The Roman War Machine

Home Sweet Home

The Settings

Noble
Augustus Caesar of Rome

Map: Tectonics
Size: Small
Era: Ancient
Speed: Marathon
Landmass: Lakes 30% Water
Aridity: Wet

No Barbarians
Aggressive AI
Permanent Alliances
No Tribal Villages
No Random Events

All Victories

15 Total Civilizations
14 AI Opponents

Twelve of the AI Opponents are pre-selected and listed out in 017-roman-war-machine-notes.txt. My intent was to select the most warlike. But on this, individual opinions will differ.

Beyond the Sword 3.19
BUG Mod 4.5 [Build 2221]
BULL 1.4 [Build 243]
BAT Mod 4.1


The Pre-Game Strategic Huddle

I think a quick point counterpoint format will work best... for me, at least, if no one else.

• Noble
• I don't like losing.
• And this is the setting on which Human and Computer are closest to parity.
• Augustus Caesar of Rome
• Hey, look him up!
• Industrious!
  • Wonders!
  • Forges!
• Imperialistic!
  • Settlers!
  • Great Generals!
• Forum!
  • A Market that provides +25% Great Person Points!
    • Yippie!
• Praetorian
  • An 8 Strength Swordsman replacement.
  • Some say the best Unique Unit in the Game.
• Um, the strategy will be War!
  • War!
  • War!
  • War!
• A Small Map with Lots of Opponents.
• Yep, it's crowded.
• There will not be enough room.
• There will be War!
  • War!
  • War!
  • War!
• Aridity: Wet
• Means, lusher land.
• Landmass: Lakes 30% Water
• Means, slightly more land.
• And Navies will be of minimal importance.
• Speed: Marathon
  
• Increases the importance of Units ever so slightly.
• Tripling the relative speed of Unit Movement (versus the Build Queue) is the most pronounced change, in my opinion.
• War should be more lively.
  • More fun.
• While, the following three settings (once again, in my opinion) reduce the impact of luck.
• No Tribal Villages
• No Random Events
• No Barbarians
  • Not to worry, there are plenty of AI opponents.
  • And Cities, already, wherever a Barbarian City would have sprouted.
    • Well, for the most.
• Aggressive AI
• War!
• War!
• War!
• Permanent Alliances
• Will anyone avail themselves?
• All Victories
• But Domination or Conquest are the only ones I am expecting.
• This game is not going to last long enough for anyone to build a Spaceship or achieve a Cultural Victory.

A few other thoughts:

• I expect Wonders will be harder to land.
• On account of all those opponents.
• The same with Religions.
• War Weariness will be less important.
• The wars will be earlier, so cities will be smaller.
• And smaller Civilizations (because there are more of them) means shorter wars.

Oh, I should, also, mention that I am enabling Normal Technology Trading, as any other setting is difficult on the AI. Now, I question whether normal Trading is fair to the Human. But it's been a while since I've played that way, so time to be annoyed and watch as the AI Collective advances.


And that's about all the ideas I have for the Pre-Game Huddle.

Let's start this sucker!

In the above image, my capitol (Crab Cake Cove) is hidden behind the five seafood (in the upper right). Down in the lower left, is the sole available metal (Iron or Copper) and is a requirement for putting the Praetorian War Machine into motion.

Waiting until I discovered Iron allowed me to settle my Cities in such a way that not only was Iron connected, but the other City (Two Fish) makes sense in its supporting role.

Hey, I mean, I think this is the best settlement pattern. But without the Iron, I may have settled Two Fish three tiles north, so as to grab the Gold (and Stone, which would be a long time in coming).

Thus, I said I would wait until Iron to settle my Cities. And I am glad that I did.

745AD
T449

Score: 2,726
Normalized: 161,715

4 Civilizations Destroyed
7 Civilizations Vassalled

I believe that is my highest score yet (on a non-rigged map, anyway).

• The War Machine was in full gear.
• The other Civilizations did not stand a chance.
• All the same, I felt an urgency that did not exist.
• I built almost nothing but Military Units.
• I built 95 Praetorians.
  • That's 8,850 Hammers worth.

I should analyse that a bit further.

Build Analysis

Buildings Built

Item	Cost	Built	Hammers
Stonehenge	360	1	360
Moai Statues	750	1	750
Barracks	150	12	1,800
Courthouse	360	10	3,600
Forum	450	4	1,800
Lighthouse	180	4	720
Library	270	10	2,700
Temple	240	2	480
Monastery	180	2	360
TOTALS		46	12,570

Military Units

Item	Cost	Built	Hammers
Praetorian	90	95	8,550
Longbow	100	21	2,100
Catapult	100	29	2,900
War 'Phant	120	9	1,080
Hvy Footman	140	2	280
TOTALS		156	15,210

Thus, I spent about as many hammers on infrastructure as I did on military.

Maybe some commentary would be in order:

• Stonehenge
• This was an easy way to transfer hammers from my capitol to newer cities. I am happy with my decision to build it.
• Moai Statues
• If I had not built the Moai Statues (in this particular city), at the end of the game, I would have at best been working four water tiles, which puts the payback time at close to 200 Turns.
• Thus, the War Machine was not aided very much.
• On the other hand, it transfers early hammers to the late game nicely. I will come back to this.
• Barracks
• These were an essential early build. But I question their importance. Still, the math is simple enough. Barracks pay for themselves after 5-10 units in increased survival rates.
• Courthouse
• I believe I over-built these.
• I need to learn how to work Caste System, instead... or in some cases.
• This would have been a good game for Caste System.
• Forum
• I did not specialize any Cities.
• A Forum (with its +25% Great Person Points) would be essential for almost any Specialist City... even more so for a Gold City.
• I should have Specialized a City or two.
• Lighthouse
• I did not build a single Granary. I probably should have. I tended to build Lighthouses, instead.
• Library
• These were (for the most) a waste. I used them (mainly) to boost Culture. But I should have lived with the +1 from Stonehenge... and another +1 from my State Religion when I had that.
• I was at 20% Research for most of this game. All indications to the contrary are due to a successful War Machine and the Pillaging that brings.
  • Um, if that's not clear, War Gold financed my Research.
• Temple
• A wasted build, pure and simple.
• Without a Monk Economy (and I had no Monk Economy going this game) the benefit is a mere +1 Happiness... the same Happiness that a Vassal brings.
• I'd rather have the additional 2.5 Praetorians, each.
• Monastery
• I needed the one.
• I may have captured the other.
• Either way, I only needed the one.
• Specializing is key.
• This is my one Monastery. Thus, this City will build a Missionary whenever needed.

Typically, I play a weak early game, build up my Technologies, and steam roll the opposition at Infantry. So, there is a time transfer going on there: late game power in exchange for early game weakness. Many of the buildings have a similar trade off: an early game waste of hammers for more something (hammers, research, culture, gold) in the late game. Put simply, if the game lasts long enough (a million-zillion turns), then every Building is a wise investment. For the 449 Turns this game lasted, the math is a bit trickier.

And now, for a recap on the Unit Builds.

• Praetorians
• Praetorians Rule!
• They become obsolete at the time of Civil Service (and the Heavy Footmen that Technological Advancement brings). But until then, they are as powerful as anything on the board... and much more powerful than most.
• I built no other Units in the early game.
• Longbow
• With Feudalism (and after realizing this is what I should do), I replaced all my garrison units with Longbows.
  • With a Barracks and a Settled Great General, they came off the block with City Garrison I & City Garrison II, yielding +70% on defence in cities (giving them an effective Strength of 10+)
• It was a good build. And I should have included more in my Attack Stacks.
  • I, also, should have been better at maintaining stack discipline.
• Catapults
• I should have started building a lot more of these (perhaps an equal mix of Praetorians, Longbows, and Catapults), suiciding the Catapults on offence.
• War Elephants
• I built these in the late game, when it was clear my Praetorians were on the out.
• I hardly ever use these.
• I considered them the counter to Heavy Footmen.
  • War Elephants are not Melee Units; and so, Heavy Footmen do not gain a +50% Bonus against them.
• Heavy Footmen
• I have little to say.
• I never got one to the front.

Next game (and yes, more and more as I write up the latest game, I am looking forward to the next game), I intend to play Augustus Caesar of Rome on a Standard Map at Marathon Speed all standard rules in play on the Monarch Difficulty Level, as a proof of concept. Is the Roman War Machine a viable strategy? Or did I just adjust the settings to meet my needs?

I think I will win. And as such, part of my strategy will be to milk my adversaries better. By this I mean: I believe I will be able to eliminate all the rivals on the continent on which I start (handily enough) with a Praetorian Rush (or Offensive, take your pick). So, I might as well play with my opponents, capturing Religions, Wonders, Workers, Unit Experience, Improved Cities, and so on. In other words, since Victory is assured, I need not rush into it. Let my victims shower me with Tribute.

Also, it bears mentioning, that there will be two sets of wars (or so I believe) in the next game, one with the neighbours on my home continent and those who I will require Optics to meet and Astronomy to attack. This game has shown that the initial Home Front War should be quick and painless. Thus, part of my overall strategy will be in transferring power from the early game to the late game (which is what I normally do).

But then, that is next game.

I played this game on Marathon Speed, which takes three times as long (1,500 Turns to reach 2050AD). So, at Turn 450 (or 449 to be exact), we are about a third of the way there. More importantly, the Total Population is under 300, which is not exactly high.

This was a War Game.

This game did not last that long nor was Research ever my strong suit. Research (blue) was always offset by Negative Spending (gold), which I earned by capturing cities.

Next game, I wish to conquer my lands at a more measured pace (playing with my victims if that's what it takes) to keep research at a better level.

At the end of the game (as I often do), I switched from Research to Culture, hoping to grab those few extra tiles (Percent of Land Controlled) required for Victory. Up until that point, my Culture was virtually non-existent. Next game, I wish to follow a similar trajectory, as most Homeland Culture is wasted.

The above shows when each combat occurred in the game, counting each combat as a single instance.

The above graph indicates each combat (just like the other one), but weights each combat by my unit's current Strength rating.

Since I used Praetorians almost exclusively, there is not much of a difference between the two graphs. Perhaps in a later game (say when I go to Tanks), that will change.

Final Score:   2,726
 Normalized: 161,715

I recorded the Raw & Normalized Score on the Turn I defeated each opponent. That is on the the turn they either became my Vassal or were Destroyed by me (but not when others did the same).

{Spain was actually destroyed on 715AD, but I neglected to record the data before deleting all the old games. So, accurate data collection may not be my strong suit.}

The lines on both graphs start and stop at the same point, as that is a function of the graphing program I used. Or in other words, the lines are normalized to one another.

The slight bump at the very end is from a last ditch run for the finish line, which saw me capture four cities in the final turn, because... Why not?

These graphs basically tell me nothing. And as such, I doubt I will bother compiling them again.

Or at least, that is my first thought.

On second thought, they did tell me that my progress was slow but ever improving. I did not hit a plateau or fall (meaningfully) backwards, which is often the case. More cities and more land (from the War Machine) equates to an ever higher score. So, similar graphs may be of use in the future to identify points of failure and backwards decline. Still, I doubt I will undertake the effort, since the production of these graphs was done by hand.

I learned quite a bit (about my gaming style and what I need to improve), when I looked at the raw data that went into the Combat Graphs (from two sections above).


Some Basic Stats

Turns: 448
Combat Events: 286
Direct Conquers: 12 Civs

Most Combats in a Turn: 16
Most Strength in a Turn: 85

{In the above and the discussions that follow, Strength refers to a Summation of Unit Strength. So in the above (on the most violent turn), 16 separate Combats took place, involving a total (current) Unit Strength of 85.

Now, I've been know to go the long way around. And rest assured (in a moment), I will I. But almost everything I have to say can be extrapolated from the data above, after one realizes that a Praetorian fought in almost every Combat this game.

85 / 16 = 5.31

Meaning, in the biggest battle of this game, my Praetorians walked into battle with an average Strength of 5.31 out of 8.00... or at 66.4% of full Strength.

It gets worse.

The first table is a count of total Combat Events as split by Attack or Defence and my Winning or Losing. The second takes the same four way split, but looks at the total Combat Strength (of my units), instead. So a full health Praetorian would count as eight. The final table divides the number of events by the total Strength (in each quadrant) further dividing by eight to normalize the results for a Praetorian (almost all of these Combats involved Praetorians on my side and those that didn't were for War Elephants, which, also, have a Strength of eight). So, the last table shows at what percent of a Full Strength Praetorian I typically employed in each type of Combat.

Now, this would not matter (in the least) if the percents were all equal. But they are not. And a quick look at the charts will show that the bulk of my losses (43 vs 29) happen at my initiative (I am the one attacking), while utilizing weak troops (67.8% of Full Strength on the Wins vs 27.6% on the Losses). So, many of my Losses are from fighting with weak Units.

Oddly, when I dug down into the raw data (that's what the logfile is for), I found that the odds I was taking in these losing battles wasn't always horrible. The following being the first two losing Combat entries in the logfile:


While attacking in Celtic territory at Bibracte, Praetorian 5 (Crab Cake Cove) loses to Celtic Archer (0.24/3) (Prob Victory: 74.8%)

While attacking in German territory at Munich, Praetorian 9 (Iron Dam) loses to German Archer (1.74/3) (Prob Victory: 66.9%)


So, while not great odds, they are not horrible odds. And in reality, the only problem I see is that I lost, when I most likely would not have if my Praetorian had been at full strength... rather than at 0.24 and 1.74, respectively.

Once again, I have no option but to conclude:

1. I am not maintaining Stack Discipline.
2. I am not maintaining Health Discipline.

One cannot avoid all losses. But I am willing to assume half of my loses were the direct result of poor leadership (user error), which comes out to (90*(43+29)/2=3,240) 3,250 Wasted Hammers!

Such a number is intolerable... especially after one considers that every aspect of this game has led me to the conclusion that the computer simply does not know how to fight a war. And as such, I should be Playing with my Prey, taking my time destroying the AI, and milking it for all the Techs, Tribute, Wonders, Religions, and developed Cities that I can, which is exactly what I intend to do in my next game.