Rome II

[GDS_Starfury]

its so pretty. 

[Martok]

Holy crap!  The War is finally coming to the Total War series (specifically, as an add-on to Rome II).  So pumped!!!   

Guess this will make me finally buy the game  :D

I do wish the new campaign pack was named just about anything other than The Wrath of Sparta, though.   

I mean, seriously?  Why not just call it, I don't know...THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR, perhaps??!!   



I know, I know.  It's an utterly trivial thing to be bothered by, especially when there's plenty of legitimate concerns to be had about this DLC (the naval game, for example -- it was kinda crucial in this conflict).  But CA's increasingly bombastic style is now spreading to the naming of their intellectual property, and it's driving me a little nuts. 


Anyway, bring on Thebes!  And Corinth!  And Argos!  I wanna kick some Boeotian ass! 

[LongBlade]

I do wish the new campaign pack was named just about anything other than The Wrath of Sparta, though.   

I mean, seriously?  Why not just call it, I don't know...THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR, perhaps??!!   

No one outside of a few academic circles (and here) has ever heard of the Peloponnesian War.

We should consider our culture lucky that most people have heard of Sparta. Not that they'd be able to distinguish between Sparta and, say, Athens.

[Staggerwing]

Not that they'd be able to distinguish between Sparta and, say, Athens.

Remind me again- from which one of those was the tall buff bald guy with the nose chains and the epic sedan chair?

[Nefaro]

Holy crap!  The War is finally coming to the Total War series (specifically, as an add-on to Rome II).  So pumped!!!   

Guess this will make me finally buy the game  :D

I do wish the new campaign pack was named just about anything other than The Wrath of Sparta, though.   

I mean, seriously?  Why not just call it, I don't know...THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR, perhaps??!!   



I know, I know.  It's an utterly trivial thing to be bothered by, especially when there's plenty of legitimate concerns to be had about this DLC (the naval game, for example -- it was kinda crucial in this conflict).  But CA's increasingly bombastic style is now spreading to the naming of their intellectual property, and it's driving me a little nuts. 


Anyway, bring on Thebes!  And Corinth!  And Argos!  I wanna kick some Boeotian ass!

I agree.

Sparta gets way too much sensationalism these days.  You can see that in the ridiculous amount of user-created Sparta mods out there.  Hell.. that's probably why they decided to do that war, after seeing how many user play & mod Sparta.  I guess they play to what's popular compared to what's historically relevant.  The uninformed seem to think they're invincible supermen who can't be beat, due to Hollywood and the lopsided attention they receive for Thermopylae (where the Spartans were the minority of the Greek troops present, even during the final battle).

While they definitely had a great reputation they certainly weren't invincible, losing land battles to other Greek states more than once.  Hell.. the Athenians could've continued to hold them at bay indefinitely if they weren't struck with a devastating plague (and then their poorly executed and ill-advised overseas military endeavors in Egypt and Sicily).  And the Thebans (and Boeotians) outright defeated them in a large battle at the end of the period, devastating their core Spartiates.

I think it all indicates that some of the other Greek city states' soldiers were nearly as good, and sometimes just as good as the Spartans.  So why not put in some more of the larger ones, if they're gonna have a dedicated Peloponnesian War map?  Would make sense since there were allies regularly changing sides or sitting parts out - the thing was diplomatic chaos at times.  I don't think they can really capture that part of it in a TW game, but we'll see if there are enough playable factions to make it interesting. 

[Martok]

Agreed, Nefaro, especially on that last part.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed. 

I do wish the new campaign pack was named just about anything other than The Wrath of Sparta, though.   

I mean, seriously?  Why not just call it, I don't know...THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR, perhaps??!!   

No one outside of a few academic circles (and here) has ever heard of the Peloponnesian War.

We should consider our culture lucky that most people have heard of Sparta. Not that they'd be able to distinguish between Sparta and, say, Athens.

Sadly, you're right -- but I'm still gonna grumble about it. 

Not that they'd be able to distinguish between Sparta and, say, Athens.

Remind me again- from which one of those was the tall buff bald guy with the nose chains and the epic sedan chair?

Ugh.  Just referencing that horrible film makes me want to puke.   

[mikeck]

Sparta's military capability has always been overrated. They were good but good lord, you would think they never lost a battle or took over Greece. They lost several land battles in the P.
Wars but those who enjoy their Spargasms don't care. Off topic but people are already arguing about how screwed up it is that their Spartan unit can be beat by a Roman unit or Persian unit or whatever. Imagine when the expansion comes out.

[FlickJax]

I think you are all being rather unfair; they were in their time a superb fighting machine, but they were also the authors of their own downfall.

[Nefaro]

I think you are all being rather unfair; they were in their time a superb fighting machine, but they were also the authors of their own downfall.

Of course they were good soldiers.  They certainly weren't as invincible as often portrayed.  Other city states had hoplite soldiers who could obviously compete with them. 

Hell, the Athenians took about 290 of them prisoner in their victory at Sphacteria and Sparta's actions were practically paralyzed for a time, from fear that they would be executed.  This makes me believe the view that Sparta was more concerned about preserving their core Spartiate nobility than committing to risky battles.  With the rebellious subjugated Helots and other neighbors like their rival Argos so close to home, they would much rather sit at home.  That also explains their regular unwillingness to send troops out of the Peloponnese for very long, or at all.

Despite the odd Spartan lifestyle, they were still a very small class of ruling nobility with the privileges that entails.  They were more content staying home and holding their privileged status quo.  Contrast that with the blatantly aggressive Athenians and their overseas endeavors, both military and  domestic.  One could easily argue they were the more warlike when comparing the two, along with many of the other Greek cities' colonization efforts.

[FlickJax]

I think you are all being rather unfair; they were in their time a superb fighting machine, but they were also the authors of their own downfall.

Of course they were good soldiers.  They certainly weren't as invincible as often portrayed.  Other city states had hoplite soldiers who could obviously compete with them. 

Hell, the Athenians took about 290 of them prisoner in their victory at Sphacteria and Sparta's actions were practically paralyzed for a time, from fear that they would be executed.  This makes me believe the view that Sparta was more concerned about preserving their core Spartiate nobility than committing to risky battles.  With the rebellious subjugated Helots and other neighbors like their rival Argos so close to home, they would much rather sit at home.  That also explains their regular unwillingness to send troops out of the Peloponnese for very long, or at all.

Despite the odd Spartan lifestyle, they were still a very small class of ruling nobility with the privileges that entails.  They were more content staying home and holding their privileged status quo.  Contrast that with the blatantly aggressive Athenians and their overseas endeavors, both military and  domestic.  One could easily argue they were the more warlike when comparing the two, along with many of the other Greek cities' colonization efforts.

Sphacteria - Well Hoplites without missile and cavalry support are vulnerable.

[Nefaro]

I think you are all being rather unfair; they were in their time a superb fighting machine, but they were also the authors of their own downfall.

Of course they were good soldiers.  They certainly weren't as invincible as often portrayed.  Other city states had hoplite soldiers who could obviously compete with them. 

Hell, the Athenians took about 290 of them prisoner in their victory at Sphacteria and Sparta's actions were practically paralyzed for a time, from fear that they would be executed.  This makes me believe the view that Sparta was more concerned about preserving their core Spartiate nobility than committing to risky battles.  With the rebellious subjugated Helots and other neighbors like their rival Argos so close to home, they would much rather sit at home.  That also explains their regular unwillingness to send troops out of the Peloponnese for very long, or at all.

Despite the odd Spartan lifestyle, they were still a very small class of ruling nobility with the privileges that entails.  They were more content staying home and holding their privileged status quo.  Contrast that with the blatantly aggressive Athenians and their overseas endeavors, both military and  domestic.  One could easily argue they were the more warlike when comparing the two, along with many of the other Greek cities' colonization efforts.

Sphacteria - Well Hoplites without missile and cavalry support are vulnerable.

The Sphacteria example shows the invincible fight-to-the-death Spartiates to be a myth when they obviously surrendered during a losing fight.

I suppose you will likewise write off Leuctra and Mantinea as some fluke as well?  Hell.. at Leuctra, the Boeotians specifically attacked the core Spartiate force first and directly, sweeping them from the field.

The Spartan reputation was probably more decisive in their heyday, before battle was even joined, than any vast superiority over similar core hoplite units from other notable Greek states.  Their propagandized image certainly helped their cause against less steadfast foes back then, as evidenced by some units attempting to flee before fighting them. 

By the examples, we can see that they certainly weren't so superior to other similarly well trained & led Hoplites.  When opposing hoplites attack with resolve, and met them head-to-head, they had a fair chance of winning out. 

As in their day, the myth continues with some.  But there is plenty literature out there pointing out the points I've put forward, so it's certainly a debated subject.  I just roll my eyes when I see people, such as many Rome 2 players, proposing that they're unstoppable supermen.

[mikeck]

I'm not saying they want good soldiers. All I am saying is they are overrated. people expect Spartan units to completely dominate every other unit in the game merely because they are Spartan. In the end it was a hoplite formation of well discipline troops...doesn't mean it couldn't be outmaneuvered undefeated

[MengJiao]

I think you are all being rather unfair; they were in their time a superb fighting machine, but they were also the authors of their own downfall.

  The Spartans may have had their problems, but eventually they figured out that if they did what the Persians wanted, they could keep Greece neutralized and keep their position as the top yes-men in an area under Persian domination.  So in the end they read the overall situation better than the Athenians, at least until Macedon smashed Persia -- or at least changed who the yes-men said yes to.

[GDS_Starfury]

In the original Rome I was moving a half strength Spartan unit back home to refit when it got jumped by a full Germanic stack.  I gamed the game and ran them to a corner where they proceeded to beat everyone and win the battle while taking 50% losses.

[undercovergeek]

In a few tw centre strategy guides that's still a solution to win every battle with them