Slitherine

I'm currently playing an awful epic battle in MP. Actually many of the epic battle I've played don't seem particularly balanced, so I'd like to start a thread with epic battle MP results...no player names, but the results. Where Rome is involved in a game, it has won every one that I've played. I'll start a tally, and will update if other players post their results:

SUMMARY:
Bagradas Rome: 1 / Carthag: 2
Bibracte Rome: 1 / Gauls: 0
Cannae Rome: 5 / Carthag: 1
Ilipa Rome: 2 / Carthag: 0
Magnesia Rome: 3 / Seleucid: 0
Pydna Rome: 9 / Macedon: 1
Raphia Ptolmaic: 1 / Seleucid: 0
Trebia Rome: 3 / Carthag: 0
Zama Rome: 1 / Carthag: 1



Epic Battle / Victor / Score
Bagradas / Rome / 22-61
Ilipa / Rome / 26-50
Magnesia / Rome / 26-57
Magnesia / Rome / 51-61
Pydna / Rome / 53-60
Pydna / Rome / Surrender
Pydna / Rome / Surrender
Pydna / Rome / 49-63
Raphia / Ptolomaic / 23-49

Updated through MikeC's post of Dec 20. There are more results on the top than the bottom because fewer players report the detailed scoring (bottom) than the overall result (top).

Just finished my first multiplayer against a friend. We both purchased the game about a week ago. Played Bagradas. Carthaginians 61 to Romans 22. The difference was the elephants. However the next playing should be a different story now that we both think we know how to take on elephants. We are now playing Trebbia.

Thanks, I've revised the first post to show your results as well, please post others as you get a chance.

To add to this I have fought Cannae in MP from both sides and both were very close Roman wins...literally on the last turn or two and by 3 or 4 percent each time. Genuinely think Cannae is winnable as Carthage.

76mm wrote:I'm currently playing an awful epic battle in MP. Actually many of the epic battle I've played don't seem particularly balanced, so I'd like to start a thread with epic battle MP results...no player names, but the results. Where Rome is involved in a game, it has won every one that I've played.

I do think you need to take into account who the historical victor of the scenario was. I have played the Pydna scenario a few times, both as Romans and Macedonians, and the Roman side has always won as they did in real life. But the scenario always produces a really good fight and an enjoyable way to spend your time. So, for me, that is a very good scenario that has great re-playability. And one day, I hope to win as the Macedonians.

The other issue is that scenario designers do have a bit of a dilemma when they seek to portray a battle that was decisively won in real life by one of the armies. They might think that they should try and give the weaker side a few more units to even things up a bit, or they might prefer to stick with what is actually known about the battle. With this second option, I think it helps if the designer suggests to players (via design notes perhaps) that the battle is very hard for one of the sides involved and that they might get the best out of the scenario by playing it as a paired game, and by then using aggregate scoring to decide who has prevailed.

stockwellpete wrote:The other issue is that scenario designers do have a bit of a dilemma when they seek to portray a battle that was decisively won in real life by one of the armies.

Of course I recognize this dilemma, but the fact is that some epic battles just aren't that fun. I'd prefer to focus on the epic battles which are historical and fun (or custom battles). And if I decide to play a not-very-fun epic battle, I'd at least like to know in advance....

Forgot the name of the scenario but the Roman vs Warband one is super hard for the Warbands player.

Baseline Legionaires own regular Warbands hard.

Epic Battles and results
Magnesia Roman win
Pydna Roman and Macedonian win
Ilipa Roman win
Bagradas 2 Carthaginian wins
Zama Carthaginian and Roman win
Cannae 3 Roman and 1 Carthaginian win
Trebia 3 Roman wins

MikeC_81 wrote:Baseline Legionaires own regular Warbands hard.

Don't understand this, are you talking about an AI game, or how are you varying the difficulty level (which I understand is what you're talking about)?

Thanks guys, this is helpful info. I've played four Pydna games, and they are quite fun if the less experienced player has Rome. Otherwise it can be a bloodbath. I've played Magnesia twice, played out the same way both times: very close until both sides got to about 45%, then the Macedonians collapsed. Keep the results coming, will continue to update the first post. If possible, try to report scoring info as well, so that players can at least see if the game is usually close or a blow-out.

76mm wrote:

MikeC_81 wrote:Baseline Legionaires own regular Warbands hard.

Don't understand this, are you talking about an AI game, or how are you varying the difficulty level (which I understand is what you're talking about)?

The Bibracte scenario features the Post Marian Romans vs Late Gallic list. Both sides face off in an infantry heavy fight with just a few cavalry units in support for both sides. The primary units for both sides will be Heavy Foot. Gallic forces get 3 Superior Warbands and 16 Regular Warbands. Romans get 18 Legionaries. Cavalry and skirmishers are equivalent. Its simply not a fair fight for the Gallic player in an MP game.


Regular Warbands vs Roman Legionaires:

On Impact
-Impact PoA cancel out
-Deep Ranks +10 PoA for Warbands
-Superior Quality +50 PoA for Legionaires
Net PoA: +40 for Legionaries

In Melee
Swordsman PoA cancel out
Superior Quality +50 PoA for Legionaries
Armor bonus for Legionaries +25 PoA
Net PoA: +75!!! for Legionaries
Some mitigation due to Combat Strength modifiers but it is not significant.


The Gallic player is simply short the resources required to win. He doesn't have a numerical advantage to offset the baseline power of Legionaries. A quick look at the troops involved suggests that if you count out the points, the Gallic player is short something like 150 purchase points for units. The 3 Superior Warbands aren't sufficiently good enough to offset the sheer difference in combat power on the rest of the battle line.

Given that Warbands are also un-maneuverable, they don't have the option of fancy footwork either to try and beat the Romans in a chess game either. The Roman player really only has to advance in a solid line, make sure they use the Cavalry to fend off the Gallic Cavalry and sheer percentages will overrun the Warbands without much difficulty. Even if the Warbands get really lucky and score more than their fair share of Impact wins, Superior quality on the Romans will mean they are much less likely to suffer Cohesion loss whereas Warbands when they lose in close combat are worse than a coin flip to maintain Steady status.

Its a bloodbath. One of the more lopsided scenarios in the game.

Warbands is something I have long suspected to be overcosted for what they do. Either that or the Romans are undercosted. Actually I am leaning on the latter since the combination of Impact foot, armour, and quality makes them more than the sum of their parts, points wise. Maybe both?

Got it...do you have any specific Bibracte results i can report in this thread eg, “i’ve played three bibracte battles, all roman victories...”)? The main point of this thread is give players a head’s up about lopsided battles...

My Pydna matches were Rome 4 Macedonians 0.

76mm wrote:Got it...do you have any specific Bibracte results i can report in this thread eg, “i’ve played three bibracte battles, all roman victories...”)? The main point of this thread is give players a head’s up about lopsided battles...

I lost once as Gaul vs Romans and saw no reason to try again.

MikeC_81 wrote:I lost once as Gaul vs Romans and saw no reason to try again.

err, I haven't played that battle but I feel your pain; my similar experience in another epic battle was the stimulus for this thread....

I have played Bagradas twice, once on each side. Win as both Carthage and as Rome. Very balanced scenario

I just posted my result in Raphia. Never again. Half my line was irregular infantry vs phalanx. Haha, right!