Rome Total War Arcani

Comments - 18 in total

Page: 1,2

Re: How to use unit cheat on total war if I mind correctly Principes are written 'roman princeps', if it doesn't work, go in your Rome folder, open DATA folder and then open 'exportdescrunit.txt' search for 'roman pr' (in this way you find them any names they have). Lot of people don't remember them(I think)but my favorite were the 'Arcani' of Rome Total War. Tbh, I got really into Rome Total War when I was a kid but recently(Few months ago) got back into the series with WH1 and WH2. Back then one of my favorite things to do was lead armies into gaul and conquer it while preparing an amazing army down south with 4 units of Arcani. Nowhere outside of Rome:Total War have these warriors existed. Though pure fantasy as both a warrior and a unit, Bull Warriors do have a small toehold in the realm of reality. The true warriors in Spain of the time, both the native Iberians, the Celtiberians, and the Celts, were much hardier and more elusive than the game can portray. I now present to you: The Arcani, probably one of the coolest units in Rome 1. Well, here I have made them in Rome 2. Although there are other Arcani mods out there, I'll tell you why mine is different! They are balanced! They are not instakill overpowered ninja men that can beat hoplite phalanxes, like the other Arcani around here.

Only show golden comments

almightyjimbob

Jun 4, 2010, 11:11 am

please excuse spelling errors.....coffee gives me jittery hands lol. I recommend reading Warfare in the Ancient world by Brian Todd Carey, and a book which I think is called 'Warfare in the classical world', with hoplite's face on the front. Alas, I have lost the second one, so can't be more specific :(

almightyjimbob

Jun 4, 2010, 11:08 am

just wanna throw in my penny's worth.....
The Phalanx, in order to be successful, really had to be use as part of a combined arms force. By itself, it could pulverise most things in front of it, but was (obviously, and as has been said before) vulnerable to the flanks and rear. A group of phalanxes acquired considerable greater flexibility, as the could adopt a number of formations such as wedges, refused flanks, boxes etc, and when the phalangites were well drilled, such as under alexander, the formation of the phalanx itself (the Syntagma) was flexible. This said, it required cavalry to be truly effective - the point of the phalanx wa to act as an 'anvil2 for the cavalry's 'hammer', which is ALWAYS how Alexander used them (in fact, he used pretty much the same tactic in every battle......screen the left with lights, central phalanx, heavy charge on the right). Once you get into the successor states, cavalry declined in importance, and they tended to rely on phalanxes by themselves, pluse elephants, massively reducing the capabilities of the army, as the phalanx, while formidable, needs support.
The roman maniple, however, was superlatively flexible and versatile, and could comfortable operate against mostly any enemy it came across virtually unsupported, giving it a monstrously wide range of capabilities. If this weren't enough, the roman weapons fit was perfect for cracking open the phalanx. The pilae would be used to disrupt the front of the phalanx, thus allowing the legionary to get in close with his gladius, protected by his tower shield. Thereafter, the phalangite was at a sever disadvantage, since, while skilled with his Sarissa, he was much less capable, and less well armoureed, to come close up with his Xiphos. As such, while a formed phalanx presented a formidable obstacle for anyone, once broken open by the pilae, they were virtually dead men. Had cavalry been invvoled, things would have turned out differently, as that would have enable the greeks, macedonians and successor states to counter the legion by using the phalanx for its original purpose, rather than the primary striking arm of the army.
As an aside, the hellenic way of waging war also put them at a disadvantage against the romans - if a small skirmish was experienced, then burial ceremonies often took place a s a sort of 'pep talk', with the bodies open to see. However, when Pyrrhus did this at Cynoscephelae, the phalangites, used to neat puncture wounds from the Xyston and Sarissa, were horrified by the brutal hacking apart of the bodies by the gladius, both in combat, and when the legionaries performed their usual drill of stabbing the corpses of the enemy as they passed over them, makings sure they were dead. As such, the phalanxes went into the battle rather unhappy......
THEREFORE.........Combined arms phalanx system superior to Maniple Legion, Maniple legion massively superior to phalanx. Caesar vs alexander.....now that would be interesting........
so, penny worth added, I think :D

ciaofranco

Dec 16, 2009, 08:08 pm

For more information about the Phalanx versus infantry debate I would recommend that you read The Art of War by Machiavelli it discusses in great depth and detail benefits of Pike Men (phalanx) and Shield bearers (cohorts) and argues the point that the most effective armies are composed of a combination of the two as GRUPI has suggested.

tau434

Nov 7, 2009, 06:57 am

One of the things that puzzles me every time on these unit guides is the person complaining how bad and useless the Greek generals are and how you should never play them. I have a different theory on this.
The truth: Unless it's a one on one battle, it doesn't matter how good or bad your general is statistics wise. It's how you use him that matters. If you're having a one on one fight with the opposing general, then something is wrong with your strategy. Your general should NEVER fight another general head on and alone, no matter how good he is. For example, while the Macedonian General is quite bad, if you combine him with Macedonian Cavalry, you produce an effective fighting force that is both highly motivated and deadly. However, you may argue that the Greeks have a low statistics general, but no heavy cavalry. For this, you should give your General a unit of Greek cavalry, but only use him to chase down routers and flank the enemy. While most generals are meant to be heavy cavalry, one must learn that each faction's fighting style is different. Back to the Greek example, the player must rely on their hopilites, not their cavarly, to carry the day
On the other hand, the Roman General is one of the best in the game, but even he should have some Legionary or Praetorian cavalry surrounding him.
This is especially true in the campaign mode, as you tend to get a lot of generals units.
In conclusion, I would caution against avoiding a faction because it's general has bad attack or defense. In the end, it's an even match, provided that you use him correctly.
Again, that's just my personal theory.

katraan

May 22, 2009, 06:13 pm

Fleur de Lis, perhaps to you (maybe the game influenced you), the phalanx formation was stronger than the maniple formation (checkerboard formation), but history has said something different. The checkerboard formation was clearly superior. The legionaries found that they COULD get through the wall of spears made by the phalanx, even if it was a frontal attack. However, they had to fight in a loose formation, moving in small cell groups in order to infiltrate and to kill the phalanx spearmen. The phalanx spearmen were only armed with a small dagger and shield (some probably didn't even carry the shield; the spears weighed a lot). No, the phalanx formation was still vulnerable from ranged attacks, contrary to what you might think. In reality, the phalanx spearmen were concentrating on pushing forward, and couldn't always raise their shields to block the arrows.
Another reason why the maniple formation was superior was its flexibility. It took a long time (at least four hours) in order for a group of phalanx spearmen to form up. Once the order was given for the spearmen to attack, it couldn't be taken back (contrary to the game). They could only go forward. The legionaries on the other hand, had an easier time giving out orders and could change tactics readily due to their flexible formation. The phalanx formation also suffered from uneven ground (not shown in game), which could break up (not easily, though the Romans did learn to exploit the weakness should the event present itself) the formation.
Phalanx formation:
Pros: Power
Cons: Vulnerable to flanking maneuvers
Vulnerable against armies knowing to set their troops in loose formation
Vulnerable to uneven ground
Vulnerable to ranged attacks
Took a longer time to set up (than the checkerboard formation)
Could only go forward
Checkerboard formation (or Roman Legion):
Pros: Flexibility
Cons: Depends on the skill of the commander
GRUPI: I would suggest you get your facts right.
The Romans ABANDONED the 'maniple formation' at the Battle of Cannae, making each of their maniples deeper and closer, giving the great majority of the legionaries no room to fight. They WERE a numerically superior force AT the Battle of Cannae. They outnumbered Hannibal's forces 2:1, but Hannibal tricked Varro into falling prey into his seemingly convex formation (making it look easy to penetrate) and turning it into a concave formation once he got the Romans where he wanted them to be (nearly surrounding the Roman forces). Then his returning cavalry, after routing the Roman cavalry (who were lead a distance away on purpose away from the Roman infantry), would come back and mend the opening of the 'U, (shape of the concave formation surrounding the Roman forces)' allowing Hannibal to completely surround the Romans.
Do your research. I hope this has helped.

Fleur de Lis

Feb 16, 2009, 07:41 pm

Phalanx vs. Maniple Formations
I believe that both formations are as good as each other.
Maniple:
Using manipular tactics is in many ways a good idea (especially seen as the Romans are the main faction in the game). Maniples are strong, hardy formations but it should be known that THEY ONLY SUCCEED BECAUSE OF THE ROMANS' ELITE TRAINING. If these tactics were used by barbarians for example they would fail, as barbarians are hard to control and have a tendency to charge and break lines. Maniples are all-round strong, against most infantry types they are very powerful and due to their large shields and Testudo formation they are practically invulnerable to ranged attacks. However, like the vast majority of infantry are vulnerable to cavalry. Your best bet is to get them to hold fast and hopefully strength in numbers will hold back the cavalry, at least until your other units can intervene.
Phalanx:
Phalanx Hoplites/Pikemen are excellent infantry. Their shields can defend them against ranged attacks and against infantry they kick ass (contrary to popular belief), due to the length of their spears, which mean there is no way a frontal infantry attack can even get near to the soldiers. This means YES, THEY DO BEAT MANIPLES IN CLOSE COMBAT. And of course they completely destroy cavalry unless they are flanked. It is best to keep them in long lines with cavalry round the back and sides to keep off flanking attacks. So long as you have a variety of other units phalanxes are safe. Also phalanxes are perfect in street situations, for there is pretty much no way of outflanking them.
AND FINALLY:
Against maniple legionaries yes, phalanxes win, but only if there is a frontal attack between only phalanxes and maniples. REMEMBER, legionaries are very tough and versatile, so in a battle situation with other units on both sides I sould say, both types of infantry are just as good. It's true Rome used strength in numbers, but the true reason they finished the reign of Hoplites was because they had superior tactics, equipment, and training, and after all the days of Greece were over. Alexander was dead, the last vestiges of his empire swept away with rebellion and political unrest. Rome was new, enterprising and powerful, and it was a combination of these factors, NOT LEGIONARIES, that helped Rome to destroy Greece.

hotshark4

Feb 3, 2009, 07:34 pm

hi guys carn't find how to play or can you not play

airborne292

Dec 22, 2008, 07:33 pm

Good history, Hadrada!!
I have to note the best infantry in this game is not Urban Cohorts, it's an army of Spartan Hoplites, Cretean Archers, and Greek Cavalry. Even Roman troops can't break the Spartan lines, even with a cavalry charge to boot. However, I found that if flanked, the Spartan line bravely dissolves (never routs) and it's over. But isn't that true of Urban Cohorts?

Hardrada

Nov 25, 2008, 03:03 am

GRUPI's ignorance is downright shocking. You really ought to do a little research before you spread misinformation about history.
The Roman Republic DID NOT abandon manipular warfare in favor of the phalanx formation. The exact opposite happened. Manipular formations ARE NOT inflexible when compared with a phalanx; in fact, the opposite is true.
The pinnacle of phalanx warfare came during the reign of Alexander the Great (336-323 BC), when the Macedonian pikemen destroyed the Persian empire and dominated Anatolia and central Asia.
This INFLEXIBLE phalanx formation soon fell out of favor because it required a wide-open, clear battlefield and was vulnerable to ambush and flanking attacks in other terrain.
The Roman maniple (maniple = latin for 'handful') allowed for much more complex maneuver on the battlefield because men didn't have to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with pikes locked in order to attack. The early Romans fought in phalanx from about 800 BC to 300 BC, but conflicts with the Samnites on the uneven terrain of central Italy during the 3rd century BC caused them to abandon the inflexibility of the phalanx in favor of manipular war.
This notion that a phalanx is more flexible than a manipular formation is beyond ridiculous; ask Philip V of Macedon, whose hoplites fought in phalanx at the Battle of Cynoscephelae (197 BC) and were UTTERLY DESTROYED by the superior Roman manipular army. The phalanx was abandoned in the Western world after its shortcomings were exposed at Cynoscephelae, and hoplite warfare was tossed into the dustbin of history.
Moral of the story; when posting about history on an internet forum, MAKE SURE YOU ACTUALLY KNOW THE FACTS before misleading people.

jesse.mccoll.00

Aug 1, 2008, 09:30 am

how do you train military

Phoenixwi

May 11, 2008, 04:25 pm

GRUPI, for your information the Romans kept their manipular tactices right up to the reforms of Dioclotian. They were so good, they even implemented them at century level (Cycle the firstrow back for a rest every 10 mins, and they'd get 40 mins rest if there were 4 lines). The changes in equipment just made it less distingushed (There were legionaries called triarii, hastati etc, but that was a measure of how long they'd been there, they all had the same equipment) but the units still cycled.
In game this tactic is very useful. I try to replace the hastati with principes, and have two rows of princepes instead, so I fight, then charge my second row of princepes in and bring the first row back. I usually win then by flanking or whatever, but I can keep cycling for ever while the enemy tire out.
BTW, In 80 legionaries beat 120 phalanx pikemen, just put your guys in loose formation, and the phalanx will be PWNED TO DEATH. You clearly are a noob, and get your facts right, the romans never had any phlanx like formations

stormer

Jan 4, 2008, 10:49 am

cataphracts for me they're the best
what requirements are needed to get a roman general

Page: 1,2

Add a comment

Roman Units

Peasants

The last option of any desperate army (except perhaps slaves or convicts), peasants are good for increasing your numbers...and not much else. Poorly armed and with little military experience, their morale and discipline are both understandably low. They are cheap to train, however, and their one advantage is an ability to hide well. Peasants should be used as an absolute last resort, or in cases where funds are extremely short.

Town Watch

As the name suggests, the town watch is more of a sentry force than anything else. A militia made up of local townspeople, it is poorly-armed and largely useless against any competent troops. However, when one considers the immense advantages given to the defender in the siege of any fortified town, it is obvious that even the watch can hold off enemies for a substantial amount of time. They are also useful for keeping peasants in line, as can be necessary in towns that have recently been captured, and are not yet entirely resigned to your rule.

Archers & Archer Auxilia

Archers were used more widely by some cultures than others. The Romans, amongst almost all the peoples of the ancient world, were prominent in their disdain for archers (and indeed for almost any kind of ranged weapons). Nevertheless, archers are sometimes necessary (particularly, for example, in sieges), and the legions therefore recruited them from amongst the poorer sections of society, and from allies. They are not armoured and thus almost useless in hand-to-hand combat.

Velites

The lightly-armed velites, or skirmishers, were the fourth part of the Republican legion. They were also the poorest, as they could not afford even an infantryman's equipment, but instead were armed only with throwing javelins, which they flung at the enemy before the lines of infantry met. Velites were occasionally used to significant effect, as at Zama where Scipio Africanus used their javelins to drive away charging Carthaginian elephants. Velites disappeared after the Marian reforms, which made the legion a professional army in which men did not have to pay for their own weapons.

Hastati

The Roman legion was made up of three kinds of infantry, the first of which were the hastati. Normally the youngest men of the legion, they were armed with two throwing javelins (pila - of shorter range than those of velites) and a sword. As they were less experienced than the other two lines of infantry, and also went into battle first (being in front), they often suffered the heaviest casualties. Those who survived the hastati were eminently qualified to move on to the more experienced principes.

Principes

These principes were normally men slightly older, in their 20's perhaps. They were, as mentioned before, more experienced, and as such were expected to shift the tide of the battle, after the hastati in front of them had worn down the enemy. They also carried two pila and a sword. Like the other two lines, they had an oval shield called a scutum.

Triarii

The cream of the legion, the triarii was made up of men approaching middle age. These hardened veterans were literally the toughest infantry you could find in the ancient world. The triarii, behind the other two lines of infantry, were not always required to go into battle, but when they did, their enemies had reason to be worried. These men carried a long thrusting spear and a sword. Being richer, they could also afford better equipment. There were also less of them than of the other two lines.

Light Auxilia

When a Roman legion went to war, it normally had a roughly equal number of allied troops accompanying it. They were known as auxiliaries. The lightest-armed troops amongst these allies were roughly equivalent to Roman velites, playing a primarily skirmishing role. They carried throwing javelins. Being both light troops and non-Romans, they were quite often used as cannon fodder by Roman commanders.

Auxilia

As the light auxiliaries corresponded to Roman velites, the auxiliary infantry corresponded to the Roman legionnaires, although they were perhaps not as skilled. Often deployed on the flanks of the citizen troops, they again could expect to be sacrificed if necessary. Nevertheless, these troops were by no means incompetent, and the outcome of more than one Roman battle could have been swayed by them. In the later days of the Republic they were rewarded for their service with citizenship.

Early Legionary Cohort & Legionary Cohort

Roman legionaries are tough, professional troops with good armour and superb weapons. Their hallmarks are discipline, obedience and tactical flexibility. When approaching enemy fortifications, for example, they can use the turtle formation, or testudo, overlapping their shields for protection. Every legionary's flexible banded armour, the lorica segmenta, is of very good quality, as is the rest of his gear: a metal helmet and a large curved shield. They fight with two throwing spears (the pilum, plural pila) and a short stabbing sword, the gladius. Each pilum has a soft iron shaft behind the piercing head that is designed to bend as soon as it hits a target, making it impossible to pull out and throw back. Embedded in a shield a pilum hampers an enemy. Embedded in a man, it usually kills. Once the pila have been thrown, legionaries close and continue fighting with the stabbing gladius. The lorica segmenta armour was adopted because it was cheaper to make and offered more protection as the earlier chainmail.

Early Legionary First Cohort & Legionary First Cohort

After centuries of Roman infantry dominance on the battlefield, one almost feels compelled to ask how the reforms of Marius could possibly have made the legion any stronger. Yet they definitely had a substantial impact, and the Roman legionnaire of the late Republic/early Empire was truly a force to be reckoned with. They were no longer divided into hastati/principes/triarii according to the equipment they could afford, but instead had their arms provided by the Roman army, and served 20 year terms, unlike in earlier days, when armies were levied only during wars. The best legionaries in each legion would naturally gravitate through seniority into the first cohort.

Praetorian Cohort

Although the historical Praetorian Guard was an elite unit specifically tasked with protecting the person of the Emperor (which means they took part in more assassinations than anyone else), we can forgive the creators of Rome: Total War for taking some liberties with these units, for had they not, we would not be able to use Praetorian infantry in battle. And that would be a shame, for these are the best of the best, possibly the strongest infantry available in this game.

Urban Cohort

The only thing that Rome had resembling a police force, the Urban Cohort was intended mostly to maintain order in the great city. This is not intended to suggest that they were any less qualified to fight than the legions in the field; in fact, it was quite the opposite, since only the best were chosen to serve in Rome. The Urban Cohort could create a lot of problems for you should you ever choose to march on Rome...

Incendiary Pigs

This is the unit that everyone has been talking about. The Romans employed groups of pigs, coated in tar and oil and then set on fire, as a sort of primitive artillery. Apart from scaring elephants and horses, they could be useful in disrupting infantry formations. Obviously, the pigs did not survive for very long after being set on fire...

War Dogs

Used occasionally in battle by various nations, these dogs were deliberately starved to make them all the more fierce (and hungry!). They were trained to target horse's hamstrings and therefore could be used against either infantry or cavalry. Although they were obviously never used on the scale possible in the game, they could be a fairly formidable deterrent to any group of infantry.

Velite Gladiators

Amongst the many poor souls who fought for their lives in the Gladiatorial Games, the velites were perhaps the bravest, as they were armed only with a spear and a shield. The Games were started by Roman politicians as a way of pleasing the masses (and therefore receiving their votes); they rose to huge and quite obscene proportions in later years, as hundreds of men and animals were slaughtered for the entertainment of citizens. Velite Gladiators are available only to the Brutii.

Samnite Gladiators

Samnium was a mountainous area in the South of Italy, and one that had risen in revolt more than once. Samnite Gladiators were tough like the land they came from, and fought with a sword and shield in the arena. Like all the other gladiators, their lives depended both on chance and on the extremely fickle favour of the crowds. Samnite gladiators are available to the Julii.

Mirmillo Gladiators

Mirmillo gladiators are superb individual fighters, unmatched by any ordinary soldiers. They wear apparently impractical armour, but then it is designed to stop a quick kill in the arena, not necessarily keep them alive in a battle. They would normally fight singly as half of a matched pair, against another style of fighter, but on a battlefield they form a unit all of their own. They care little for personal safety as they are part of the damnati: the disgraced, the condemned, the untouchables in society. They fight; they win; they may gain freedom... eventually. Mirmillo Gladiators fight exclusively for the Scipii.

Cavalry Auxilia

Of course, the auxiliaries also provided cavalry, although these were often not very well-trained. Armed with throwing javelins, they could be used to pressure an enemy, or chase off their skirmishers, but were largely useless in an actual battle. Do not depend on auxiliary cavalry too much (or at all), for they are weaker even than Roman cavalry, and cavalry was always the weak point of the infantry-dominated Roman legion, one that led to defeat on more than one embarrassing occasion.

Equites

Service in the Roman legions depended largely on one's economic standing. While the infantry was made up of those who merely owned land (and not even that, after the reforms of Marius), the cavalry consisted of people from the equestrian class - the 'knights' who could afford their own horses and weapons, and who in peacetime were often the businessmen of the middle class. Armed with spears, they were useful for ambushes, for pressuring the enemy flanks, and - more importantly than is often realized - for chasing a fleeing enemy and cutting men down before they could escape.

Roman Cavalry

These Roman cavalry were almost always the richest segments of society, or the sons of aristocrats. In battle, the commanding general always rode with the citizen cavalry. Because of this, they were often incompetent nobles who served in the army only to further their political careers. Nevertheless, the cavalry could be brave, and a fierce charge could on occasion turn the tide of a battle. They were organized into ten turmae of thirty horses each.

General's Bodyguard & General's Armoured Bodyguard

A bodyguard was, historically speaking, a functional unit, rather than a type of soldier. In the game, however, they are spear-armed shock cavalry, whose success or failure depends to a large extent on the personal characteristics of the general who they are guarding - his effect on their morale, for example, or on their discipline, will play a large role in determining how they fight. They are in all cases excellent troops.

Legionary Cavalry

Let us be blunt - the term 'legionary cavalry' is a paradox, since the word legionary itself refers to the infantry that made up most of the Roman legion. Nevertheless - in Rome: Total War, the Legionary Cavalry are a more powerful strain of the Roman Cavalry unit, able to take on almost any foe besides spearmen (which are of course a natural counter to any kind of cavalry).

Praetorian Cavalry

Once again we are faced with a largely fictional unit; however, we can figure out its basic properties. Praetorian Cavalry are the toughest units that are available to a Roman player in the game, and can be used to good effect against almost any sort of enemy. The real Praetorians, for the record, who were meant to guard the Emperor, were not defined as infantry or cavalry so much as by their responsibility - looking after the person of the Empire's ruler, that is.

Ballistae

A Ballista is a sinew-powered weapon that looks like an enormous crossbow. It has tremendous range and can skewer files of men with a single bolt! While a Ballista might look like a huge crossbow, its working principles are rather different. The two arms are pushed through ropes made of tough animal sinew. This naturally elastic material is then twisted, and becomes a hugely powerful spring, pulling each arm forwards. The arms are pulled back, creating even more tension, the Ballista is loaded with a missile, and then this is shot at the enemy with considerable force. Providing care is taken to make sure that the two sinew bundles are under the same tension, the Ballista is a very accurate weapon, but because sinew is sensitive to damp a Ballista does not work well in wet weather.

Repeating Ballistae

The repeating ballista is a semi-automatic artillery weapon. As long as it is loaded with bolts and cranked it will keep firing. The basic design is similar to a ballista: twisted animal sinew ropes provide the power. There is an ingenious winding mechanism that draws back the arms, drops a bolt into place and then releases a catch - and all this happens repeatedly as long as a windlass is turned. This makes it a perfect weapon for creating a 'beaten zone' or targeting large enemy formations, when speed of fire is more important than pinpoint accuracy.

Scorpions

A Roman scorpion is a sinew-powered weapon that looks like a large bow laid sideways on a frame. It has a tremendous range and can skewer a man with a single shot! While a scorpion might look like a huge bow, its working principles are rather different. The two arms are pushed through ropes made of tough animal sinew which is then twisted, becoming a hugely powerful spring, pulling each arm forwards. The arms are pulled back, creating even more tension, the scorpion is loaded with a missile, and then this is shot at the enemy with considerable force and accuracy. Providing care is taken to make sure that the two sinew bundles are under the same tension, the scorpion is a very accurate weapon, but because sinew is sensitive to damp a scorpion may not work properly in wet weather.

Onagers

An onager, unlike a ballista, worked similarly to a catapult. These machines could be used to hurl projectiles up to half a mile (with the larger versions). The Roman used them in many different ways: large boulders were flung at walls to help bring them down; many smaller rocks were used against enemy troops as a sort of shrapnel; various burning projectiles were used to try and spread fire; and diseased animal carcasses were flung into the enemy-held city to spread disease.

Heavy Onagers

The heavy onager is an enormous catapult built using the same basic design as its sibling and capable of smashing down stone fortifications. It is powered by a twisted bundle of animal sinew ropes, and is slow to wind back and reload. Its missiles are devastating, and it can also fire incendiary firepots. Range is no more than the smaller onager and this makes the heavy onager susceptible to counter fire. Often, it is best employed alongside smaller artillery to deal with enemy fire.

Roman Arcani

They are a shadowy part of the Roman army organised in small groups and competent in camouflage and deception. The arcani exist almost as a secret society whose very name should not be spoken. The armour they wear is finely crafted so that while it offers great protection, it will not slow or tire the fantastically fit arcani troops. Their face masks mean opposing troops may even flee in terror when surprised by a group of these blood-thirsty killers!

Rome Total War Arcanite

The graphical images and content enclosed with this document are viewable for private use only. All other rights - including, but not limited to, distribution, duplication, and publish by any means - are retained by HeavenGames LLC. Federal law provides criminal and civil penalties for those found to be in violation. Rome: Total War is a game by Creative Assembly and published by Sega (originally Activision). This site is not endorsed by the Creative Assembly or Sega. Please Read.

Rome Total War Arcani

Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Forum Code of Conduct | Legal Information