Carthage victorious! But perhaps it was a little too easy?

[PJJ]

I played the longer version of the First Punic War scenario as Carthage. For about two years, it was a very exciting and interesting war against quite powerful Roman opponents in and around Sicily. But then I finally managed to conquer Messina with Hanno the Elder's army, supported by the Punic navy. While Hanno (about 50% of Punic men seem to have been called Hanno ) was consolidating his recent conquest, Hiero and his Syracusans finished off the remaining Roman and their allied troops still left in Sicily.

After that, nothing happened. The Romans made no attempt to send new troops to Sicily, nor did they equip any powerful fleets to challenge my control of the seas. So, I was preparing to start a war against the Numidians in order to conquer some new lands for Hanno II (he had just been chosen to replace Mago as a Suffete) when the scenario was over, because I had been able to keep the whole of Sicily for two full years.

It was fun while it lasted, but the AI certainly could have at least tried to put up more of a fight. Did it lack resources? Are there no options that give the Romans new legions and fleets at that point of the war? Was I being too quick in my conquests? As much as I'd like to think of myself as the reincarnation of Hannibal, I don't think I did anything spectacular as the Carthage faction.

[ATTACH]21973[/ATTACH]

[vaalen]

I think the problem is with the victory conditions. Historically, the Romans never accepted defeat during this period. They lost huge number of ships during this war to storms, had an entire consular army wiped out in Africa, and would not make peace. As Polybius said, "The Romans were never so much to be feared, as when they had something to fear". Disasters and defeats caused the Romans to raise larger armies, larger fleets, and redouble their efforts. I do not think there should be any sudden death victory for Carthage, other than taking Rome. Just ask Hannibal, who inflicted some of the most devastating defeats in history on the Romans, but could not force them to make peace, even while he was ravaging Italy.

The tenacity of the Roman Republic in war was remarkable.

The other problem I see is that the Roman AI is not aggressive enough in building fleets and seeking battle. After I took all the cities on the island, the AI just placed a big army in the toe of Italy. I blockaded the straits, and the AI never once tried to land in another spot. The Romans sent a few heavily outnumbered squadrons to attack, which were easily defeated. In the real first Punic War, the Romans lost only one naval battle, and that may have been because they were demoralized when their commander ignored the pre battle omens and threw the sacred chickens into the sea.

[PJJ]

Good post. Maybe the two year rule regarding the conquest and holding of Sicily should be removed from the scenario? Of all the ancient powers, Rome was arguably the most stubborn one. They don't seem to have understood the concept of giving up in a war. That's why I was so surprised to see the Roman AI act so passively after I kicked them out of Sicily. I was fully prepared to fight against hordes of new consular armies and hired all the mercenaries I could find, but it turned out there was no need for any of that.

[Franciscus]

Hi

We are working on giving a Roman AI more fighting power in this scenario, indeed.

Regards

[PJJ]

Good to hear that!

This scenario obviously has huge potential. With some critical AI improvements, it could easily become one of the best in AJE and BOR.

[barkmann44]

"the Romans lost only one naval battle, and that may have been because they were demoralized when their commander ignored the pre battle omens and threw the sacred chickens into the sea"

When they refused to eat which would have foresaw a roman victory,the consul[can't recall his name,Paullinus maybe]thru them into the sea saying "if they will not eat let them drink!"

[vaalen]

Good to hear that!

This scenario obviously has huge potential. With some critical AI improvements, it could easily become one of the best in AJE and BOR.

PJJ, I agree completely.

[geoffreyg]

I think the defeated consul was P. Claudius Pulcher (son of the consul who was in office when the war broke out). In a very rare occurrence he was put on trial afterwards for negligence and fined heavily.

[PJJ]

I've now played this same scenario as the Romans. I was again able to gain a major victory, but this time it wasn't so easy. It took over eight years and several bloody operations on land and sea to beat the Punic forces. Some observations below.

For the most part, the AI did a good job. It played aggressively and caused many serious defeats on my forces, especially in Sicily. I learned to respect their big army there, led by Hanno the Elder. Some of the consuls are truly bad commanders, and did their best to ruin my plans. (Perhaps the plans weren't always so good either. ) In the end, I was able trap Hanno's army in Lilybaeum and prevent their fleets from evacuating the troops. It was the last remaining Punic city in Sicily, and its fall brought an end to the war. I think the national morale of Carthage went too low after they lost their biggest army along with the whole of Sicily. I didn't need to send invasion fleets to Africa, and I couldn't really afford to do so, because I needed all the men I had in Sicily.

I noticed the AI sent its African commanders, Mago and Hanno II, to Sicily. I think they both suffer some heavy penalties when operating outside Africa, so it wasn't a very smart thing to do. Carthage has enough other commanders without such penalties, and as far as I know, none of their generals got killed in battle, so there shouldn't have been any need to send the wrong guys to Sicily. In 257 BC, the AI declared war on Numidia, but it doesn't seem to have had many troops left in Africa to actually fight that war. Fog of war prevented me from seeing any details, but I noticed some Carthaginian areas were taken by the Numidians - not cities though.

The AI was possibly a little too aggressive with its fleets. I noticed heavy activity everywhere in the Meditarranean even during the worst winter storms, which can't have helped to keep the precious Punic fleets in fighting condition, unless the AI is safe from those weather-related negative effects.

There was even a small invasion of Italy by a relatively small force led by Mago. It was enough to give me the option to elect a dictator. I used his army to drive Mago away from Italy and then sent the extra legions to Sicily.

If the AI hadn't invaded Italy, I would have had a serious lack of fighting power there. Without the extra legions and alae of the dictator's army, I doubt I could have won. This must explain the poor performance of the Roman AI in my previous game as Carthage. Because I didn't attempt an invasion of Italy, the Roman AI simply didn't have enough troops to try and retake Sicily from me.

Anyway, this is already a very fun scenario to play, at least as the Romans against Carthage AI. I hope my comments help you to improve it further.

[elxaime]

Just curious how this stacks up in PBEM playtesting. I have played about fifty turns as Romans. But unless the Carthaginians get reckless and approach Rome close enough to elect a dictator, the Roman army (even when fully mobilized) remains rather outnumbered, usually around 50,000 versus the 70,000 or so Carthaginians. Given that Carthage starts with almost all the objectives and can roll up a huge point spread just playing defense, not sure what the Romans can do offensively. I tried launching some attacks but ended up being defeated every time. Roman NM is around 75 now and the Carthaginians are at 130. That, and the Corvus event doesn't seem to be firing.

[dans221]

I'm playing a First Punic War PBEM as Carthage and it's actually pretty well balanced at least in our game. I figured I outnumbered the initial Roman army that crossed the Messana strait 3:1 so I attacked it to prevent Hiero switching sides. I lost every single battle and Hiero switched sides nonetheless. My NM was 80 and the Roman was 110+ at that point. Since then, I've been playing defensively and had some minor successes but the Romans are getting close to getting a competitive fleet. I've also had to spend quite a bit of VPs on requisitions and mercs to keep my land numbers advantage -- my recent "victories" end up costing me a whole lot more in replacements than the Romans (most of my army is mercenary and it costs 20-25k to get a line infantry replacement chit whereas a Roman one is 3k). Also, some of my elements seem irreplaceable whereas the Romans always seem to be able to get their elements back.

Actually, this PBEM campaign is so fun I might write up an AAR.

[PJJ]

Yes, I'm sure it's a very different scenario against human opponents. I'm just hoping the AI play is not forgotten in future updates, because not everybody can or wants to play PBEM games.

[elxaime]

Did your opponent have any problem with the Corvus event? It is not fired in our PBEM.

[Bohémond]

Could you provide your Script folder (BOR/Scripts) ?

We will need it to check if everything is WAD.

Regards

[elxaime]

Could you provide your Script folder (BOR/Scripts) ?

We will need it to check if everything is WAD.

Regards

Alas, I had already deleted the files.

However in this thread there appears to be an explanation:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?29034-1st-Punic-War-Corvus-event-not-firing

I had not triggered the event the year that Roman Consul Diulus first appeared (I didn't have the engagement points right away). A year passed and consuls changed. The event still appeared as an option. But when I went to click it nothing would happen even though I had the funds and engagement points by then (also, I had already built the two extra naval ports). So maybe what needs to happen is one of two things:

1) make it so the event description warns the Roman player he must take it the first year Diulus appears or it is gone forever OR
2) alter the scripts so that it will still fire even if Diulus is no longer consul.