No reforms at all?

[ziegenpeter]

Hi everyone!I was wondering why the reforms concerning units arent abandoned at all?
EB pretends to just give the status quo of 272BC, after that its no real history anymore. And if I play a faction that didnt survive/expand (= no or minor reforms) that much, its a big penalty because there maybe WOULD have been reforms after all if this faction had been more succesfull. Plus this keeps some unit slots free.
Maybe you just increase the MIC building time and distribute the additional units - due to the plus of slots - among them to simulate the military devellopment of a faction.

[A Very Super Market]

But.... all of them get some sort of reform.

[athanaric]

Nah... the reform units are a major fun factor int this game and often the biggest reason why I play a certain faction. Plus it's very difficult (not to mention questionable) to create "what-might-have-been-if" units.

[Andy1984]

But.... all of them get some sort of reform.

Some factions have no reforms at all I believe: Saba, Pontus, Epeiros and perhaps one I forgot (Getai?). It would be nice to have reformed would-be units, but it would be nicer to have more regional units. If there are extra major reforms to be implemented, I'd prefer to have reforms concerning government levels. Right now: most of these don't change, whatever you do. The only exceptions are the Romani and Hayasdan. Maybe if you control a certain region long enough, a higher government level could be unlocked because said territory is now considered your own?

kind regards,

Andy

[ziegenpeter]

I also like reforms but I think they are imba or you have to make up some for every faction. But this would be crappy for unit reforms. I dont like the idea of 'what if' units, for that I can also play warcraft. So reforms yes but only for traits/governments/etc. and please for all factions.

[paramedicguyer]

Theoretically I don't think there is actually a limit on which factions have reforms or how many, but there is a limit on the number of units (500 or 499 for M2TW I believe). This factor actually limits the "need" of reforms the way I see it. Additionally, historically speaking, most, actually if not all of the end game factions were completely destroyed or assimilated into Rome. Also remember history is written by the victors (hence why a rather detailed history of carhtage is impossible). There is a wealth of information regarding the romans and hellenes, but less regarding the more barbaric factions thus it would be improper to inroduce reforms and units based heavily on guess, speculation or imagination.

[Watchman]

Generally it just plain works out better - and with fewer problems - to simply go with the realistic enough assumption that most factions taking over lands outside their "core areas" will just recruit the natives to fight for them according to their "national" local traditions. Which is how it worked IRL for the most part - before the active consolidation of their holdings into a formal empire and the slow romanisation process, the Romans too tended to rely quite a bit on client-kings and local warriors in the more far-flung reaches of their realm. Similarly, aside from the actual military colonies (which in a slightly different form had been around already under the Achaemenids) and Hellenised "core" regions the Successors drew quite heavily on their Iranian, Egyptian, Indian and whatever subjects for soldiery, just to give a few examples.

[ziegenpeter]

There is a wealth of information regarding the romans and hellenes, but less regarding the more barbaric factions thus it would be improper to inroduce reforms and units based heavily on guess, speculation or imagination.

Thats what I mean. Again, I would rather use the 500 unit slots from the beginning and have other kind of reforms for ALL the faction as to leave it as it is.

Generally it just plain works out better - and with fewer problems - to simply go with the realistic enough assumption that most factions taking over lands outside their "core areas" will just recruit the natives to fight for them according to their "national" local traditions.

Agree, maybe you should get more Elite regionals after a while (meaning the elites are willing to follow you, but in their fashion of fighting), so its less pita to hold these regions.

[Watchman]

I know I've tweaked the unit availabilities in my own copy of EB1 to allow access to "local elite" type units for anyone who now doesn't have model-sharing issues with them. It's not like kings and noblemen were particularly opposed to fighting for foreign masters if it suited them, after all. (OTOH high-end units that somehow involve some very "faction-specific" organisational infrastructures, reforms thereof or something similar I've left out.)

[ziegenpeter]

Could you upload the necessary files somehow? I have no clue how to mod that.
Thank you

[Watchman]

It's actually just pretty basic copy-pasting of the appropriate lines in the EDB (because trying to decipher the hidden_resource combos for more fine-tuned AORs just isn't worth it), and of course changing the relevant factions both there and in the EDU. More tedious gruntwork than particularly difficult once you get the gist of it, which is in part why I'm still wokring onnit (aside from some other more generally EB1-productive stuff which isn't meaningfully less tedious...).

[Cyclops]

Gee its a big ask to subtract a big narrative element like Scipio's reforms or Marius' reforms from the story of Rome. Incidently, do the Polybian reforms represent the army built by Scipio? Perhaps calling it the Scipionic Reform might be fair.

I understand the mod's basic theory "shuffle the deck and let the cards fall" but an engine that ignores too many things that did happen because of a theoretical approach falls over IMHO. There is a great set of scripted events inthe swag, and room for more if only there were enough skilled people with enough time.

I believe Pontos does get reforms (at least the FM bodyguards change IIRC: about to find out in my current Pontian AS-hunting campaign).

@Andy1984, yeah the govt level thing for Hayasdan is very cool and would be lovely for others but there has to be a convincing backstory.

For the Hai there is the example of other "more-or-less Persian successor" dynasties like Arsacids and later Sassanians to see that as a possible (voluntary) path.

I have to ask what Saba reforms are being glaringly ignored? What massive regional developments are needed for the Lussotannan? (for this last one I posit a Lussotannan/Punic melded culture founded by an Iberian Alexander-figure whose death is met by with huge revolts in the homeland and a bunch of succesor states founded by his generals, but thats just me and my alt-histroy addiction: I don't expect it to fly unless I mod it myself).

If I had the necessary modding skills I'd be more willing to criticise because I could back it up with constructive input, but frankly there's nothing much to pick on in EB, they have turned something good into something great.

[paramedicguyer]

Everyone must remember, and we tend to forget since were so used to RTW, that armor upgrades are physically visible on the battlefield for M2TW. So if one considers that at least three armor upgrades are available that creates 1500 (1497) different physical units. (big kudos to EB team imagine having to skin up to 1500 different units, plus then having to create varieties, no wonder it takes so long). I don't want to speculate, but this concept should be kept in mind. It will undoubtably have a great deal of effect on the reform system.

[Andy1984]

Everyone must remember, and we tend to forget since were so used to RTW, that armor upgrades are physically visible on the battlefield for M2TW. So if one considers that at least three armor upgrades are available that creates 1500 (1497) different physical units. (big kudos to EB team imagine having to skin up to 1500 different units, plus then having to create varieties, no wonder it takes so long). I don't want to speculate, but this concept should be kept in mind. It will undoubtably have a great deal of effect on the reform system.

1500 models... Doesn't that create any possibility for more units? Could you e.g. make the hysteroi pehzetaroi the armoured version of the pehzetairoi (or the thorakitai the armoured version of the tureophoroi)? I imagine if this would be possible, dropping the blacksmith upgrades (and use one model for each unit) would be a small deal. You might create a scenario where you end up retraining pezhetaroi to the new level of hysteroi (just like you can give better armour to an already trained unit in RTW and EB).

Or am I totally wrong because there's some difference between models (restricted to 1500 or not restricted at all) and recruitable units (restricted to 499 or 500)?

kind regards,

Andy

[athanaric]

I believe Pontos does get reforms (at least the FM bodyguards change IIRC: about to find out in my current Pontian AS-hunting campaign).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Pontos gets a kind of Hetairoi Bodyguards with nice crimson-clad horsies. You can see them in the current wallpaper thread.

[Cyclops]

...armor upgrades are physically visible on the battlefield for M2TW....

I wonder if the team can/will utilise this feature to rationalise of some of the "levy...regular...elite" versions of standard unit types.

I'm thinking of the hoplitai haploi/hoplitai/epileptikoi hoplite progression, maybe the deutero phalangite/pezoi (or other line)/pezhetairoi (or other elite) progression, as well as peltastai/thereuphoroi/thorakitai.

Would the komatai/epileptikoi komatai (sp? the typical Getic units and their chosen cousins anyway) fall into this category too? I'm sure there are others, like the various grades of skirmishing and melee cavalry in various cultures, or the steps up in spanish inf.

Some units are clearly the product of differing traditions/social groups/military institutions from lesser versions (obviously spartiates cannot be Corinthian hoplitai haploi reskinned).

Is this an opportunity to save some unit slots?

I guess we'd lose the distinguishing nomenclature, and if the only stat that changes is armour then we'd lose a bit of texture there.

Just speculatin'.

[Cyclops]

[snipped: a good post by Andy1984]

Sorry Andy, I missed this post where you said pretty much what I was thinking.

[Atilius]

Gee its a big ask to subtract a big narrative element like Scipio's reforms or Marius' reforms from the story of Rome. Incidently, do the Polybian reforms represent the army built by Scipio? Perhaps calling it the Scipionic Reform might be fair.

No. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Scipio's reforms". Scipio is credited with introducing some tactical innovations, but not with restructuring the Roman army.

[Chris1959]

Aren't the Polybian reforms not so much reforms rather the state of the Roman army as described by the Greek Historian Polybius towards the end of the second Punic war and are therefore a snapshot of how the Roman army had evolved from the wars against Phyrrus.

[ziegenpeter]

I understand the mod's basic theory "shuffle the deck and let the cards fall" but an engine that ignores too many things that did happen because of a theoretical approach falls over IMHO. There is a great set of scripted events inthe swag, and room for more if only there were enough skilled people with enough time.

Well I have to admit that I also like the scripted events. I always enjoy it like hell, when the advisor pops up and tells me stuff...
But I don't see why so many unit slots should be wasted on the romans and their reforms.

[A Very Super Market]

Well, they're the ones with the most historical basis. I'd rather have unit slots used on reforms that are likely to happen, rather than units slots invested on, to be frank, guesswork.

[Cyclops]

No. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Scipio's reforms". Scipio is credited with introducing some tactical innovations, but not with restructuring the Roman army.

Isn't Scipio credited with transforming the Roman Legion from a pretty rigid 3-line manipular formation with a strict straight-ahead attack vector into a more flexible force based around the cohort capable of outflanking, double envelopments and semi independent maneourvre and engagement?

Also didn't he increase the standard size of his legions by about 10%?

Also didn't he introduce spanish cutlery? I mean thats pretty epoch defining isn't it?

I have just read a book called Scipio Africanus : Rome's greatest general by Richard A. Gabriel. Its a bit of hero worship: he ranks Scipio above Marius, which I can't swallow, although his criticism of Julius Caesar as (self-)over-rated is quite cogent.

For a lightweight work it makes a good case: Scipio's reform of the army in Spain is the biggest single step the Roman army took before Marius. He didn't invent the cohort (its first mentioned being employed by his uncle, so its still Scipionic) but he employed it to detach rear elements for independent manouevre, something not possible with the army at Cannae or Trasimene or Trebia. His system was adopted by political rivals like Flamininus (sp?) and seems to have beome SOP for the legions.

[paramedicguyer]

Isn't Scipio credited with transforming the Roman Legion from a pretty rigid 3-line manipular formation with a strict straight-ahead attack vector into a more flexible force based around the cohort capable of outflanking, double envelopments and semi independent maneourvre and engagement?

Also didn't he increase the standard size of his legions by about 10%?

Also didn't he introduce spanish cutlery? I mean thats pretty epoch defining isn't it?

I have just read a book called Scipio Africanus : Rome's greatest general by Richard A. Gabriel. Its a bit of hero worship: he ranks Scipio above Marius, which I can't swallow, although his criticism of Julius Caesar as (self-)over-rated is quite cogent.

For a lightweight work it makes a good case: Scipio's reform of the army in Spain is the biggest single step the Roman army took before Marius. He didn't invent the cohort (its first mentioned being employed by his uncle, so its still Scipionic) but he employed it to detach rear elements for independent manouevre, something not possible with the army at Cannae or Trasimene or Trebia. His system was adopted by political rivals like Flamininus (sp?) and seems to have beome SOP for the legions.

Scipio did not reform the roman army before he went to africa (battle of the great plains/zama). Whilewaiting in sicily he simply drilled his army hardcore. Additionally he had in his possession in sicily the two "exile" legions also known as the cannae survivors, these soldiers had therefore seen active service for at least ten years (actually longer). The term "cohort" during scipio's time was a term applied simply to a group of maniples/centuries. A Goldsworthy in his book "the fall of carthage" theorizes that a cohort duing polibious's day consisted of 3 maniples (likely 1 of each Hastati, principes, triarii). The cohort you speak of is generally attributable to C. Marius. However, it is unlikely that he himself devised the system, rather he formalized a preexisting formula. The "polybian legion" as it is called actually became defacto obsolete when C. Tiberius passed his law whereby the state was responsible for the purchasing of arms and armor for its soldiers. This law in effect removed any class equipment differences, thus the three "classes" became more of a honor level or one based solely on experience.
As even during Caeser's gallic wars mention is made of hastati. Thus this is eveidence that the manipular formation had not gone away even by Caesars' day.

The reason flexibility was not possible at trasimene is because it was a complete ambush. Really nothing could be done, to manuever out of a situation like that. Flaminius was an able general (with a triumph under his belt) with a well organized army. Trebbia was a loss because sempronius chose to marhc his soldiers without breakfast and pushed them thru a freezing river, oh yes and again they were ambushed. At cannae, the romans were so confident in their numbers that they simply arranged their army as a giant horde (more complex actually but yet a horde relative to their normal formation), additionally the triarii were left in camp. Oh, and I would like to place the blame of the disaster on Lucius Aemilius Paullus, not varro. The patron of polybios was aemilianus africanus. who was in fact a blood relative. We have hear one of the first documented cases of a cover up in history.

Also scipio did not begin a wholescale introduction of the iberian gladius, it is unlikely, that for the duration of the second punic war that any other army except scipio's employed this weapon. Indeed even after, it is likely to have made only a steady increase in its usage. The key to remember is that the blades were made by iberian blacksmiths, post war these blacksmiths would still have to train others, and this would take time. And no the sword wasn't epic, the tactics remained the same, the only difference was the quality of the sword (resulting from a superior forging process).

The manipular legion was just as flexiple as a "cohort" legion, if not more so.

I don't mean to sound rude, but I would like to see your sources. The book you mentioned, the author is Richard A. Gabriel, he is an expert on warfare not roman history. I have read his book or at least wat I could swallow, his conclusions are wrong and not in context with actuality.

[Cyclops]

Thank you for the thorough response.

Scipio did not reform the roman army before he went to africa (battle of the great plains/zama). Whilewaiting in sicily he simply drilled his army hardcore. Additionally he had in his possession in sicily the two "exile" legions also known as the cannae survivors, these soldiers had therefore seen active service for at least ten years (actually longer).

Scipio also drilled his army hardcore in Spain, both before and after the capture of New Carthage.

The term "cohort" during scipio's time was a term applied simply to a group of maniples/centuries. A Goldsworthy in his book "the fall of carthage" theorizes that a cohort duing polibious's day consisted of 3 maniples (likely 1 of each Hastati, principes, triarii). The cohort you speak of is generally attributable to C. Marius. However, it is unlikely that he himself devised the system, rather he formalized a preexisting formula.

Yes the term cohort seems to describe a group of maniples the first time it occurs (I believe in Livy) describing a Scipionic army in Spain. So connecting the use of cohorts with the Scipios seems legitimate.

The "polybian legion" as it is called actually became defacto obsolete when C. Tiberius passed his law whereby the state was responsible for the purchasing of arms and armor for its soldiers. This law in effect removed any class equipment differences, thus the three "classes" became more of a honor level or one based solely on experience.

I agree that the Marian reforms are the single greatest change in Roman military tradition up to and perhaps including Adrianople. They are rightly named after their instigator, as he confirmed and crystralised several prexisting trends as well as initiating something new.

Perhaps Scipio's changes amount to something if not as important as Marius, then at least as significant as the Imperial "reforms" (developments).

As even during Caeser's gallic wars mention is made of hastati. Thus this is eveidence that the manipular formation had not gone away even by Caesars' day.

Absolutely.

The reason flexibility was not possible at trasimene is because it was a complete ambush. Really nothing could be done, to manuever out of a situation like that.

Especially since the Roman legion prior to the Scipios only fought forwards and was not trained to detach heavy (manipular) elements to the flank (argues Gabriel).

Flaminius was an able general (with a triumph under his belt) with a well organized army.

I think you are confusing with Gaius Flaminius Nepos (defeated at Trasimene using a pre-Scipionic army) with Titus Quinctius Flamininus (defeated the Macedonians with a post Scipionic army). I sometimes confuse the two.

There's no confusing their armies' perfomances though. Flaminius was beaten by a better led more flexible enemy. Flamininus' forces included Scipionic veterans (argues Gabriel) who may have won the battle at Cynoscephalae with independent action typical of Scipio's battles in Spain.

Trebbia was a loss because sempronius chose to marhc his soldiers without breakfast and pushed them thru a freezing river, oh yes and again they were ambushed.

Yes a straightforward snafu, Gabriel would put an emphasis on the "straightforward" once again.

At cannae, the romans were so confident in their numbers that they simply arranged their army as a giant horde (more complex actually but yet a horde relative to their normal formation), additionally the triarii were left in camp. Oh, and I would like to place the blame of the disaster on Lucius Aemilius Paullus, not varro.

Also the Romans inability to redeploy their ranks to the flanks, typical of pre-Scipionic Roman armies but something Scipio was able to overcome by retraining men (even veterans of Cannae).

The patron of polybios was aemilianus africanus. who was in fact a blood relative. We have hear one of the first documented cases of a cover up in history.

The Aemeliae were also part of the Scipionic faction, so the army Polybius describes is that of his Roman patrons. Gabriel mentions Scipio was probably at Cannae, which the ancient sources seem to de-emphasise: perhaps more of a cover-up.

Also scipio did not begin a wholescale introduction of the iberian gladius, it is unlikely, that for the duration of the second punic war that any other army except scipio's employed this weapon. Indeed even after, it is likely to have made only a steady increase in its usage. The key to remember is that the blades were made by iberian blacksmiths, post war these blacksmiths would still have to train others, and this would take time. And no the sword wasn't epic, the tactics remained the same, the only difference was the quality of the sword (resulting from a superior forging process).

I must take issue here, the gladius was adopted wholesale by the Romans, and Polybius mention (argues Gabriel) that Scipio re-armed his entire force before invading Italy. The form may have evolved but Scipio is universally aknowledged as the instigator of this iconic and vaunted weapon.

The manipular legion was just as flexiple as a "cohort" legion, if not more so.

Not according the perfomance at Cannae, Trasimene, Trebia, or any Roman battle we have a detailed description of prior to Baecula. After Scipio retrains his men at Nova Carthage we hear of outflanks and independent actions, prior to that we have a straight-ahead chopping machine.

I don't mean to sound rude, but I would like to see your sources. The book you mentioned, the author is Richard A. Gabriel, he is an expert on warfare not roman history. I have read his book or at least wat I could swallow, his conclusions are wrong and not in context with actuality.

You are not being rude, and you have seen my source (Gabriel).

I take your point he is one source but he is an experienced military man and identifies some "civilian" errors that have crept into the story of Hannibal and Scipio. No doubt he makes some errors in his adulation of Scipio.

[Atilius]

Isn't Scipio credited with transforming the Roman Legion from a pretty rigid 3-line manipular formation with a strict straight-ahead attack vector into a more flexible force based around the cohort capable of outflanking, double envelopments and semi independent maneourvre and engagement?

Not really. It's clear that at the battle of the Great Plains, Scipio opened with a perfectly standard quincunx formation. Polybios 13.8:

Scipio simply adopted the regular Roman formation, placing maniples of hastati in the front rank, then behind them the principes and last of all the triarii.

His disposition at Zama (Polybios 15.9) is similar except he places the maniples of principes immediately behind the hastati rather than behind the gaps between the hastati. This created channels intended to draw an elephant charge safely through the army.

His major tactical innovation was to hold the enemy front with the hastati, move the principes and triarii out to opposite sides and use them to flank and envelop the enemy. It should be noted however, that this tactic could only be executed if the enemy flanks were stripped of their cavalry. Scipio was fortunate that he had overwhelming superiority in horse. And we never hear of this tactic being executed after Zama, so this can't be called a reform even in a purely tactical sense.

There is no evidence that Scipio's legions maneuvered in cohorts. Livy (30.33) seems to use the words cohors and manipulos interchangeably in his description of Scipio's disposition before Zama. It should also be remembered that the word cohors was frequently applied to allied contingents of the Roman army long before Scipio's time (e.g. Livy 10.33 in 294 BC).

Also didn't he increase the standard size of his legions by about 10%?

I can't recall a specific reference to Scipio doing so. He was permitted by the Senate to call for volunteers during his first term as Consul to supplement his forces. However, according to Polybios (6.20), the size of a legion was routinely increased from about 4,500 men to 5,000 men in times of particular danger. In fact, during the Gallic invasion of 225 BC (Polybios 2.23), eight of the 10 legions in service numbered 5500 men. Scipio was 11 at the time.

Also didn't he introduce spanish cutlery?

I believe there is a reference to Scipio bringing Spanish smiths back to Italy when he returned in 205 BC. However, the Romans were already using weapons patterned on the gladius hispaniensis, and probably had been since the 1st Punic War. The idea that an army of 150,000 to 200,000 men who were responsible for providing their own weapons and equipment was re-armed by a few Spanish smiths is simply not plausible.

Though I've dwelled on them at length, these are all tangential points. The Polybian army is simply the successor to the Camillan army. It is characterized by sword-armed skirmishers (the velites, replacing the leves, rorarii, and accensi), sword-armed hastati and principes, the complete disappearance the hoplite shield in favor the scutum, and the introduction of mail. The earliest likely date for this change in organization and equipment is the Pyrrhic War (280-275 BC), the latest plausible date is 211 BC, based on a passage in Livy concerning the velites. Even the latest date is too early for Scipio to have had any influence upon the process.

[Cyclops]

Thank you for the excellent and informative response, and setting me straight on so many points. I suspected a certain bias toward his subject when Gabriel ranked Scipio above Marius as a general and his equal as a reformer.

...His major tactical innovation was to hold the enemy front with the hastati, move the principes and triarii out to opposite sides and use them to flank and envelop the enemy. It should be noted however, that this tactic could only be executed if the enemy flanks were stripped of their cavalry. Scipio was fortunate that he had overwhelming superiority in horse.....

I think Gabriel's argument is that the legion was incapable of redeploying out of the quincunx once deployed until Scipio's time. His examples include the "formation stiffness" that meant defeat at Cannae. This use of cohorts as manouevre elements rather than simply zones with the quincunx throuigh which maniples transitioned from rest to engagement and back is Scipio's development (if I follow his argument correctly)

... And we never hear of this tactic being executed after Zama, so this can't be called a reform even in a purely tactical sense.....

Gabriel argues there is evidence of independent action by a unit commander at Cynoscephalae detaching from an engaged legion to aid another. Its not so much the envelopment per se as the ability of the legion to operate as a series of independent elements rather than a meat grinder with 3 lines and a sharp front end.

... It should also be remembered that the word cohors was frequently applied to allied contingents of the Roman army long before Scipio's time (e.g. Livy 10.33 in 294 BC)...

Thats a point I missaprehended and certainly refutes one of Gabriels arguments.

...I believe there is a reference to Scipio bringing Spanish smiths back to Italy when he returned in 205 BC. However, the Romans were already using weapons patterned on the gladius hispaniensis, and probably had been since the 1st Punic War. The idea that an army of 150,000 to 200,000 men who were responsible for providing their own weapons and equipment was re-armed by a few Spanish smiths is simply not plausible...

I don't think all the units in the game change when the reforms occur. Gabriles argument is that Scipio captured the major Carthaginian base at New Carthage which had enough smiths to re-arm his legions, and they trained more Roman fabrii (sp?) who Scipio used in Sicily etc etc. However your next point really makes the question about the gladius hispaniensis moot.

....The Polybian army is simply the successor to the Camillan army....characterized by sword-armed skirmishers (the velites, replacing the leves, rorarii, and accensi), sword-armed hastati and principes, the complete disappearance the hoplite shield in favor the scutum, and the introduction of mail. The earliest likely date for this change in organization and equipment is the Pyrrhic War (280-275 BC), the latest plausible date is 211 BC, based on a passage in Livy concerning the velites. Even the latest date is too early for Scipio to have had any influence upon the process.

You couldn't be clearer, and on this basis Polybian is a better term than Scipionic for the reforms represented in game. On reflection the changes Gabriel notes are chiefly doctrinal and would be better embodied by a change to battlefield AI, which I doubt is modable.