine.

I like the change to the scenario which locks the Africa army, unless the Carthaginians declare war on Numidia. Otherwise, why would Carthage ever declare war on Numidia? Or if the Romans invade Africa -- however, I'm worried about that because then the Romans would never invade Africa (maybe they should gain NM and Carthage should lose NM if they land a large army in Africa and maybe something similar for Carthage invading Italia). Similarly Carthage is not going to invade Italy because the Romans can get an infinite supply of legions without any considerable side-effect -- Narwhal made a good suggestion that it should cost the Romans every turn they keep these additional legions.

In general, I think replacements are too easy to get, produces non-conclusive battles, and results in gigantic losses over the course of a campaign. After several engagements, the Roman army went from being nearly wiped out to being full strength in 1 turn. There is some balance already built in as it takes Carthage a lot longer to go back to full-strength (while the Romans always seem to be full-strength, it takes me about 5 turns to go back because replacements are so expensive for Carthage). Maybe this should be lengthened out for both sides. And maybe you should have to bring back your unit to Carthage and Rome to get your replacements.

Regarding this: "new mercenaries don't spawn in Sicily so there is an incentive to actually have secure transport lines"
This is actually sort-of already the case. The two mercenary types that spawn in Sicily are worse than the other types, so I haven't been recruiting them.

[Jagger2013]

Bob, if you want to mod some of these scenarios yourself and test them against the AI, there is a wiki page describing modding for AGEOD games here:

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Main_Page

It isn't super difficult but you need to be meticulous when you make your changes. Also backup everything.

[Vincentius]

In the upcoming 1.01b patch the CAR army in Africa will be locked permanently, indeed (unlocked of course if Romans land in Africa)

So, from the 1.02 patches we return to 1.01 ones ? Do you know when it will come out ?

[Franciscus]

Sorry, my bad, it's of course 1.02b...

It should be out in public beta soon.

Regards

[bob.]

Will there be any other changes in the upcoming patch for this scenario?

[Vincentius]

Sorry, my bad, it's of course 1.02b...

It should be out in public beta soon.

Regards

No problem

[Franciscus]

Will there be any other changes in the upcoming patch for this scenario?

Besides engine, and other, improvements that affect all scenarios, expected changes in FPW scenarios for next beta are:

FPW264 and FPW256 scenarios:
- Option to sell prisoners added for both factions
- Correction to CAR Naval Trade Income event bug
- Correction to text errors in the Tanit Gift and Cathage port options texts


FPW264 scenario:
- Carthaginian army fixed in Africa. Will be unfixed if Carthage declares war to Numidians or in the event of a Roman Africa Invasion
- Improvements to SPQ AI reaction to loss of Sicily
- Corvus option will disappear if not taken and Caius Duilius is no longer consul

[bob.]

About the Corvus now that I'm reminded, does taking that decision have any disadvantages? Like higher risk of storm damage?

[GlobalExplorer]

I like the change to the scenario which locks the Africa army, unless the Carthaginians declare war on Numidia. Otherwise, why would Carthage ever declare war on Numidia? Or if the Romans invade Africa -- however, I'm worried about that because then the Romans would never invade Africa (maybe they should gain NM and Carthage should lose NM if they land a large army in Africa and maybe something similar for Carthage invading Italia). Similarly Carthage is not going to invade Italy because the Romans can get an infinite supply of legions without any considerable side-effect -- Narwhal made a good suggestion that it should cost the Romans every turn they keep these additional legions.

Yes, that is the problem I have not with this decision, but with the direction. One cannot just lock everything for the sake of gameplay, there must be other ways. Otherwise it results in a very railroaded gameplay, everyone will experience more or less the same events with the same armies in the same territories ..

I mean this cannot be so much harder than in the previous games, where it never bugged me. In AJE the limiting factor seems to be only the available slots. Nothing like manpower or war material, only money and slots. Can this not be reconsidered? With more available slots, plus also some sort of malus for a rapid and large expansions? Come to think of it, the old Shogun Total War did this perfectly. It generated a high revolt risk in every conquered province, and required you to garrison large occupying forces, for many turns. Thereby you could not just steamroll over one city after another, or you would lose everything to rebellions (which could even increase your opponents force pool!). The campaign in Shogun Total War is a marvel in its simplicity and balance.

In general, I think replacements are too easy to get, produces non-conclusive battles, and results in gigantic losses over the course of a campaign. After several engagements, the Roman army went from being nearly wiped out to being full strength in 1 turn. There is some balance already built in as it takes Carthage a lot longer to go back to full-strength (while the Romans always seem to be full-strength, it takes me about 5 turns to go back because replacements are so expensive for Carthage). Maybe this should be lengthened out for both sides. And maybe you should have to bring back your unit to Carthage and Rome to get your replacements.

This is something I hadn't even thought of, but you are of course right, replacements are too cheap, and also tedious to manage (still an old gripe I have with all games since the introduction of the new system - it was a joy in AACW). I could always keep my forces to full strength if I only checked the tabs every turn - too easy.

Maybe this should be lengthened out for both sides. And maybe you should have to bring back your unit to Carthage and Rome to get your replacements.

Perhaps this is something that goes too deep into the engine mechanics, I hope to see it adressed in AACW2 though. More expensive replacements or slower replacement would do, I can live with the tedium for now, but would not want to see more introduced.

Regarding this: "new mercenaries don't spawn in Sicily so there is an incentive to actually have secure transport lines"
This is actually sort-of already the case. The two mercenary types that spawn in Sicily are worse than the other types, so I haven't been recruiting them.

I actually use all of them, and I thought it was a nice touch when they spawn in Iberia / Sardinia etc, but it would be nice if the game showed this beforehand (for some it does already).

[GlobalExplorer]

For the Second Punic War for instance, how will they balance it out? How would Hannibal's (historically) numerically inferior army ever defeat Roman armies with the current engine? Historically, he did it through his excellent cavalry and flanking, but cavalry doesn't seem to matter very much in the current engine.

A good question. I am not an expert in the formulas that the engine uses, but shouldn't that be doable with the leadership quality of the general, and morale / initiative / rout mechanics?

Also a few interesting things come to mind that I found in books about antique / medieval warfare, and some of which explain why numbers were often deceiving.

1. this is important: largely outnumbered / badly cornered armies often were much more potent than a numerical superior force, and won resounding victories. The reason is purely psychological: in the face of superiority the individual soldier knew he had to fight for survival. Whereas in a very large army every one would hesitate and hope that someone else risk their skin. It explains for example some of Alexanders victories, or that of the Crusaders in the siege of Antioch. This seems to have played a huge role in battles until strict discipline and organization was introduced.

2. During actual combat losses were often surprisingly low, often just a few dozen men (surely not tens of thousands as in most games). The armies would just probe one another, with some soldiers in the front fighting, but most only getting injured, not killed. I think it's also well known that some nations (Gauls) used shock tactics, they would charge and then quickly retreat (often to repair their weapons). Everything depended on the success of a quick charge, not sustained combat. (The Romans of course had a formula for this, with their superior organization and tactics).

3. A rout was much more costly than the battle itself, often armies just fell apart / dissolved. Considering also the point made before, a winning army had often apparently just lost a few men, whereas after a rout a force of several thousands could just dissappear from the earth (captivity / desertion etc). This seems to be a pattern in all periods from antique to medieval battles, that "army one lost 25 men, army two lost 10,000".

4. Until late medieval times it was generally an unsolved problem how to fight horsemen that just fired arrows and pulled back. Neither the Romans with their pityful cavalry, nor later european armies had a solution for this problem, until the introduction of modern weapons. And it will be difficult to simulate such tactics used by eastern horsement (Parthians) in AGE I am afraid, unless the combat engine gets rewritten for pre-musket warfare.

5. Armies would normally don't go on the tactical offensive. They would show up in the morning and take a favorable position (i.e. "camp" on the hills). then wait the whole day for the other army to attack. In the evening everyone would march back into camp, and repeat the same procedure the next day, often until other, logistical factors determined the outcome of the campaign.

I think in general most depended on psychology and discipline. It was not so much about who killed more men, but when men fell apart and "ran". That's why massive cavalry charges from the flank/rear were so important, or why Caesars orders to individual men had such an impact. (For example it is said he once turned fleeing legionaries around and shouted "in this direction!")

[bob.]

I am really intrigued to see how the fights against Parthia will turn out... I doubt that the talented scenario designers (whoever they are) will disappoint, but I do hope that they find a solution to make it possible to "raid" a large army.

By the way, did anyone play this scenario (multiplayer) in the 256 BC start? It seems to be like Carthage is in a really terrible situation there.

[GlobalExplorer]

I only played it against the AI, and it was a lot better than the long version. But after Rome's African Army was destroyed, the AI was not really offering a challenge. It may become interesting again later, but I stopped.

[bob.]

Yeah, that's the problem. The AI is completely incapable in this scenario. It's a bit of a shame but then again I never expected it to work properly in this particular scenario.

[bob.]

(Long post ahead, I just wanted to be as detailed as possible)

So, played a bit with the new patch, now have 3 games in progress, 1 as the Romans, 2 as Carthage.

And I have to say: it's still virtually impossible to win as the Romans. After my first games I thought there's something the Romans can do to even it out, or maybe the Romans when I played always just started bad but really, Rome has no chance at all to win against a roughly equal Carthaginian player!

Let me explain:
- right at the start, Carthage and Syracuse can combine their troops in Tauromenium and hire the Italian mercenaries to form a big army. The Romans need ALL their troops to defeat this army. I mean, all eight legions. Otherwise, Carthage will most likely win.
- that means the Romans can't defeat the Etruscans, which in turn means the Carthaginians can ship the Etruscans to Sicily for an even more powerful army - or just leave them in Italy and take some Roman towns

BUT even when the Romans take Syracuse, as I managed to do in my Roman game and one of my opponents managed as well, the Carthaginians are still able to form an army that is MORE THAN DOUBLE as strong as the Roman AND Syracusean troops combined. (Sure it needs a few years to buildup, but you can still prevent Roman advance with the army you have at the start) And it's not like the Carthaginians need that superiority in troops, they just need to hold half of Sicily to win.

So, what can Rome do?!?
Build a big navy: great! Now you have a navy, what can you do with it?
- you can't use it to prevent the Carthaginians from shipping mercenaries to Sicily, because having ships in offensive mode drains their cohesion so the Carthaginians can very easily beat them -> ships have to stay in defensive mode, Carthaginian ships just move through them
- you can use it to blockade a harbour - but what's the use when your army is too weak to besiege at the same time?
- you can't use it to battle the Carthaginian fleet if they don't want to, and if the enemy player isn't stupid he just leaves his fleet in port as a "fleet in being" that prevents the Romans from EVER using offensive mode

Build a big army: haha, who am I kidding! You can't! That is the main reason why the Romans have no chance in this scenario!

Now, what can Rome do?!?

1. they can stay in Italy and lose after the Carthaginians occupy all of Sicily for 2 years. They will never come to Italy and thus you will never be able to call a dictator. Lose.
2. they can stay in Messana or Syracuse if they manage to take it and if they have a larger fleet they can prevent the Carthaginians from taking these two towns. Carthage wins by having a huge lot more VP than Rome. Lose.
3. they can advance and seek for advantageous battle in Sicily, and then simply get wrecked by the better Carthaginian army. Sure, Rome can rebuild its legions while Carthage only to a limited extent, but by the time that actually matters Roman morale is so extremely low that it's all in vain anyway. Lose.
4. they can land in Africa. Great idea, we can't beat Carthage in Sicily, let's allow them to have EVEN MORE troops by landing in Africa and unlocking there army there. Do I need to say that this is a bad idea? Lose.

So, tell me, what can Rome do to win? I would really like to know what are others experiences in this scenario.
Also, "disclaimer": furthest I am is turn 105. So yes, it might be that there are some events that completely turn balance around.

Maybe, regardless of the whole balance discussion, the 1st Punic War is just not a really good war to make a fun scenario. Over 20 years, little area covered, few battles... it's just not much fun!
And I really do not want to bash the scenario designers here, just want to initiate a constructive discussion

[dans221]

Another advantage Carthage enjoys is in terms of commanders, since they gain experience over the years of the campaign whereas the Romans don't. In particular, Hanno is actually a very good commander (3-5-3 right from the beginning). According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno,_son_of_Hannibal), he doesn't seem to have done anything of particular note to deserve this distinction.

One point I would like to note is that the scenario is designed to give Carthage a command point problem early on. After Syracuse switches sides, Carthage only has Hanno and Mago. Mago has severe African-penalties and he's higher-ranked than Hanno so he would take priority. Because of that in spite of being able to field a large army, it actually cannot be all fielded. At least until Carthage gets additional commanders (Hannibal Acragas is a 2-star commander and shows up after a few years, and if the NM is low Acragas can be replaced with Hamilcar Panormus who is a 3-star general), I can see how the design is trying to keep things in balance.