You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Rome Strategy Discussion
Moderated by Terikel Grayhair, General Sajaru, Awesome Eagle

Hop to:    
loginhomeregisterhelprules
Bottom
Topic Subject: Dealing with the Gauls
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
posted 17 February 2009 13:09 EDT (US)   
I am playing a Julii campaign and have taken over Carthaginian possessions in Caralis, Lilybaeum and in North Africa. Now I am preparing to invade the Gauls. I have already beseiged Patavium. As I want only the southern coastal Gaulish settlements, because the others aren't really productive, and no trouble from the Gauls after I end the take over of the southern coast, I want to execute a destructive operation upon the other Gaulish settlements, which includes destroying and abandoning the aforementioned settlements.

I am now wondering whether this is a good or bad idea. What do you think?

[This message has been edited by jurijb08 (edited 02-17-2009 @ 01:36 PM).]

Replies:
posted 17 February 2009 13:47 EDT (US)     1 / 48  
I think it has its upsides and downsides. A big upside is that you'll get rid of your immediate threat when playing the Julii, the gauls. A big downside is that you'll leave those cities to rebel and sooner or later the other factions around it will take them (Britons, Germans, Spain) and one day they will become your enemies.

I personally don't think the northern gaul territories to be that rich, and I wouldn't bother with them, it's still, however, a solid source of income that could help you. But remember you're going to need territories to be able to declare war on the SPQR, unless you don't listen to them and they will outlaw you.

So my suggestion is, take Patavium and Mediolanium. Then head for Massilia (which should be rebel), then jump to Narbo Martius, because of its silver mine. Then take a couple divisions and sweep north and take every single gaul held city. Exterminate the population for some nice cash and if, if you're going to abandon the town, destroy every possible building in there. I would then suggest you to head for Spain and their rich mines, take Palma just for strategical purposes, then once you own Spain for a nice source of income, Africa is basically a sail away.
posted 17 February 2009 13:54 EDT (US)     2 / 48  
I agree. Take the southern Gaul coast, trash as high as you feel like with a portion of your force while you take Spain.
posted 17 February 2009 14:01 EDT (US)     3 / 48  
But remember you're going to need territories to be able to declare war on the SPQR, unless you don't listen to them and they will outlaw you.
Actually, I intend to build a forum in Carthage and train an assasin there, who would go to Rome and, by failing, initiating the Civil War.
So my suggestion is, take Patavium and Mediolanium. Then head for Massilia (which should be rebel), then jump to Narbo Martius, because of its silver mine. Then take a couple divisions and sweep north and take every single gaul held city. Exterminate the population for some nice cash and if, if you're going to abandon the town, destroy every possible building in there. I would then suggest you to head for Spain and their rich mines, take Palma just for strategical purposes, then once you own Spain for a nice source of income, Africa is basically a sail awa
That's almost exactly as my presumed strategy, you know. After Condate Redonum I plan to take Lemonum and then, as quickly as possible, head for Iberia. As for Massila, the Gauls are already hammering it. It won't stay rebel for long. It is now 263 BC.

[This message has been edited by jurijb08 (edited 02-17-2009 @ 02:27 PM).]

posted 17 February 2009 15:15 EDT (US)     4 / 48  
Actually, I intend to build a forum in Carthage and train an assasin there, who would go to Rome and, by failing, initiating the Civil War.
I won't rely on the assassination attempts. I've yet to initiate civil war this way. My assassins (even the good ones) always fail to kill their target because they get away. And when my assassins have been caught, the SPQR never retaliate it. Not sure what's going on but I was never able to initiate civil war after at least 25 attempts. But you can try.
As for Massila, the Gauls are already hammering it. It won't stay rebel for long. It is now 263 BC.
Keep a close eye on it. Sometimes the rebels are able to hold the city, unless this is one of several attempts to take it. If the gauls don't take it, the rebels should be very weak and you should jump all over it.
posted 17 February 2009 15:35 EDT (US)     5 / 48  
I never got the point of take and abandon in RTW (I did in MTWI!) outside of having insufficient troops to maintain order. But if you can maintain order, why not keep them? More troops, more money flowing in your coffers, more provinces you control (which means more family members)

"It's not true. Some have great stories, pretty stories that take place at lakes with boats and friends and noodle salad. Just no one in this car. But, a lot of people, that's their story. Good times, noodle salad. What makes it so hard is not that you had it bad, but that you're that pissed that so many others had it good." Jack Nicholson
posted 17 February 2009 15:59 EDT (US)     6 / 48  
I never got the point of take and abandon in RTW (I did in MTWI!) outside of having insufficient troops to maintain order. But if you can maintain order, why not keep them? More troops, more money flowing in your coffers, more provinces you control (which means more family members)
Yes, some provinces do provide extra cash but some don't, like the Gaulic settlement. From a previous experince, where I captured every single Galic settlement, I was left with bulk. The settlements couldn't provide recruitment of decent soldiers, only town militia and peasants, for a long long time. I also couldn't build anything because there weren't enough people to make the settlements pass to the next level, which took forever for them to do so, with the expetion of the southern coastal Gallic settlements. Those inland settlements didn't provide much income and I didn't have any extra family members pop up. I figured it would be best in this situation to destroy settlements of no use and only take the profitable ones. Sometimes, such a policy can be used to create buffer zones.

PS: Just thought os something. Would such a destructive policy affect my standing with the senate floor in any way?

[This message has been edited by jurijb08 (edited 02-17-2009 @ 04:04 PM).]

posted 17 February 2009 16:21 EDT (US)     7 / 48  
Romans don't care if non-Roman' blood gets spilled
posted 17 February 2009 18:30 EDT (US)     8 / 48  
A funny thing with Guals is that they seem to freak positions (do really bad at everything) if you take their
capital. I dont mean thagame will be easy when you take it its just that they start to cause their own problems.

This works some times since its there only citie that starts of with anything good in truth.

“We call Japanese soldiers fanatics when they die rather than surrender, whereas American soldiers who do the same thing are called heroes” - Robert Maynard Hutchins

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.” - Peter Singer
posted 17 February 2009 21:20 EDT (US)     9 / 48  
PS: Just thought os something. Would such a destructive policy affect my standing with the senate floor in any way?
Not at all. Only thing is that the people isn't going to like you much but you already established you don't care about that so I wouldn't worry about it. The senate will only like you or dislike you based on how often you listen to them (i.e. accomplish their missions) and how popular you're with the people.
posted 17 February 2009 21:54 EDT (US)     10 / 48  
I never got the point of take and abandon in RTW (I did in MTWI!) outside of having insufficient troops to maintain order. But if you can maintain order, why not keep them? More troops, more money flowing in your coffers, more provinces you control (which means more family members)
I like to sorta play by my own rules and do different things with different factions for different purposes.
For example, I like to use Macedon and conquer everything to the east. I don't want anything to do with Italy other than to be left alone, so I'll wipe the Brutii off the face of the earth completely, and then I'll concentrate on Asia Minor and the Levant.
As Carthage, I like to take all of Africa, all of Spain and the islands of the mediterranean. When I go through Italy, it's kinda fun to leave a path of destruction in my wake.

"Cowardice and stupidity are vices which,
disgraceful as they are in private to those who have them,
are when found in a general the greatest of public calamities."

- Polybius of Megalopolis
posted 18 February 2009 10:51 EDT (US)     11 / 48  
The Gauls are much easier to deal with than the Britons, so I recommend you take their provinces and hold onto them so the Britons don't get them. They might not be the biggest moneymakers, but they will make you more money than it costs to keep them happy.

          Hussarknight
posted 18 February 2009 11:16 EDT (US)     12 / 48  
I agree with Hussarknight. Besides the extra income, you also deny the Brits and Germans easy conquests on rebel cities if you had gone on a destructive strategy. Army upkeep can become very costly and every cent you earn counts no matter how small.

I'm not talking about temporary cash from extermination but regular cash from settlements. Even if the settlement is in negative cash, it may turn positive if your overall population gets larger. And that comes more easily through conquering more settlements.

Keeping those towns also helps you gain more popularity with the people. Even if you don't care about this, consider that should you fail to trigger the civil war through assassination, the only other way to do so (without having to wait for senate displeasure to boil over) is when your popularity with the people is high enough.

The forces of the Polish king were so numerous that there is no number high enough in the human language. -- Prussian Chronicles

[This message has been edited by AKhoplites (edited 02-18-2009 @ 11:18 AM).]

posted 18 February 2009 12:37 EDT (US)     13 / 48  
I don't see the use in destroying them. They won't be gaining you a fantastic amount, but you certainly won't lose anything by it. Alesia is a pretty useful city to have - highish population so you can build those barracks quickly and have a nice forward base on that nasty Rhine frontier to keep your troops up to full strength. The problem with the other cities in Gaul is that when you capture them their populations are so low that it takes a long time before you can build anything but the most basic of settlements up. Import some peasants from Italy though and you'll soon be able to correct that.

You won't be losing money by taking them - the negative economy indicator on the campaign map is utterly misleading and should be ignored. The reason is, if say you have 12 settlements, the total cost of funding your empire, and in particular your huge army, is divided equally between these settlements, regardless of whether they're the smallest village of the most cramped metropolis. Obviously these small places won't be able to contribute enough money to fund the upkeep of several legions! Nevertheless there are people living there, paying taxes, there might be resources you can plunder, trade routes open - trust me, they're making money!

The only question is whether you need to build another expensive army to protect these little settlements. I don't think you do really. Because if you sit back on Narbo and Massilia, you'll need to keep one full stack around there to keep the Britons, Germans and Spanish away from them. By advancing north and basing yourself around Alesia, you can defend the northern frontier with just one army. The south will still be open to Spain, but you should look to attack there and take their lovely gold mines off them.
posted 18 February 2009 16:12 EDT (US)     14 / 48  
Actually it's divided by population, which is why Carthage always seems to lose loads. Non the less the principle that more places is better than less remains.

Maybe keep Lugdunum and ignore Alesia. Leave a powerful defensive army in Lugdunum (since it is fairly large and strategically the linchpin of the area) and reinforce it once you've dealt with Spain. If it worked it would not only give you a foothold for later but significantly weaken their forces as they are all forced to attack you where you are strongest (because the computer attacks you where you are nearest).
posted 18 February 2009 17:10 EDT (US)     15 / 48  
For some reason, recently rebeled cities are reinforced with a big amount of rebel soldiers, almost a full stack. Either strong or rather weak soldiers. My point is that other factions that try to take the city will find it rather difficult and it will take them several attempts, therefore buying you sometime to train an army nearby while you have a nice bufferzone. Something to keep in mind if you still want to abandon them.
posted 19 February 2009 07:31 EDT (US)     16 / 48  
... therefore buying you sometime to train an army nearby while you have a nice bufferzone. Something to keep in mind if you still want to abandon them.
Yes, a big reason why I still intend to abandon the Gallic settlements is because I only have one archer unit in service and they are in Arrica, which I want them to stay in the case the Numidians atack. As soon as I build the forum I will build the archery range in Carthage and spam archers as many as needed to counter the Britons when they finally attack.

I am more comfortable tackling chariots with archers then with velites. They have a longer range.
posted 19 February 2009 11:08 EDT (US)     17 / 48  
Two things, let me correct myself on my previous post, if you abandon a previous conquered settlement from say the gauls, that settlement will go back into gaul hands by itself, instead of rebeling. The settlement had to either be previously rebel, one of your own or have the faction destroyed and then abandon it. Just making sure that's clear.

Also, chariots are a big pain in the butt, I'm sure this varies with every game but everytime I've encountered the britons, the AI doesn't seem to train a whole lot of chariots. Perhaps you'll find a stack here and there that has a couple of chariots with them so I won't plan my invasion of Britain entire based on that, be ready for them of course but don't expect to find them by the loads. And always be on the attack when facing chariots, bring a bunch of archers (the cretan ones are nice, hire one of those and ship 'em north!, the island of Crete always has a couple divisions) and get you some onagers to and blast those chariots while they're sitting, they shouldn't charge unless they see an isolated part of your army so keep them together.
posted 20 February 2009 10:04 EDT (US)     18 / 48  
I usually don't leave it to chance and hope that the rebel cities can put up a huge resistance. The only time when rebels are a real pain to the human or other AI factions is when you're playing on harder difficulty.

The forces of the Polish king were so numerous that there is no number high enough in the human language. -- Prussian Chronicles
posted 20 February 2009 11:10 EDT (US)     19 / 48  
I usually don't leave it to chance and hope that the rebel cities can put up a huge resistance. The only time when rebels are a real pain to the human or other AI factions is when you're playing on harder difficulty.
Plus you'll almost always do better than the auto-resolve results for AI only battles are.

          Hussarknight
posted 20 February 2009 12:47 EDT (US)     20 / 48  
I never got the point of take and abandon in RTW (I did in MTWI!)
I do miss the ability to utterly raze everything in a province to the ground...

But in RTW it is a rather pointless manouevre, particularly with better defended cities. It is simply not worth the extra expense of re-capturing it. A faction is greater weakened by the loss of setllements than hit and run raids. Once it returns to their hands, it will take the Gauls two turns to build a muster field. They can start churning out Warbands as fast as before.

[This message has been edited by Andalus (edited 02-20-2009 @ 12:47 PM).]

posted 20 February 2009 16:13 EDT (US)     21 / 48  
if you abandon a previous conquered settlement from say the gauls, that settlement will go back into gaul hands by itself, instead of rebeling. The settlement had to either be previously rebel, one of your own or have the faction destroyed and then abandon it.
Whaaa?! Oh well, I guess it's back to the drawing board. I will try to reestablish peace with Gauls, if not then going back a few turns, and create a larger invasion force. I didn't know about this before. Thank you for pointing that out. I would be in a nasty surprise if I went ahead.
posted 21 February 2009 03:34 EDT (US)     22 / 48  
if you abandon a previous conquered settlement from say the gauls, that settlement will go back into gaul hands by itself, instead of rebeling. The settlement had to either be previously rebel, one of your own or have the faction destroyed and then abandon it.
Whaaa?! Oh well, I guess it's back to the drawing board. I will try to reestablish peace with Gauls, if not then going back a few turns, and create a larger invasion force.
Settlements don't always revolt back to their previous faction. Sometimes settlements will join the faction that is listed as their creator in the game files, but this doesn't always happen.

          Hussarknight
posted 21 February 2009 05:44 EDT (US)     23 / 48  
Has anybody mentioned spies? You might have a hard time getting the small towns in Gaul to rebel because their populations are very low and so everyone in them is very happy. But I've just had an utterly devastating campaign against the Egyptians as the Greeks, and I've yet to fight a single battle against them. Send a mob of three or four spies out and put them in a city with borderline public order. Follow up with some assassins to destroy buildings that could improve this order, and within a few turns you should have a nice rebel city that won't revert to the control of Gaul - they'll have to recapture it. I got the entire Nile Delta to rebel very quickly, and they've spent several decades trying to win them back. It's made a complete mess of their economy and I've had no trouble from them at all since.
posted 21 February 2009 16:38 EDT (US)     24 / 48  
But I've just had an utterly devastating campaign against the Egyptians as the Greeks, and I've yet to fight a single battle against them. Send a mob of three or four spies out and put them in a city with borderline public order. Follow up with some assassins to destroy buildings that could improve this order, and within a few turns you should have a nice rebel city that won't revert to the control of Gaul - they'll have to recapture it.
Interesting tactic you developed there. It makes conquering so much easier. But how do you beef up assassins? Which victims should they first pick on to build up their skills to increase their subterfuge points with the least danger of them being killed before they take on the real deal?

So, about the invasion of Gaul. Do you suggest I call off the invasion, ask for ceasefire and build up my invasion force, or just go ahead? I only have two big armies in disposal right now. The first one is seiging Patavium and the second, led by my faction leader, is in Sicily and will be going to take Palma. I want the Carthaginians as weak as possible, so they won't be then a hassle while focusing on the Gauls.
posted 21 February 2009 16:49 EDT (US)     25 / 48  
Palma won't bring in much dosh. Attack Gaul. Massacre every last barbarian dog that calls itself Gallic, their lands are richer than you give them credit for, and it provides a land route to Iberia, so you can hit it from the north as well as from Africa. I would ship that Sicilian stack to Narbo, then it can head north from there, while the other takes the eastern provinces of Gaul.

I'm not playing all the wrong notes. I'm playing all the right notes. But not
nessescarily in the right order.- Eric Morcambe.
I have the body of a GOD!- Buddha...
www.Nottinghamrugby.co.uk
They have sown the wind, now they will reap the whirlwind.- Arthur "bomber" Harris.
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Total War Heaven » Forums » Rome Strategy Discussion » Dealing with the Gauls
Top
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register
Hop to:    
Total War Heaven | HeavenGames