I am somewhat stunned by one of the changes in the recent beta patch, which is to make Caesar and Pompey more equal as generals, apparently because some have claimed it is too hard to win with Pompey.
This disturbs me greatly
Being true to history is one thing I have always loved about Ageod games. Nerfing Caesar is just wrong. Caesar should be Caesar, Hannibal should be Hannibal, Scipo Africanus should be Scipio Africanus, etc. Anything less harms the integrity of the game.
It should be very hard to beat these great generals. You can do things to win with Pompey. One Option is to go after various objectives at the same time, while avoiding Caesar with your main army. The allies did this against Napoleon late in the wars, with success. The Romans eventually used this strategy to defeat Carthage in the Second Punic War,avoiding Hannibal for years, while conquering everything else.
If you cannot beat Caesar just by having a bigger army led by Pompey attack his main army, that is exactly as it should be.
Gentlemen, I implore you to restore the historical balance between Caesar and Pompey. The very integrity of your series is at stake.
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
+1
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
-
Highlandcharge
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:44 am
-
Franciscus
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
- Location: Portugal
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
vaalen wrote:With respect, leaving Caesars stats unchanged while upping Pompeys does change the historical balance between them, which has the effect of nerfing Caesar to some degree.
Edit: text was
"KILLED IN ACTION"
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
Pompey was a Great General and Caesar was greater or... had more luck.
You say that history is changed but actually with Mark Antony you receive another Outstanding General.
Caesar sent Curio in Africa and Curio was destroyed. (2 legions)
Caesar sent Gabinius to Epirus via Illyria and Gabinius was destroyed. 15 cohorts
Caesar sent Calvinus in Asia Minor and was defeated by Pharnaces.
Caesar sent Mark Antony...? Ah !! No!! Mark Antony wasn't use as an Independant Commander in the War staying in Caesar HQ (and thus integrated in Caesar counter.
In the game you have a What if ? giving a Super commander ( Mark Antony)to the Caesarian.
Thus avoiding Caesar as you advised will have the result to be beaten by another Excellent General which actually wasn't given important command.
The result is that the scenario is still Laaargely Pro-Caesarian.
And i will not tell about the Spanish Veterans that were slightly underrated compared to Syrian Veterans.
You say that history is changed but actually with Mark Antony you receive another Outstanding General.
Caesar sent Curio in Africa and Curio was destroyed. (2 legions)
Caesar sent Gabinius to Epirus via Illyria and Gabinius was destroyed. 15 cohorts
Caesar sent Calvinus in Asia Minor and was defeated by Pharnaces.
Caesar sent Mark Antony...? Ah !! No!! Mark Antony wasn't use as an Independant Commander in the War staying in Caesar HQ (and thus integrated in Caesar counter.
In the game you have a What if ? giving a Super commander ( Mark Antony)to the Caesarian.
Thus avoiding Caesar as you advised will have the result to be beaten by another Excellent General which actually wasn't given important command.
The result is that the scenario is still Laaargely Pro-Caesarian.
And i will not tell about the Spanish Veterans that were slightly underrated compared to Syrian Veterans.
How do we know Ceasar was a better general than Pompeius? At Pharsalos, Pompeius had inferior troops, and the two didn't clash afterwards for obvious reasons... Hard to tell what would have happened if Pompeius forces had been on equal terms with the legions of Caesar. And I would adhere to Occam's razor here: if better troops suffice to explain the victory at Pharsalos, then we don't need other reasons (i.e. a far superior Caesar) to explain the results. Hence, I think the two are given their due.
And yes, Marcus Anthonius taken the field should probably be an option one can buy. Also, should he be three stars?
And yes, Marcus Anthonius taken the field should probably be an option one can buy. Also, should he be three stars?
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
Edit:
text was KIA
text was KIA
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
Soderini wrote:How do we know Ceasar was a better general than Pompeius? At Pharsalos, Pompeius had inferior troops, and the two didn't clash afterwards for obvious reasons... Hard to tell what would have happened if Pompeius forces had been on equal terms with the legions of Caesar. And I would adhere to Occam's razor here: if better troops suffice to explain the victory at Pharsalos, then we don't need other reasons (i.e. a far superior Caesar) to explain the results. Hence, I think the two are given their due.
And yes, Marcus Anthonius taken the field should probably be an option one can buy. Also, should he be three stars?
Better troops are not everything. Hannibals infantry were inferior to the legions that outnumbered them almost 2-1 at Cannae, yet the legions were wiped out by superior strategy.
Caesar had better troops at Pharsalus, yet they were the same troops who suffered a minor defeat at Dyrrhachium,by the same troops Pompey had at Pharsalus, except Pompey had a larger numerical edge at Pharsalus. 2-1 in legionaries, 10-1 in cavalry, on an open plain. Pompey seems to have believed that he would have inevitably outflanked and surrounded Caesar due to his huge numerical superiority. Pompey attacked. Caesar, due to brilliant tactics, and an ability to inspire his men that was almost unique, ended up outflanking and destroying a roman army that outnumbered him by more than two to one. Does not sound like Pompey was in his league, especially when attacking.
By focusing too much on the Civil war itself, people easly forget that Pompey has a really nice military records before that ( in Hispania, the Pirates, with Mithridate and so on...3 triomphes as well, not bad, hu? ). One of the best of the Republican era for sure .
And that s one of the reason Ceasar went to Gaulle after all - to get his own CV.
The patch did a good job, Ceasear didn t loss anything whereas the game is more fair to Pompey. He shouldn t be underrated as a general. Then, why did he loss at Pharsalus is another story. In AJE, Ceasear legions are stronger than Pompey one, which somehow recreate Pharsalus situation in a "gamable" way.
And that s one of the reason Ceasar went to Gaulle after all - to get his own CV.
The patch did a good job, Ceasear didn t loss anything whereas the game is more fair to Pompey. He shouldn t be underrated as a general. Then, why did he loss at Pharsalus is another story. In AJE, Ceasear legions are stronger than Pompey one, which somehow recreate Pharsalus situation in a "gamable" way.
" Caesar, due to brilliant tactics, and an ability to inspire his men that was almost unique, ended up outflanking and destroying a roman army that outnumbered him by more than two to one. Does not sound like Pompey was in his league, especially when attacking. "
Caesar as the victor gave this number 2 to 1 but the reality is certainly different. Caesar was a good propagandist... The clever use of his X legio against the Pompeian cavalry is genius but 10-1 in Cavalry Ratio is certainly false.
Caesar as the victor gave this number 2 to 1 but the reality is certainly different. Caesar was a good propagandist... The clever use of his X legio against the Pompeian cavalry is genius but 10-1 in Cavalry Ratio is certainly false.
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
Florent wrote:
Caesar as the victor gave this number 2 to 1 but the reality is certainly different. Caesar was a good propagandist... The clever use of his X legio against the Pompeian cavalry is genius but 10-1 in Cavalry Ratio is certainly false.
hm...some smart fellows say AUX AND CAVALRY were roughly 1000:7000
doesnt matter, in game this is expressed by the stats working on the units in the province, no troops no effect. but the historical discussion doesnt solve the problem some of us see with the current state.
BTW
for my taste, its not only Pom/Cae.
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
This discussion once again highlights the problem wth making historical games.... history itself is a one-time event, and thus isnt really suited as a basis for conclusions. A lot of variables decide the outcome of a battle. Lets take Cannae (to avoid the Caesar vs Pompey discussion). Was this brilliant leadership on the Carthagian side, and bad leaders on the Roman side? Maybe. But maybe the Romans were just unlucky (rolled '1's on all their die rols), and the Cathago side lucky (rolled '6'6s ). If we want to value the leaders we play a scenario multiple times, and want, on average to get the historical result. But maybe that historical result was the fluke, and with exactly the same men, under the same circumstances, the Romans, in the real world, would win 9 out of 10 battles. We will never know, because we can't do this experiment. And we can't recreate it with the games we play, because the games treat the outcome as desired outcome, and are weighted to produce that outcome (otherwise we, as players, say the "leadership values" are not correct).
There is a good argument for the hypothesis that the historical outcome - especially for the famous battles - is not the expected outcome of the situation, is not the outcome that would occure most often when we could rerun the situation in real life. These battles are famous because the outcome was unexpected, and had major effect on the following events. Marathon, Cannae, Pharsalos, Stalingrad, Bastogne are famous because the force that everyone was expecting to lose didn't. Because the underdog held on against the odds, and changed history. Making a game in which the underdog has a good chance to do the same, bacause this is "historical" takes away the "against the odds" of the victory, and actually isn't historical at all.
How does this bear on the Caesar vs Pompey debate? Well, according to me we can't say whisch ne was better, They both have enough victories to tell us they are generally better then average generals. But they didnt fight each other often enough to have a valid statistical sample to base any comparision on..... (and even for an indirect comparision, by way of the same enemies they fought does not give enough data - the enemies and the circumstances vary so much that any indirect, regression type analysis is just a guess. Especially since all data we have on those encounters are coming to us by way of accounts that are very political colored).
There is a good argument for the hypothesis that the historical outcome - especially for the famous battles - is not the expected outcome of the situation, is not the outcome that would occure most often when we could rerun the situation in real life. These battles are famous because the outcome was unexpected, and had major effect on the following events. Marathon, Cannae, Pharsalos, Stalingrad, Bastogne are famous because the force that everyone was expecting to lose didn't. Because the underdog held on against the odds, and changed history. Making a game in which the underdog has a good chance to do the same, bacause this is "historical" takes away the "against the odds" of the victory, and actually isn't historical at all.
How does this bear on the Caesar vs Pompey debate? Well, according to me we can't say whisch ne was better, They both have enough victories to tell us they are generally better then average generals. But they didnt fight each other often enough to have a valid statistical sample to base any comparision on..... (and even for an indirect comparision, by way of the same enemies they fought does not give enough data - the enemies and the circumstances vary so much that any indirect, regression type analysis is just a guess. Especially since all data we have on those encounters are coming to us by way of accounts that are very political colored).
" 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
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
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
Fred II
is somewhat ruled out. having as many failures as victories and giving him the nickname himself... at least he was more unpredicatbale by using a 2000 year old battle tactic
dont you figure its going to be shifted to any historical forum/thread more and more?
is somewhat ruled out. having as many failures as victories and giving him the nickname himself... at least he was more unpredicatbale by using a 2000 year old battle tactic
dont you figure its going to be shifted to any historical forum/thread more and more?
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
I totally agree with Bertam "history itself is a one-time event, and thus isnt really suited as a basis for conclusions" - a second Pharsalus ( "insert here any other famous battle when someone was outnumber") might have been different than the first one, but as only the first one occured, history went on a certain way. And aslo we should'nt forget how history was written, especially in the Ancient time. No archive, nothing which could help you to balance the "official"/dominant records.
Plus here = the dilema between history/rigidity and gameplay/flexibility, it s all about the balance. And as we all are extremely picky - hey that s why we play AGEOD games - it s a endless discussion.
But I am not here to repeat what others wrote here, just to reminds that Hannibal was also defeated because of Fabius, who didn t fight a single battle against him. Tactic Vs Strategy, or different ways to lead war. Fabius knew his opponent well enough, and his choices turn out to be right - but we always like to focus more on a single event ( Zama for example) because it goes along with a certain idea of history. But it s over-simplification. And talent isn t enough = Napoleon and Kutuzow is another example. I am curious to see how AGEOD will recreat the Punic wars, not as easy at it looks.
Plus here = the dilema between history/rigidity and gameplay/flexibility, it s all about the balance. And as we all are extremely picky - hey that s why we play AGEOD games - it s a endless discussion.
But I am not here to repeat what others wrote here, just to reminds that Hannibal was also defeated because of Fabius, who didn t fight a single battle against him. Tactic Vs Strategy, or different ways to lead war. Fabius knew his opponent well enough, and his choices turn out to be right - but we always like to focus more on a single event ( Zama for example) because it goes along with a certain idea of history. But it s over-simplification. And talent isn t enough = Napoleon and Kutuzow is another example. I am curious to see how AGEOD will recreat the Punic wars, not as easy at it looks.
Florent wrote:" Caesar, due to brilliant tactics, and an ability to inspire his men that was almost unique, ended up outflanking and destroying a roman army that outnumbered him by more than two to one. Does not sound like Pompey was in his league, especially when attacking. "
Caesar as the victor gave this number 2 to 1 but the reality is certainly different. Caesar was a good propagandist... The clever use of his X legio against the Pompeian cavalry is genius but 10-1 in Cavalry Ratio is certainly false.
My memory was ten to one.After checking sources the consensus is seven to one in cavalry and light troops, which is still an overwhelming advantage. Some sources claim that Pompey outnumbered Caesar three to one, but Caesar, who was there, said two to one.
Of course, all history of those times is written by the victors, and you can question Caesar, but He did describe his defeat at Dyrrhachium, and the fact that two of his best veteran legions were almost destroyed there, and he did not make excuses for that defeat, merely described it . He also admitted that his army had run out of supply before Pharsalus, and that his troops had no choice but to conquer or die, in effect admitting that Pompey's strategy had placed Caesar in a desperate position. In his work on the Gallic wars, he did describe his initial defeat at Gergovia, the fact that almost all of Gaul revolted against Rome, undoing all his conquests, and that he had to win at Alesia, or everything would be lost. At Alesia, he admitted that his entire army was surrounded, even though he planned it that way, which is why he built two sets of field fortifications, one facing the town, and the other facing the relief force. In other words, Caesar often admitted, in his own writing, that he made mistakes and was out manuevered on occasion. That is why his works were considered reliable through most of history.
I would think that most if not all of the research material used for the game was came from sources that used Caesars writings as the main source, so if that is not accurate, then are whole view of the period is propaganda.
But the fact remained that Caesar did conquer Gaul, and that Caesar did defeat Pompey, and conquered the rest of the empire. I stand by everything I said about Pharsalus, except that ten to one is changed to seven to one, when it comes to cavalry.
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
vaalen wrote:I would think that most if not all of the research material used for the game was came from sources that used Caesars writings as the main source, so if that is not accurate, then are whole view of the period is propaganda.
no Sir, one of them has a Master in History, if i recall right, and we were quite eager to bring in scientific and semi-scientific but arguable information of different languages on the top, while testing...
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
yellow ribbon wrote:no Sir, one of them has a Master in History, if i recall right, and we were quite eager to bring in scientific and semi-scientific but arguable information of different languages on the top, while testing...
It is good to hear that you used multiple sources, and I am happy to be corrected.
Dixit PhilThib ;
To my knowledge, there were 2 changes made: one value of Pompey was upped by +1 and Caesar lost his 1 level of experience in the scenario (losing 1 defensive point in the process, down from 7 to 6). Overall, the "only" change that it makes is that IF Pompey attacks Caesar, the chances are a bit more equal...if Caesar attacks, the situation is 100% the same as before the change...
I will add that Multinational Ability has been added to Pompey.
Regards
To my knowledge, there were 2 changes made: one value of Pompey was upped by +1 and Caesar lost his 1 level of experience in the scenario (losing 1 defensive point in the process, down from 7 to 6). Overall, the "only" change that it makes is that IF Pompey attacks Caesar, the chances are a bit more equal...if Caesar attacks, the situation is 100% the same as before the change...
I will add that Multinational Ability has been added to Pompey.
Regards
-
FENRIS
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:02 am
- Location: Marseille (France)
just a little thing : too much "fan" of Pompey in this forum
pourquoi transformer Cesar (plus grand stratege et homme politique de tous les temps) en truffe de la guerre ?
pourquoi transformer Cesar (plus grand stratege et homme politique de tous les temps) en truffe de la guerre ?
[color="#FF8C00"][/color]Eylau 1807
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
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
)
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 wrote:+1
No matter how many details / considerations you throw in, Caesar was one of the greatest military commanders of any time, if not the greatest. Pompey at his best was only a good commander, and maybe not even that.
The problem with this view is that the primary sources this is based on come directly from Caeser.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests