Spears are very unbalanced [Archive]

View Full Version : Spears are very unbalanced

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 16:02

Am I the only one who realised that the new stats have made Spearmen so terribly overpowered? I mean, the balance in EB 0.81 was very nice and EB 1 has some excellent features, but the new skins and the unbalanced stats are making me mad. Basically, what I've seen is that the developers have overpowered to much anything holding spears, including most Greek units such as the hoplites and the Makedonian pike phalanxes.

But most of the Romani stats are screwed, now. The awesome and professional Roman Legions from EB 0.81 have turned into a bunch of weaklings, and that includes the Cohors Evocata. Their attack wasn't upgraded to reflect the new balance changes, and their defense even got lower. Now I'm having to trouble to defeat a bunch of hoplites with a Cohors Evocata!

I say that we must return to the old balance. Spears are very overpowered, to a degree that lacks any realism. Were they so strong, then why would Ancient peoples such as the Celts and the Romans bother to make expensive swords to their nobles and professional infantry? Indeed, many times a spear is weaker than a sword, less maneuvarable than many shorter swords, and many times it lacks the punch of a longsword manned by a professional warrior.

Plus could anyone give me details on how to get the old Roman legionary graphics? I have nothing against the new ones, except that their faces, well, for my personal taste they don't look as good as the tough old Roman face. Plus they're bigger and have no proportion with most other Romani units. They were a fine idea, except for a few tweaks I would make for myself, but then wouldn't be better to wait 'till all other soldiers are reskinned?

Apart from that, they are good and all... But the old graphics were fine. Just remove the trousers from the Cohors Imperatoria, the Imperial Itallic Helmet from the Evocati, and it was fine. At least it did have some similarity with the other Roman skins, and all were very good works of art.

Tellos Athenaios

10-15-2007, 16:27

Tellos Athenaios

10-15-2007, 16:30

But the old graphics were fine.

Wait until a Romani Member sees this.

Because they were. Not. Fine. By any means. At all.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 16:34

Quite the opposite. In fact the spears were underpowered.

Let me remind you that if any unit was overpowered it'd be the Romani Legions. I mean, it's not like they were any better than pezhetairoi as far as we can judge. Still they were statted if they were some kind of elite soldiers; which again they are not. Now they are not a "bunch of weaklings" but they aren't an elite unit either. Perhaps, then, for the very first time you'll have to rely on brains; or take our advice and not play on anything more difficult than M (for battles) to win a fight against equally strong opponents?

I suggest you try some other factions as well; see if you still think that the Legions are a bunch of weaklings now.
Wrong. Legionary Cohorts had full-time professional, tough training and excellent equipment. Really above even the Pezhetairoi and only inferior to the Elites, and EB 0.81 did well; Legionaries were strong, but not excessively overpowered.

Rome did have war-winning troops. Why aren't the Evocati elite anymore? They are supposed to be, but now what's the worth in recruiting them? The Romani are underpowered now, in fact.

I really would like to know why such changes were made. Most Greek and barbarian spearmen weren't even full-time warriors. Rome was the first to have a stable and permanent system capable of training solid soldiers, and the legionary infantry was the most superb not only in tactical capability but also in unit strenght. That's why Rome conquered the whole world; many had economical links with many places, but only Rome was able to effectively conquer a lot thanks to their superb military machine. And that's not represented well now.

Wait until a Romani Member sees this.

Because they were. Not. Fine. By any means. At all.

Sorry, but apart from the minor historical innacuracies, I liked them. I found them one of the best legionary graphical mods, really.

The Wizard

10-15-2007, 16:41

Indeed, many times a spear is weaker than a sword, less maneuvarable than many shorter swords, and many times it lacks the punch of a longsword manned by a professional warrior.To butt in for a moment, that may (note may) hold true for single combat, but definitely isn't true when you're talking massed formations of men. The spear was probably the most cost-effective, useful weapon in the ancient world when it came to massed warfare: just stick the pointy end in the enemy's direction and keep it there. It was anything but weak and ineffective.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 16:44

To butt in for a moment, that may (note may) hold true for single combat, but definitely isn't true when you're talking massed formations of men. The spear was probably the most cost-effective, useful weapon in the ancient world when it came to massed warfare: just stick the pointy end in the enemy's direction and keep it there. It was anything but weak and ineffective.

And that doesn't mean it was weak and ineffective before. However, with the strenght it has now, it really makes me doubt why many units have switched to swords in the period, or why many sword-armed infantry won the day against spears, or why many elites had swords instead of spears.

Sakkura

10-15-2007, 16:46

Cohors Evocata seem to have been nerfed. Their stats are almost exactly identical to Cohors Reformata, but with a higher cost. The only difference is they are better with the pilum, and have one man less.

In 0.81 they had a lot more armor than Cohors Reformata, so a reduction was okay; but I think it may have been reduced too much, so that they are now useless.

The Wizard

10-15-2007, 16:54

And that doesn't mean it was weak and ineffective before. However, with the strenght it has now, it really makes me doubt why many units have switched to swords in the period, or why many sword-armed infantry won the day against spears, or why many elites had swords instead of spears.Swords were a weapon for the elite -- the few. Only the best and richest warriors of a Celtic clan or tribe had one. They were prestige weapons, and thusly designed for the best of the best, be that in society circles or among warriors.

Meanwhile, spears, because they were far cheaper (took less metal to forge, and involved little to no balancing work while forging, either) and easier to make as well as easier to learn to use (unless we're talking exceptions like Shao Lin spear styles), were the weapon for the masses, the plebs, the common man. In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

So, yeah, the majority of units used spears, and one of the most disctinct military formations of the period functioned as one that did. I haven't had the chance to play EB 1.0 yet, but what I can say is that if spear-wielding infantry is effective, that isn't unrealistic.

mcantu

10-15-2007, 16:55

Just know that the stats can be missleading. Spear units get an attack penalty against other infantry

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 17:04

Swords were a weapon for the elite -- the few. Only the best and richest warriors of a Celtic clan or tribe had one. They were prestige weapons, and thusly designed for the best of the best, be that in society circles or among warriors.

Meanwhile, spears, because they were far cheaper (took less metal to forge, and involved little to no balancing work while forging, either) and easier to make as well as easier to learn to use (unless we're talking exceptions like Shao Lin spear styles), were the weapon for the masses, the plebs, the common man. In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

So, yeah, the majority of units used spears, and one of the most disctinct military formations of the period functioned as one that did. I haven't had the chance to play EB 1.0 yet, but what I can say is that if spear-wielding infantry is effective, that isn't unrealistic.
That swords were weapon for the few, and the elite, I can't deny. However virtually every Roman carried a gladius with himself, and the Principes even switched to swords in the 3rd Century B.C. We're not talking about Elites, we're talking about a massive citizen army wielding short blades. Shorter blades were also less expensive than their Celtic Longsword counterparts.

In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

Yes, the Roman military was very effective, but then they still carried the short Gladius sword. They stabbed a lot with them, yet it was still a sword... And with the Gladius, they managed to defeat a myriad of enemies who valued Spearmen a lot.

Just know that the stats can be missleading. Spear units get an attack penalty against other infantry

Yet, stats are too high.

I'm not saying spears are weaker than swords. I think EB 0.81 had a fine balance in armour and attack stats; if an increase in the stats of spearmen is ever needed, then it shouldn't be as high as in the present EB version. Massed spears were an effective weapon, but it was much more than just sticking it to the front. A spear has to be maneuvered so that the enemy doesn't cut it in pieces, and a sword can be better maneuvered than a spear.

The Wizard

10-15-2007, 17:08

NeoSpartan

10-15-2007, 17:11

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 17:12

As said, the Roman maniples and cohorts operated like flexible phalanxes (i.e. able to meet a threat on any side easily), mainly due to the fact that their "spears" were a whole crapload shorter than that of a troop of Foot Companions in Alexander's army. The basic principle of the shield wall that stood at the foundation of the Greek phalanx remained the same with the Roman reformed army from Camillus onwards.

But as said, I haven't played EB 1.0 yet so I can't comment on spears vis-á-vis swords; what I can say is that spears, and the formations that used them (or acted like one of those) were dominant in militaries throughout the ancient Mediterranean world -- for good reasons.
The Shieldwall did contribute well to many battles, but I disagree. Were they wielding spears, then using the pilum as a hand-to-hand spear would be mre frequently seen. Yet, the Romans liked their shorter swords better, so in fact it wasn't the use of "spears" properly that led them to victory but the strict discipline required to keep a shieldwall with the massive Scuta.

The Wizard

10-15-2007, 17:14

[...] so in fact it wasn't the use of "spears" properly that led them to victory but the strict discipline required to keep a shieldwall with the massive Scuta.... which was the exact principle of all kinds of phalanx. ~;)

abou

10-15-2007, 17:14

Wrong. Legionary Cohorts had full-time professional, tough training and excellent equipment. Really above even the Pezhetairoi and only inferior to the Elites...

Pft... bollocks. When you spend most of your time building your night camp you don't exactly get the training that people think you do.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 17:16

And who says Pezetaroi (sp) were not a profesional, hardcore infantry??? Hey they kicked a** either in a phalanx or out of a phalanx.

Spears are not weaker that swords, maybe in 1-to-1 they are. But when you are facing a group of men with spears then there is no real disadvantage.
The Pezhetairoi were only great pikemen. However, when the pike phalanx failed and swords had to be used, any phalangites would be at disadvantage fighting against the heavy legionary infantry.

The game already represented that well. In Custom Battles, I was able to defeat a wave of Roman legions with only a few Phalangitai Deuteiroi in defensive mode. Phalangites were already the most formidable troops on the field without the need for further stat increases.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 17:17

... which was the exact principle of all kinds of phalanx. ~;)
But with swords, not spears :P.

Pft... bollocks. When you spend most of your time building your night camp you don't exactly get the training that people think you do.

Stamina. Oh yes, and last time I read a history book, it much more than building a night camp.

mighty_rome

10-15-2007, 17:17

I totally agree with your posts, Basileos ton Ellenon. (In fact I already posted much of the same things earlier myself).

I believe we got the attention of one of the EB guys and they said that the new Romani units are going to be readjusted to match with the rest of them (sorry I don't remember which thread it was in). The old Evocata unit really was awesome, so again I'd really like to see a mod that brings the old one back (many people seem to be requesting this)

It also seems to me that the Romani are now clearly underpowered, but someone said something along the lines of "we have a very complex system that we use to make accurate stats for units based on many different things and the guy doing it is very good." That said, I still believe 0.81 had better balancing. Romani isn't the only faction who has suffered stat-lowering of their elite units, Carthaginian sword-wielding heavy infantry has been downgraded as well.

blank

10-15-2007, 17:21

konny

10-15-2007, 17:28

I agree that the Evocata isn't worth its money. As veterans they should have a higher attack and defense value as if they had a chevron or two. I can't see the point in making their pila stronger

Most Greek and barbarian spearmen weren't even full-time warriors.

Now, that's for sure not correct: Most of the Greek and Barbarian warriors were in fact mercenaries and by this professionals.

I also do not agree that the Roman Legionar was superior to his opponents. The Roman military machine was, but not the single soldier.

Dooz

10-15-2007, 17:30

abou

10-15-2007, 17:34

Luck, an unwillingness to surrender, and good timing.

artavazd

10-15-2007, 17:34

I dont mind trained spearmen being good, but here is the biggest issue which I think needs balanceing.

A lot of spear armed units have a lethality of 0.123, and many sword units have a lethaity of 0.1

Now the basic spear armed levies are more lethal, than the medium sword infantry. Also in the case of Armenia, the noble infantry uses a spear and a sword. The spear does damage of 14 with lethality of 0.123 and the sword does I think 10-12 with lethality of 0.1 why would the player switch to the sword, when the spear does more damage, and has higher lethality?

The medium sword armed infantry for Armenia has damage of 11, with lethality of 0.1 the peasant spearmen have dammage of 13-14 with lethality of 0.123

THis issue is universal in the mod, and is not only a case with Armenia.

I think, that levied spearmen should be given a lethality of 0.1 with damage of 9-11. and the more trained swordsmen given a lithality of 0.123 with damage of 10-13

blank

10-15-2007, 17:36

If spears were so dominant, and formations of spearmen were so dominant, is that why the Romans with their puny gladii conquered much of the known world?

The Roman tactic was to keep a very close formation and get very close to the enemy, thus they would not have been able to use spears efficiently.

They didn't conquer so much because they were big or tough or because they had uber weapons or because they had shiny helmets. THEY WON because of their TACTICS and DISCIPLINE and also due to the detrimental state of most of their opponents

Hooahguy

10-15-2007, 17:39

But most of the Romani stats are screwed, now. The awesome and professional Roman Legions from EB 0.81 have turned into a bunch of weaklings, and that includes the Cohors Evocata. Their attack wasn't upgraded to reflect the new balance changes, and their defense even got lower. Now I'm having to trouble to defeat a bunch of hoplites with a Cohors Evocata!

so why dont u go into the EDU and change them? i did that for .81 with the antesignani...... and a few other units

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-15-2007, 17:40

mighty_rome

10-15-2007, 17:42

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them.

And I get tired of people saying this kind of thing when all we want is more realistic stats for the Romani faction. I'm not a "Roman fanboy" by the way, I am an "Ancient world fanboy". I love playing as KH, AS, Carthage and Baktria. When I play against Rome I want it to be a challenge to defeat them. When I play as them I want them to have the stats they deserve. I'll say it again: EB 0.81 seems to have been more balanced, in my opinion.

Sakkura

10-15-2007, 17:45

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them. Just in case, i'll say this: the Romans were NOT super mega fighters 1 on 1. They were inferior to most Celts or Germanics in that matter. Their strength lied in their tactics, not their big muscles. See?

If you take 250 Roman legionaries and pit them against a phalanx of 250 man on even ground then i would put my money on the phalanx...
Asking for balance doesn't make people Roman fanboys. The fanboys would just stay with vanilla RTW and love it.

I for one don't see the reason why Cohors Evocata are almost exactly the same as Cohors Reformata, yet cost substantially more. You'd think veterans would have better morale and perhaps slightly better melee fighting skills.

Vorian

10-15-2007, 17:46

If spears were so dominant, and formations of spearmen were so dominant, is that why the Romans with their puny gladii conquered much of the known world? I mean all this talk of spears being superior and their formations being invincible doesn't seem to hold up to history and facts. I don't think we'd be playing Rome:Total War today if ill-trained spear levies were able to stop the legions, so it's silly to try and say they should.

Actually if the Macedonian kings of the time knew how to use the war machine passed down by Phillip the Romans would have failed to conquer Greece and thus remain restrained in the West and away from rich Eastern ports and markets.

Both battles of Pidna and Cynoscephalae are masterpieces of mistakes by the Macedonian side. Plus, the phalangites were consisted of untrained men since wars had reduced the trained and professional phezetairoi.

It was Rome's brilliant organisation skills and political system that allowed it to outlast the Carthaginians and defeat the Greeks. After that, the rest of the opponents were "barbarians" that might be brave but fought without having studied the art of war as every seasoned Roman, Greek, Carthaginian general had.

Tellos Athenaios

10-15-2007, 17:49

Sakkura

10-15-2007, 17:57

People seem to mix up a couple of things. I guess I'll be among them. Still:

-The Romans extensively used auxilia; ever though of what they got for equipment?
-The Romans extensively used local peoples to do the job for them
-The Romans had a bit of a Red Army mentality: "if the first 20,000 can't do it; we'll send in another 50,000" ... "and if that doesn't work -ouch- let's call upon anoth 50,000 or so". It's how they defeated Hannibal in the end; it's how they conquered Spain.
-By the time the Romans get going their neighbours have been seriously weakened due to infighting. In fact the only empire to draw upon equal resources they faced was Carthage. It's how they acquired Greece (mind you, the independent city states invited them to), it's how they massacred Gaul.

And when the Romans face a serious opponent: what does history teach us? Oh, yeah they get whipped pretty badly: ask Crassus how his newfound riches tasted. ~;)
I don't know, Pyrrhos was regarded as a magnificent general but was only barely able to defeat camillan Roman legions, at proverbially great cost.

But true, the Roman legions should not really be superior to Hellenic armies. Their stats should just match them; this would simulate how the phalanxes were perhaps slightly better on level ground while the legion was more versatile and suited to rougher ground. (since the RTW engine can't simulate all the effects of terrain properly).

blank

10-15-2007, 18:27

And I get tired of people saying this kind of thing when all we want is more realistic stats for the Romani faction. I'm not a "Roman fanboy" by the way, I am an "Ancient world fanboy". I love playing as KH, AS, Carthage and Baktria. When I play against Rome I want it to be a challenge to defeat them. When I play as them I want them to have the stats they deserve. I'll say it again: EB 0.81 seems to have been more balanced, in my opinion.

And i assume you have fought the new reformed legions extensively in your 1.0 campaigns to come to such decision? :laugh:

Seriously, to those who claim not to be fanboys, why do you keep ignoring the explanations given as to why the Romans shouldn't have so high stats?
And: have you actually tested the units in battle rather than just taking the OP's word for it?

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...

mcantu

10-15-2007, 18:28

Yet, stats are too high.

I think you misunderstood...spear units get -4 (off of the shown attack number) against sword-armed infantry.

blank

10-15-2007, 18:30

I think you misunderstood...spear units get -4 (off of the shown attack number) against sword-armed infantry.

they put that kind of comments on /ignore...

Meneldil

10-15-2007, 18:37

While I don't want my Romans to turn into uber 1337 killing machines, I'm also wondering why the Evocati are barely better than the average dude.
Atm, they are clearly not worth the money (though I still hire them, just for the hell of it).

Watchman

10-15-2007, 18:41

But true, the Roman legions should not really be superior to Hellenic armies. Their stats should just match them; this would simulate how the phalanxes were perhaps slightly better on level ground while the legion was more versatile and suited to rougher ground. (since the RTW engine can't simulate all the effects of terrain properly).They do, you know. All the pike phalanxes have a jolly -4 penalty in forests, "short spear" phalanxes like Iphicrateans -3; no Roman sword infantry have a worse forest penalty than -2, on top of which even the early Hastati have substantially higher hand-to-hand values than any but elite phalangites.

For some numbers, Pezzies have sword skill 9 with 0.13 lethality (pretty standard for xiphos), armour 10, defense skill 6 and shield value 5. In comparision Camillian Hastati, the very bottom of the Roman heavy infantry ladder, have sword skill 11 (with 0.1 lethality, typical of most shortswords), armour 5, defense skill 9 and shield value 4... plus pila, much freer movement, and something like half the cost. (Smaller units though.) Polybian ones upgrade lethality to 0.13 (ie. gladius hispaniensis), armour to 7 and have 2 point higher morale.

Cohortes reformata for their part have attack skill 12, armour 10 and still 2 points higher base morale than the Polybian Hastati... although their price tag largely matches the Pezzies too.

In conclusion, if the Romans can force battle in woods not only will the trees help screw up the physical cohesion of the phalanx, the Latins with their little pig-stickers will eat the Hellenics alive if and when they can get up close and personal.

Watchman

10-15-2007, 18:47

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...In all fairness though, there's a whole lot of consistency issues in some units' armour values (shields are more debatable). And don't get me started on the movement speeds.

Although, as it goes, I don't think too many of the Romani units have such issues. :sweatdrop:

mighty_rome

10-15-2007, 19:07

And i assume you have fought the new reformed legions extensively in your 1.0 campaigns to come to such decision? :laugh:

Seriously, to those who claim not to be fanboys, why do you keep ignoring the explanations given as to why the Romans shouldn't have so high stats?
And: have you actually tested the units in battle rather than just taking the OP's word for it?

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...

You sure do seem to imply that anyone who wants realistic stats for Romani are a a bunch of ignorant "fan boys" who haven't done any research. You're wrong, and I also have to say that I don't appreciate your attitude. I haven't seen any satisfactory explanations yet, probably because there aren't any; the late Romani units are underpowered whether you want to admit it or not. You certainly don't.

You're obviously "anti-Romani" so I'll consider any further comments you make to this thread irrelevant.

Dram

10-15-2007, 19:16

romani in 0.81 were way too powerful. almost every core infantry unit was an elite, yet costed as much as a regular unit. there was no incentive for the player to use regional troops, especially once the marian era expanded the recruitment range of legionaires.

Watchman

10-15-2007, 19:46

I haven't seen any satisfactory explanations yet, probably because there aren't any; the late Romani units are underpowered whether you want to admit it or not.Underpowered ? Where ? If you ask me they're pretty much exactly what they were historically: disciplined professional grunts, well trained to fight in a certain (quite flexible) tactical system, solidly but not exceptionally equipped.

They were never all-around supersoldiers; the Roman commanders worth their salt knew it, and plugged the various gaps in their expertise with auxiliary specialists as well as padding out the by economic necessity somewhat low numbers with allies and auxiliaries. Properly deployed and commanded by a leader up to the task they certainly won wars often enough, but also often enough entire sections of a line might collapse in a rout and/or the Roman armies have to conduct bitter fighting retreats back to friendly territory. Green, inexperienced troops weren't ultimately that much better than anyone elses' (what now often noticeably better equipped than the rank-and-file of most other armies), and tended to need the example of grizzled veterans or the personal attentions of a respected commander to not turn tail in a tight spot.

Sakkura

10-15-2007, 20:01

They do, you know. All the pike phalanxes have a jolly -4 penalty in forests, "short spear" phalanxes like Iphicrateans -3; no Roman sword infantry have a worse forest penalty than -2, on top of which even the early Hastati have substantially higher hand-to-hand values than any but elite phalangites.

For some numbers, Pezzies have sword skill 9 with 0.13 lethality (pretty standard for xiphos), armour 10, defense skill 6 and shield value 5. In comparision Camillian Hastati, the very bottom of the Roman heavy infantry ladder, have sword skill 11 (with 0.1 lethality, typical of most shortswords), armour 5, defense skill 9 and shield value 4... plus pila, much freer movement, and something like half the cost. (Smaller units though.) Polybian ones upgrade lethality to 0.13 (ie. gladius hispaniensis), armour to 7 and have 2 point higher morale.

Cohortes reformata for their part have attack skill 12, armour 10 and still 2 points higher base morale than the Polybian Hastati... although their price tag largely matches the Pezzies too.

In conclusion, if the Romans can force battle in woods not only will the trees help screw up the physical cohesion of the phalanx, the Latins with their little pig-stickers will eat the Hellenics alive if and when they can get up close and personal.
Yeah, I haven't said anything definite about the basic cohorts either, basically because it would take some more extensive playtesting than I have to figure out if the cohorts are balanced right or not.

But I can still look at the regular cohorts and the evocati and plainly see that evocati need higher stats, since they cost a lot more than regular cohorts; right now all you get for the price hike is a better missile attack - every other stat is exactly the same.

Sakkura

10-15-2007, 20:11

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...
Well then explain to me why evocati, reenlisted veterans, have the same stats as regular cohorts on every point except missile attack. It would make more sense to me if they got perhaps a point in either defense skill or melee attack, and some higher morale.

Watchman

10-15-2007, 20:11

Granted, I'd at least amp the skills and morale of the Evocati a bit. Whatever else they may be, they're also veterans who have served a full stint and voluntarily re-enlisted. Fighting is a motor skill; once learned such are never actually forgotten, and as Legionary vets AFAIK normally became farmers after honorary discharge it could be argued the fellows cannot be claimed to have gone wholly without exercise in the meantime.

And, of course, grizzled veteran volunteers who have more likely than not "seen the elephant", as it were sometimes quite literally, should of course be noticeably more confident about combat than fresh newbies.

Of course, age and any injuries suffered over the years count too...

Charge

10-15-2007, 20:32

Decimus Attius Arbiter

10-15-2007, 20:38

I don't know, Pyrrhos was regarded as a magnificent general but was only barely able to defeat camillan Roman legions, at proverbially great cost.

But true, the Roman legions should not really be superior to Hellenic armies. Their stats should just match them; this would simulate how the phalanxes were perhaps slightly better on level ground while the legion was more versatile and suited to rougher ground. (since the RTW engine can't simulate all the effects of terrain properly).

All the points I was going to make have been made. But I think we're getting off-topic. I want to see a explanation of the gameplay in .8 and why the changes in the gameplay were necessary in 1.0. All we're doing mostly is measuring our phalluses here, comparing stats and historical knowledge. How does what happened in history related to gameplay and having fun?

Regarding my quote, with Pyrrhus, he lost because the terrain(woods, hills) he fought his pitched battles in were not suited to his heavy infantry and more numerous calvary. Also his elephants were used against him being scared by flaming spiked carts and velites.

Really in the battles with Pyrrhus, the Hellenistic army lost because the Romans had started using tactics rather than the individual strengths of its soldiers. Originally, the Romans had tried to defeat the phalanx by charging right at it in a bloody attempt to close the distance and chop off the spear points. Instead they made use of the ground to disrupt the line, flanked vulnerable units, and disrupted the line with pila.

Foot

10-15-2007, 20:48

Well, other than the evocata/reformata discussion, this thread has not shown any evidence for the positions of those fans who find the romans to be underpowered.

I will state again, we have a stat system which applies bonuses across the board. We feel that this allows for the best balancing. For those who disagree, unless you can throw up some evidence that shows that roman soldiers were superior swordsmen, brave as a bear or that their armour was made out of some incredible alloy, your complaints will bear no fruit and will only frustrate the EB team.

If anyone ever starts making ad hominen attacks against our team (Charge I am looking at you) I will start deleting posts. It is neither fair nor true that we have an anti-roman bias. That you feel that the romans are underpowered is serves just as much as proof of your pro-roman bias. Unless evidence starts coming quick and fast I will start thinking about locking this thread as I have no doubt that it will develop into a name-calling match.

I realise that Blank's comment was out of line and I will speak to him about it, but if you feel that a good response to his accusation of fanboy-ism is to accuse the exact opposite of him or any other EB member is to find oneself in a hypercritical position.

Start being civil and developing arguments, and I and the rest of the team would prefer it if you could show a bit more appreciation to EB for their efforts. We don't mind criticism, but I've been noticing a rather disrespectful attitude in how complaints have been raised. We write on a forum, but exist in the real world, so please be careful what you write as it can be misconstrued and feelings can be hurt.

Thank you,

Foot

dezzerx

10-15-2007, 20:52

To hard to win now with the Romans?

Sweboz stats suck compared to the Romans due to less armor and decent weaponry being availablie to them. But I love that! Because now I have to stay on my toes and find new tactics to defeat the Romans with skins of metal.

Anyways, even with this less equipment they did seem to give the Romans a run for their money in Teutoburg Wald.

The Roman stats seem fine to me as they are now. They were not super heroes. They were good fighters, all of 'em but not more so then any other (semi)proffesional troops. They won outnumbered battles because of their tactics and great generals. So if with this new stats you find yourself on the loosing end it's not because of the stats of your Cohorts but because of your skill (or lack thereof.)

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 20:52

I find an absurd when they say the average Roman legionary was just another ordinary soldier. Then I quote the battles Romani had with several barbarians that ended up in heroic victories against Buddica, the Parthians, and practically everyone who dared to raise their hands against the Post-Marian and Imperial legions. They keep telling: "Teutoburger Wald, Carrhae" but they ignore that Germany was just ignored later, and the victories over the Germans and their shiny barbarian infantry were just as crushing as the one against the Britons and the Parthians. Wasn't for Adrian's unwilligness to keep Parthia, and the general sense that Rome was too big, then Parthia would become a Roman province.

But no, they couldn't defeat the mighty Greeks in their shiny armour and invincible Phalanxes!

Pydna, Magnesia, etc... Just on a conquering party :P. Oh, but they didn't have a cavalry wing! Bollocks, the Romani didn't even need their cavalry wing. If a breach was ever spotted in the phalanx line, they would flood it 'till the whole line routed. The shiny Pezhetairoi wouldn't stand a chance against the 1000% more flexible Roman legion.

This case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street), against vastly superior barbarians, even "Naked" uber-soldiers, is the most impressive case of Rome being the master of infantry warfare. Do you think we could simulate such victory if EB was reality? No. The legionaries would probably rout, afterall they "have only be trained to raise night camps". Oh yes, and they'll give the excuse that IX Hispanica routed earlier, so watching this, we could conclude that the whole Roman army sucked and only the mass of bodies gave them victory. A mass of bodies rarely gave an effective victory... Remembers me of the Colonial armies of hundreds of men with machine guns defeating several thousand native warriors.

I do recognise that prior to the Marian Reforms, the army relied on numbers heavily. But after the Marian Reforms the legions became a professional force too expensive to be just used in superior numbers as route to victory. And then, the Roman victories on the field even prior to the Marian Reforms show a highly disciplined and effective force that was quite the opposite of today's EB legionaries.

Conradus

10-15-2007, 20:58

. another thread about "weakling" romans and "conan" barbarians with "achilles" greeks.
How the hell romans won battles being outnumbered 1:4 or more and being such a weaklings, while UBER-SUPER-MEGA greeks and gauls with UBER-SUPER-MEGA spears always was in loosers???
(perhaps they were led by AI-captains )

Just as always in such discussions, anti-roman guys (eb team) curve their line about this ^^crap, and even if here, right now roman veteran show them how he can easily beat almost every barbarian, they will say that barbarian won.

Anyway if I had a time, I would completely redone all stats.

It's imo very unfair to call the EB-team anti-roman. Some of the most knowledgeable men on ancient Rome that I know reside here. -Zaknafien comes to mind but there are others as well- and I'm sure they aren't biased against Rome. As a matter of fact it's one of the most complete factions of the game -though they're all complete now.
It's just nonsense to state that the Roman soldier would in any way be better than his Greek or Gallic counterpart. Mostly it was reverse. The Gallic society was based largely on warriors and individual honor. It can't be a great suprise then that their soldiers were individually beter than Romans. They were larger, trained with better melee-equipment, some might be called champions...
Whilst the strength of Rome lied in its legions, its organisation. Arguably it was the best the world knew at that time. Capable as a force to withstand the falanx -when they had learned its weaknesses and to withstand the charge of gallic warriors who mostly didn't use any tactics.
If the Romans won against greater numbers it was mostly due to their tactics and organisation, but when the enemy had organised itself, Rome's victories were less obvious...

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 20:59

Really in the battles with Pyrrhus, the Hellenistic army lost because the Romans had started using tactics rather than the individual strengths of its soldiers. Originally, the Romans had tried to defeat the phalanx by charging right at it in a bloody attempt to close the distance and chop off the spear points. Instead they made use of the ground to disrupt the line, flanked vulnerable units, and disrupted the line with pila.

The funny thing is that I didn't need more powerful Phalanxes to use tactics. Phalangitai always beat superior foes from the front, in EB 0.81. I find it a fallacy to say that we didn't need tactics as the Romani earlier: on the contrary, they had the balance to be competent, not uber, soldiers, and they wouldn't defeat a phalanx from the front. It was all great back in EB 0.8, regardless if you were Makedonian, Romani, or whatever. Now, however, Spearmen have been getting too many bonuses.

Sakkura

10-15-2007, 21:00

Looks like the thread is degenerating into a shouting match :no:

Anyway, I have confidence that the EB team is working to present as historical units as possible, including the combat performance. Especially now that members have agreed that the evocati may need to be looked at. Keep up the good work :yes:

Watchman

10-15-2007, 21:10

Now, however, Spearmen have been getting too many bonuses.You mean like the -4 or so the "spear" attributes give when fighting infantry ? And IIRC my reading on the topic, the "light_spear" one - which each and every spearman in EB now has - penalized defense... :inquisitive:

Spendios

10-15-2007, 21:14

The Internet

10-15-2007, 21:23

And when the Romans face a serious opponent: what does history teach us? Oh, yeah they get whipped pretty badly: ask Crassus how his newfound riches tasted. ~;)

Crassus failed to get archers and skirmisher cavalry from the area. It wasn't the fact that they were facing a serious opponent it's the fact that he failed to plan properly.

The armies may not of been elites like the other factions had BUT they still generally had better training than other militia of the day. Although it did generally take them a while to get properly effective as a fighting force, the almost continuous fighting Rome took part in allowed a lot of men to see active service and a good portion of them that service lasted a good while, especially when they started to lessen the requirements for service in the army and many men started to see it as a career.

We know that the Romans were not supermen but even when they faced spear armed opponents they almost always came out on top. In a phalanx formation the spear is a lot more difficult to wield than a short sword, it has been shown that when you are in a phalanx, you don't aim for the man in front of you, you aim for the man to the left and depending on the length of the spear you're wielding, to the man the left and one behind, which gave the Romans an advantage.

Personally the balance in 0.81 was fantastic, granted the legions were a challenge but were by no means invisible, especially against cavalry. As a Roman player, if i were playing an MP battle i'd damn near wet myself if i failed the defeat their cavalry because i knew how fast my guys would rout from a cavalry blow, now i have to worry about some average hoplite turning one of my flanks before the cavalry even get involved. This has nothing to do with being a bad player, anyone who has faced me before will attest to me being good, this generally has to do with the balance being thrown out the window.

Vorian

10-15-2007, 21:29

~:mad . another thread about "weakling" romans and "conan" barbarians with "achilles" greeks.:wall:
How the hell romans won battles being outnumbered 1:4 or more and being such a weaklings, while UBER-SUPER-MEGA greeks and gauls with UBER-SUPER-MEGA spears always was in loosers???
(perhaps they were led by AI-captains:thinking: )

Just as always in such discussions, anti-roman guys (eb team) curve their line about this ^^crap, and even if here, right now roman veteran show them how he can easily beat almost every barbarian, they will say that barbarian won.:whip:

Anyway if I had a time, I would completely redone all stats.
:gah:

eh....first of all chill out.

Some battle statistics.

Roman-Hellenic battles:

a)Battle of Thermopylae (191 BC)

Romans: 20,000 infantry, 2000 horse, unknown but small number of elephants
Seleucids: 10,000 infantry, 500 horse, some allies (unknown number)

b)Battle of Magnesia

Romans:43,000 Romans + 6,000 Greeks, 5,000 horse, 16 elephants
Seleucids: 26,000 infantry (16,000 semi professionals) + 3,000 Galatians, 12,000 horse, 56 elephants

c)Battle of Heraclea

Romans: 30,000 plus unknown auxilia
Epirots: estimated 30,000-35,000

d)Battle of Asculum (279 BC)

Romans:20,000 +Dauni allies
Epirots:Not exact numbers, but considered equally numbered

e)Battle of Cynoscephalae

Romans: 32,500-33,400
Macedonians: 25,500

f)Battle of Pydna

Romans: 33,400 infantry, around 4,000 horse, 22 elephants
Macedonians: 44,000 infantry (21,000 phalangites), around 4,000 cavalry

This is for the 4:1 you mentioned against the "achilles" Greeks

Roman-Gallic

I couldn't find accurate numbers with a quick search so, I won't post them. Caesar tended to exaggerate the enemy forces so they are debatable. However, apart from Alesia, I have not found 4:1 overwhelming odds.

Punic Wars

First

a)Battle of Tunis (defeat)

Romans:15,000 Infantry, 500 Cavalry
Carthaginians: 12,000 Infantry, 4,000 Cavalry, 100 Elephants

b)Battle of Agrigentum
Romans: 40,000
Carthaginians: 50,000

c)Battle of Adys

Romans:15,000 Infantry, 500 Cavalry
Carth: 5,000+ Infantry, 500 Cavalry and unknown number of elephants

Second

a)Battle of Cannae (deafeat)

Romans:86,400–87,000 men
Carths: 40,000 heavy infantry, 6,000 light infantry, 8,000 cavalry

b)Battle of Capua (212 BC) (defeat)

Romans:8 Legions, approximately 40,000
Carths:approximately 2000 Numidians plus Capuan allies

c)Battle of Cissa

Romans:20,000 infantry, 2,200 cavalry
Carthies: 10,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry

d)Battle of Geronium (draw)

Romans:4 legions + 4 in reserve
Carthies: 36,000

e)Battle of Cornus

Romans:20,000 infantry (2 Roman and 2 Allied Legions), 1,200 cavalry
Carthies:15,000 infantry,1,500 cavalry +Sardinians (?) + Elephants (?)

f)Battle of Dertosa

Romans:30,000 infantry, 3,000 cavalry
Carthies:25,000 infantry,4,000 cavalry, 20 Elephants

g)Battle of Herdonia (210 BC) (defeat)

Romans: 20,000
Carthies: 30,000

etc, etc

You get the point. I don't know about imperial Rome but in the times of the Republic, I find only its stubbornness and diplomacy impressive. The military is average.

mighty_rome

10-15-2007, 21:40

I feel very sorry for the hassle of the 1.0 release. But I think I have understood the lesson? in order to not cause so much problems to people when you release a mediocre mod like EB we will surely stop to make public release on RTW and keep all the EB2 work for ourselves.
It's a good idea I think, because people won't have to suffer for our ugly skins anti roman bias and stupid stats.

Again I apologize for the release of 1.0 I sincerely hope that un-installing such a botched work won't take people to much of their time.

Give me a break. If none of us cared strongly for this mod, we wouldn't be here arguing about it. You must know that you have to be prepared to take critiques or even outright criticism about anything that gets released.

We're all here just trying to work out what's right and what's wrong with the new stats, because many changes have been made. We're all used to the older stats, and quite familiar with them, because I am sure I'm not the only one who played 0.81 for hundreds of hours.

We all have ideas about what units should be good, and in my opinion EB 0.81 had the stats a little more balanced. Maybe I just "got used" to them, but if you examine the stats you have to see that many Hellenic factions, as well as Carthage, get some incredibly powerful units compared to the Romani. There are three Romani units that are virtually identical, and one of them is an "Elite" unit. (Reformata, Imperatoria and Evocata). I'd also like to see the elite Carthaginian sword infantry more powerful but their spear-wielding elites are already amazing. I just wish the Romani could get a little more credit to represent their great training.

Don't you want feedback from the users of your mod? Yes, "negative" feedback isn't always fun, but our message is NOT "EB sucks". It is this: "EB rocks and we love it so much that we want it to be perfect". Unfortunately we all have our own opinions regarding what is perfect and what is wrong.

Basically, we're just voicing our opinions about what changes could be made to make it more realistic. We may not always be right, but you really don't need to get upset about it.

Intranetusa

10-15-2007, 21:51

All the points I was going to make have been made. But I think we're getting off-topic. I want to see a explanation of the gameplay in .8 and why the changes in the gameplay were necessary in 1.0. All we're doing mostly is measuring our phalluses here, comparing stats and historical knowledge. How does what happened in history related to gameplay and having fun?

Regarding my quote, with Pyrrhus, he lost because the terrain(woods, hills) he fought his pitched battles in were not suited to his heavy infantry and more numerous calvary. Also his elephants were used against him being scared by flaming spiked carts and velites.

Really in the battles with Pyrrhus, the Hellenistic army lost because the Romans had started using tactics rather than the individual strengths of its soldiers. Originally, the Romans had tried to defeat the phalanx by charging right at it in a bloody attempt to close the distance and chop off the spear points. Instead they made use of the ground to disrupt the line, flanked vulnerable units, and disrupted the line with pila.

Well, the discussion centers around the post-Marian and Augustan soldiers.
I don't think the complaint is that Camaillian and Polybian troops are underpowered.

But it really sucks if the Roman Veteran Elites are significantly weakened to a point where they are no match for an enemy unit of levy phalangites.

Intranetusa

10-15-2007, 21:54

It's imo very unfair to call the EB-team anti-roman. Some of the most knowledgeable men on ancient Rome that I know reside here. -Zaknafien comes to mind but there are others as well- and I'm sure they aren't biased against Rome. As a matter of fact it's one of the most complete factions of the game -though they're all complete now.
It's just nonsense to state that the Roman soldier would in any way be better than his Greek or Gallic counterpart. Mostly it was reverse. The Gallic society was based largely on warriors and individual honor. It can't be a great suprise then that their soldiers were individually beter than Romans..

So how does this justify the dumbing down of post-Marian Roman veteran elite units to a point where they have the same stats as some medium-tier infantry?

And the Romans fought in a coherent formation, shouldn't they at least get more morale bonuses and more armor than their Gallic counterparts? As for the Greeks, unless they were fighting elite hoplites/phalangites, most of the Greeks hoplites were still essentially farmers called out to fight.

(as for Greek mercs, the AI has a habit of spamming full stack merc armies anyways)

Tellos Athenaios

10-15-2007, 22:04

@The Internet: I would not quite say that Crassus merely lost because of his planning. In fact I think the Parthian general deployed some really smart tactics; and the Crassus was stupid enough to take the bait.

IIRC most battles the Romans won against the Parthians; and had more of a "massacre of civilians" to them; than an open field battle.

--------------------------------------------------------------

@mighty_rome:

Yes: the Hellenes & Carthaginians get some really powerful units. At a cost. Litteraly: the use of Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou is prohibitively expensive. And do they beat Romani Legions? No, not really. Unit by unit yes, but not mina for mina. Why? Well, they're not even half the size!

Again and again: the Romani get some of the largest units of such strength compared to any other faction. The only ones close to that are Argyraspidai; and a couple of Carthiginian units.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now let us get back on topic: spear units have been given better melee abilities; because we felt (and that has been an old, very old, very often told) complaint about previous version of EB... the spear units performed decently against cavalry; but were just horrible in melee compared to swordsmen. Which was neither "fair" (balanced) or accurate. Really I'd like people to reconsider this: spearmen fighting in formation, sticking to formation, making good use of their shields & spears are the ancient equivalent of this: http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.elietmachines.com/images/layout/pages/versnipperaar_tech_animpag7.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.elietmachines.com/functions/products.asp%3FPCat%3D1%26PSCat%3D14%26PGroup%3D2%26ProdID%3D28%26Detail%3D1&h=394&w=450&sz=127&hl=nl&start=1&um=1&tbnid=ZmJqrjKjC9A2vM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dversnipperaar%2B%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dnl%26sa%3DN

With humans instead of plants going in; but the end result was pretty much the same regardless. Very crude I know; still that's what they did.

Tellos Athenaios

10-15-2007, 22:09

Well, the discussion centers around the post-Marian and Augustan soldiers.
I don't think the complaint is that Camaillian and Polybian troops are underpowered.

But it really sucks if the Roman Veteran Elites are significantly weakened to a point where they are no match for an enemy unit of levy phalangites.

Waitaminnit... Elite? No, not really. Veterans, yes. Let's separate those words and then reconsider what you say... What on earth do you do with those veterans that makes them run from the first unit of levy phalangitai? Really that must be some horrible tactics: what you mean you simply charge right at the pointy sticks?

Seriously though: you do see that what you've written isn't exactly true, nor fair?

MiniMe

10-15-2007, 22:16

Unfortunately a game or a mod based on Total War series would never explain or show WHY one nation was superior over another, cause main reasons for it weren't based on battle tactics or even global strategy, they were based on political and social structure of states engaged in competition.

BTW, I'm a "stats nerd", I trace and compare unit stats in EB for a long time and after several days of custom battles I have to say that I'm VERY happy with current stats and my current 1.0 EB EDU is almost unchanged at all.

+

If spears were so dominant, and formations of spearmen were so dominant, is that why the Romans with their puny gladii conquered much of the known world? I mean all this talk of spears being superior and their formations being invincible doesn't seem to hold up to history and facts. I don't think we'd be playing Rome:Total War today if ill-trained spear levies were able to stop the legions, so it's silly to try and say they should.
The thing is: they did stop the legions => I don't speak latin ;-)

+

You sure do seem to imply that anyone who wants realistic stats for Romani are a a bunch of ignorant "fan boys" who haven't done any research.
Realistic stats?!?!?! Please! My weight is around 85 kilo, now this is a good example of "realistic stats" as long as you're in the position to know how to measure them. Realistic stats according TO WHO?

2all EB_fans: People! That's Zee Best Mod EVER! Please, say something nice to them (like follows :laugh4: ):

2 EB_team: you've done 1.0 and you think that's it and you can go and rest on one's laurels? :whip: Back to work :whip: MiniMe wants EB II in 2009! =P

Charge

10-15-2007, 22:17

The Internet

10-15-2007, 22:28

The Internet

10-15-2007, 22:35

+

The thing is: they did stop the legions => I don't speak latin

Civil war was the main cause for the fall of the legions. Without the constant civil war they'd of probably lasted for several more centuries in one form or another. When organised and led well, even in the late Empire they still defeated stronger opponents even with the odd's stacked against them.

Victor1234

10-15-2007, 22:42

Give me a break. If none of us cared strongly for this mod, we wouldn't be here arguing about it. You must know that you have to be prepared to take critiques or even outright criticism about anything that gets released.

We're all here just trying to work out what's right and what's wrong with the new stats, because many changes have been made. We're all used to the older stats, and quite familiar with them, because I am sure I'm not the only one who played 0.81 for hundreds of hours.

We all have ideas about what units should be good, and in my opinion EB 0.81 had the stats a little more balanced. Maybe I just "got used" to them, but if you examine the stats you have to see that many Hellenic factions, as well as Carthage, get some incredibly powerful units compared to the Romani. There are three Romani units that are virtually identical, and one of them is an "Elite" unit. (Reformata, Imperatoria and Evocata). I'd also like to see the elite Carthaginian sword infantry more powerful but their spear-wielding elites are already amazing. I just wish the Romani could get a little more credit to represent their great training.

Don't you want feedback from the users of your mod? Yes, "negative" feedback isn't always fun, but our message is NOT "EB sucks". It is this: "EB rocks and we love it so much that we want it to be perfect". Unfortunately we all have our own opinions regarding what is perfect and what is wrong.

Basically, we're just voicing our opinions about what changes could be made to make it more realistic. We may not always be right, but you really don't need to get upset about it.

I'm pretty sure that when people insult the team or their work, it's not called "feedback" anymore.

It must be twice as insulting when they not only worked very hard at it, but apparantely in a speedy manner to get 1.0 out without having another version inbetween and so it isn't surprising that they got upset.

Oh well, I haven't gotten really far into my Roman campaign, so I can't comment on the reform units, but Taras and Rhegion (good surprise with the Roman deserters there) fell easily enough as always. Plus I'm glad to see the traits system is working well now (usually the Nobile and other political traits kicked out after about 50 years of gameplay)

Vorian

10-15-2007, 22:59

@Vorian
where you find this nums?
Magnesia: ~30000 romans - ~70000 seleucids!

If take gaul, than almost any battle was 1:4 or even more.
Romans don't stand a chance if they were not a superior warriors.

But yes, get back to topic!

Maybe someone will upload 1.0 EDU?

Wikipedia, i know it's not the most reliable source but I don't have the time to make a deeper search. And besides that it's usually unreliable in heated subjects that happened recently (Balkan topics etc). In history ones it's mostly (not always). I am sorry if the Magnesia was wrong, but I would like a source from you as well.

And no the Romans were not superior warriors, they had superior tactics. The Gauls were strong warriors but fought rather unorganised, charging against the enemy while shouting and each man tried to prove his own valour. Not very effective against drilled soldiers with solid shields in tight formation, using short swords, while the Celtic longswords didn't have space to move.

It's like the Persian wars, the Persians were excellent warriors but still the Greek equipment and tactics were too much for them.

Anyway, it's off topic. :smash:

The Wizard

10-15-2007, 23:03

One of the least convincing arguments in favor of the "SPQR is underpowered" camp is a deliciously flawed bit of logic that goes as followed:

1. Romans ended up conquering all the Mediterranean basin and a good part of the Atlantic seaboard;
2. Others, like Greeks or Carthaginians, didn't;
3. Therefore, the Romans must've been win and epic win and the rest must've failed in hardcore ways. Correct the stats, EB Team!

Please. When one studies history, the thing that strikes you the most is that at every single last turn, something different could've happened and history might've looked radically different than it does now. In other words: just because the Romans happened to paint a lot of map purple or red doesn't matter jack when it concerns the quality of their arms and their military prowess. That they did depended on hundreds -- no, thousands of variables that could just as easily have swung the pendant the other way.

Just my contribution to a niche of this debate.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 23:05

I'm pretty sure that when people insult the team or their work, it's not called "feedback" anymore.

It must be twice as insulting when they not only worked very hard at it, but apparantely in a speedy manner to get 1.0 out without having another version inbetween and so it isn't surprising that they got upset.

Oh well, I haven't gotten really far into my Roman campaign, so I can't comment on the reform units, but Taras and Rhegion (good surprise with the Roman deserters there) fell easily enough as always. Plus I'm glad to see the traits system is working well now (usually the Nobile and other political traits kicked out after about 50 years of gameplay)
I've never insulted anyone here. I was sarcastic in my last posts on what apparently is a neglect of Roman stats, an a-historical thing.

Saying that "individually" Romani soldiers weren't good is bollocks, too. If people fought all "individually", too, then the Hoplitai would be very lame soldiers and the Makedonian Pike phalanxes nearly useless. In formation, they kicked ass, and that's how EB should represent them. Their strenght as a mass, not taking into account this "individual" thingy. You know that a Gaul was far more robust and a better soldier individually than a Roman Legionary, but in a massive battle many uber gauls were chopped to pieces because they were trapped by Romani soldiers and had too small room to maneuver their shiny swords and their spears, thus getting killed by the Romans and their apparently pathetic individual strenght. Legionaries, indeed, do pack quite a punch.

As for Hoplitai, the same applies, as said above, they were middle-class property owners, and temporary fighters. Same as most of the Makedonian Phalanx: in times of peace, very little would actually have the training pace of most of the Roman soldiers. So saying that "The average Roman legionary didn't have exceptional training" has no historical backing. The Post-Marian legions had the most superb training in antiquity, losing only for the absolute elites. And they trained all the time too, so sweat in peacetime meant less blood in wartime. This is much different than most of the armies of the time.

Sorry if you feel offended. I have nothing against the personal lives of anyone; EB is a superb mod and than everyone of you for it, but in a discussion we should focus on pointing the flaws to correct them, and discuss them. This way EB can turn into the perfect mod of the dreams we want to. Otherwise, I'm just one of the ranks screaming "thank you!" for EB1.

As for the battle of Magnesia, the strenght of the Roman legion was of 50.000 and the Seleucid Army had 70.000. So no "Red Army" here, the Romani fought well; you know, historically it is much more plausible to accept that the Romani were great than to determine the Greeks were just too stupid.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 23:12

Please. When one studies history, the thing that strikes you the most is that at every single last turn, something different could've happened and history might've looked radically different than it does now. In other words: just because the Romans happened to paint a lot of map purple or red doesn't matter jack when it concerns the quality of their arms and their military prowess. That they did depended on hundreds -- no, thousands of variables that could just as easily have swung the pendant the other way.

The problem is, "luck" is an important, but not exactly the only factor to be considered. The Romans painted not only Greece in red, they painted the whole area around the Mediterranean plus a lot more to the North. They only did not paint Germania and Parthia in red because their Empire was already too extensive.

"Luck", certainly, isn't the only factor here. People don't get enslaved and conquered due to diplomatic intrigue, bribes, or economical influence. Surely these help, but the absolute conquest and subjugation only come through military strenght. And seeing how the Romani were able to defeat militarily most of the Civilized world of the time + a lot of "less civilized" ones, shows their strenght in arms. It wasn't just throwing a lot of people on your enemy 'till he gets sick and surrenders.

Bootsiuv

10-15-2007, 23:15

Luck, an unwillingness to surrender, and good timing.

Nothing more needs to be said when talking about the Roman Empire...

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 23:18

Wikipedia, i know it's not the most reliable source but I don't have the time to make a deeper search. And besides that it's usually unreliable in heated subjects that happened recently (Balkan topics etc). In history ones it's mostly (not always). I am sorry if the Magnesia was wrong, but I would like a source from you as well.

Encyclopaedia Britannica on-line gives about 30.000 vs 70.000 Seleucids, Wikipedia puts 50.000 Romani vs. 70.000 Seleucids. Anyway, both show Romani numerical inferiority.

NeoSpartan

10-15-2007, 23:27

Civil war was the main cause for the fall of the legions. Without the constant civil war they'd of probably lasted for several more centuries in one form or another. When organised and led well, even in the late Empire they still defeated stronger opponents even with the odd's stacked against them.

So true.... IF the Romans would have come up with a more stable form of goverment the Legionaries would look like this:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads7/Modern_legionary1.jpg

and we would be talking some new form of Latin. :2thumbsup:

Charge

10-15-2007, 23:28

I'm wondering why chief-roman Zak haven't showed himself here yet..

You know that a Gaul was far more robust and a better soldier individually than a Roman Legionary, but in a massive battle many uber gauls were chopped to pieces because they were trapped by Romani soldiers and had too small room to maneuver their shiny swords and their spears, thus getting killed by the Romans and their apparently pathetic individual strenght. Legionaries, indeed, do pack quite a punch. Do not forget that gauls mostly were levies-not a professionals; as they not a professionals, than they didn't now good fighting technique; they aren't supposed to be a muscle-men; and romans which fought with them were best legionaries in empire in all terms. It is an absurdity to say that these gauls were better than their roman opponent in one-by-one.

NeoSpartan

10-15-2007, 23:28

So true.... IF the Romans would have come up with a more stable form of goverment the Legionaries would look like this:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads7/Modern_legionary1.jpg

and we would be talking some new form of Latin. :2thumbsup:

p.s No I didn't do it... but I'll be doing something like it soon though. i am now INSPIRED!

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 23:31

I'm wondering why chief-roman Zak haven't showed himself here yet..

Do not forget that gauls mostly were levies-not a professionals; as they not a professionals, than they didn't now good fighting technique; they aren't supposed to be a muscle-men; and romans which fought with them were best legionaries in empire in all terms. It is an absurdity to say that these gauls were better than their roman opponent in one-by-one.
Whatever... Generally it's widely accepted that Celts and Germans generally had a more robust physical strenght than the average Roman.

NeoSpartan

10-15-2007, 23:32

I'm wondering why chief-roman Zak haven't showed himself here yet..

Do not forget that gauls mostly was levies-not a professionals; as they not a professionals, than they didn't now good fighting technique; they aren't supposed to be a muscle-men; and romans which fought with them were best legionaries in empire in all terms. It is an absurdity to say that these gauls were better than their roman opponent in one-by-one.

Ok if any of you fellas want to discuss the Celts I will refer u to the LAST page of this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475&page=12

Look at PSYCHOS V post.

If you want and have the time read the WHOLE thread. :dizzy2:

NeoSpartan

10-15-2007, 23:35

Whatever... Generally it's widely accepted that Celts and Germans generally had a more robust physical strenght than the average Roman.

Ok if you want to find out about the Sweboz readt his thread...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86612

NOTE: the last page (my posts) are using .81 stats and gameplay.

The Internet

10-15-2007, 23:37

Nothing more needs to be said when talking about the Roman Empire...

Sure, they're the only factors involved in making the Roman Empire. ~:rolleyes:

End of the day no one is insulting the EB team, 1.0 is great but they have to take the good along with the bad when it comes to these things. A valid point and arguement has been made about the balance of spear units, an arguement that has been supported by people who don't even play as the Romans so that kinda dismisses the whole "fan-boys want their supermen back" theory.

I'd like to see this problem adressed by the EB team, it has taken me two days to get this mod installed and working properly after several attempts and i don't wish to have my game spoiled because i have to deal with the spearmen being over-powered along with the old spearmen "push" bug.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-15-2007, 23:39

So would I, and btw I'm in a good mood guys, so this is coming from the head. Generally when the Romans won in our period someone else screwed up, they weren't that great and Evocata Cohorts were sat on their backsides twiddling their thumbs until recall.

Only under Augustus did the army become professional, the Makedonian or Seliukid soldiers were more than a match one-for-one before that.

See the bold part?

Right, lets try this again: The Romans were not super soldiers, even under Marius and after they remained militia, even under Nero the legions were not particually impressive. In his Parthian campaigns Corbulo had to litterally beat, starve and freeze his troopers into shape, those who didn't make it died.

The Legions were militia just like anyone else and unlike many of the standing Greek units they did not undergo continuous training. Usually they won when facing sub-standard opponents, that is to say Greeks that Greeks would consider sub-standard.

Now, The Evocata Cohort may have been ground down a little too much but in general there is nothing wrong with the Romans.

Look at it this way, Alexander vs Ceasar: Ceasar is toast.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-15-2007, 23:51

Right, lets try this again: The Romans were not super soldiers, even under Marius and after they remained militia, even under Nero the legions were not particually impressive. In his Parthian campaigns Corbulo had to litterally beat, starve and freeze his troopers into shape, those who didn't make it died.

Oh yes, a militia capable of defeating the Germans, defeating Tigranes II, the Lusitanians, whatever. You're certainly mistaking the strict Roman discipline with "unwilligness" to fight, and then most of them give a single Roman defeat as an excuse to say that Roman troops were "inferior". Well, so inferior that they manage to defeat the Parthians :P.

The Legions were militia just like anyone else and unlike many of the standing Greek units they did not undergo continuous training. Usually they won when facing sub-standard opponents, that is to say Greeks that Greeks would consider sub-standard.

Most of the Greeks didn't have a standing army and no continual military training. Post-Marian legionaries at least were continually mobilised, undergoing training (you think they would just be idle all the time). It's true that quality went down during war, when a mass of recruits was needed, but there are so many evidences of the awesome Roman discipline and organization that no average guy could ever manage to do that without heavy training and discipline and, being heavily disciplined and trained, they inevitably also fought well.

Look at it this way, Alexander vs Ceasar: Ceasar is toast.

Depends on who uses the best tactics :).

Sakkura

10-15-2007, 23:53

See the bold part?

Right, lets try this again: The Romans were not super soldiers, even under Marius and after they remained militia, even under Nero the legions were not particually impressive. In his Parthian campaigns Corbulo had to litterally beat, starve and freeze his troopers into shape, those who didn't make it died.

The Legions were militia just like anyone else and unlike many of the standing Greek units they did not undergo continuous training. Usually they won when facing sub-standard opponents, that is to say Greeks that Greeks would consider sub-standard.

Now, The Evocata Cohort may have been ground down a little too much but in general there is nothing wrong with the Romans.

Look at it this way, Alexander vs Ceasar: Ceasar is toast.
Huh? As far as I know, the legions were transformed to standing military units with year-round training in the period after 107 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Reforms

He offered the disenfranchised masses permanent employment for pay as a professional soldier, and the opportunity to gain spoils on campaign. With little hope of gaining status in other ways, the masses flocked to join Marius in his new army. These professional soldiers were recruited for an enlistment term of 25 years.

With this permanent standing army Marius was able to standardize training and equipment throughout the Roman Legions. Drilling and training took place year round, not just when they were urgently needed.

Charge

10-15-2007, 23:58

Completely agreed with Basileos ton Ellenon.
Legions- militia? https://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9048/looolrn4.gif
This is insolence!!! Even Scipio's army contains very-experienced soldiers, and was best at that time

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-16-2007, 00:00

Completely agreed with Basileos ton Ellenon.
Legions- militia?
This is insolence!!! Even Scipio's army was best at that time
I guess the Mak players are just envious because the Makes were the losers of history :P. Nobody likes you when you win them.

Then they try to downplay the Roman streght.

The Internet

10-16-2007, 00:07

Look at it this way, Alexander vs Ceasar: Ceasar is toast.

Alexander faced sub-par troops too, they were mostly light infantry. Alexander vs Caesar is so full of what if's that my head could just explode. What land were they fighting on? Where were they? What Auxilia did Caesar have to call upon? Caesar certainly wouldn't fight on ground that gave Alexander the advantage with cavarly and if he did he'd employ the same tactic he did against Pompey with a line of infantry to support the cavalry. With infantry vs infantry you have two very experienced armies of about equal numbers but the legions have great flexablity and the pila which effectively breaks up a phalanx formation, you could use them to punch a hole right in the center and bam the line is broken.

The fact is this is so full of what-if's it's impossible to say with any certainty and certainly has no effect on this topic. The infantry of Greece in the period the game is set in is far less effective than it was back in Alexanders day, the cavarly in Macedonia was less effective and the leaders less able. The Greeks certainly didn't have the desire to fight like the Romans did (that goes for citizens as well as the leaders) and certainly didn't raise an army every year. I also don't believe the greek city-states (except Sparta) had a standing army and even Sparta's army had decreased greatly from what it used to be.

On-topic: we simply wish the stat's to be revised, no one on either side needs to take this topic personally nor do we need to go into an arguement about it, we're all fans of the same mod remember.

Tellos Athenaios

10-16-2007, 00:08

Yeah I guess so would a historian who specialises in Imperial Rome...?

konny

10-16-2007, 00:09

Tellos Athenaios

10-16-2007, 00:13

And on top of that: y'all have been misreading what he wrote. "See the bold part --- Right let's try this again:" what do you think he meant by that?

And what do you think he meant by the bold part which reads:

Only under Augustus did the army become professional, the Makedonian or Seliukid soldiers were more than a match one-for-one before that.

Okay, I added the extra emphasis... hope you can read it now...

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-16-2007, 00:16

On-topic: we simply wish the stat's to be revised, no one on either side needs to take this topic personally nor do we need to go into an arguement about it, we're all fans of the same mod remember.

Completely agree. Either the devs can:

1. Decrease their numbers to 160 (I play on huge, their size is 200), increase their stats, keep their current price and upkeep costs (or just make slight changes).

2. Keep their current numbers, increase their stats and their costs (so that nobody claims they are "overpowered").

3. Keep them more or less as they were in 0.81: powerful, numerous and cheap. Many people complain they were too powerful, but it took so long to get the Cohors Imperatoria that this would be not significant except in Custom Battles. The Cohors Reformata was powerful but certainly not capable of standing enemy Elite and even ordinary heavy infantry the way the Cohors Imperatoria did.

As for Pre-Marian units, stats for (Camillan) Principes should be decreased, or at least stats for Camillan Hastati should be a bit increased. Either they decrease the attack of spear units in general, or they increase the attack of all sword units (not just Roman units) to keep a better balance. I need to further elaborate, but discuss...

And finally, maybe the stats for the Evocati should be slightly increased, or they should be erased from the game. It's not worth to have, currently (except for storytelling and role-playing purposes).

The Internet

10-16-2007, 00:16

gurakshun

10-16-2007, 00:19

Yeah I guess so would a historian who specialises in Imperial Rome...?

I move for Basileos towhatever and his prepubescent buddy Charge, neither of whom can speak in coherent english for that matter (leading me to doubt they can actually understand and comprehend the counter arguments here instead of spouting OMG Y ARENT ROME THE BEST LUL!!!111 I CHARGE PHALANX FROM FRONT AND IT DONT BREAK!!!!1111 EB U SUK, ROME DA BEST like a droid), be banned for relentless and quite frankly unoriginal TROLLING:wall: . They can still browse the forums and download stuff but both have lost their talking privileges in this sad, sad display of a thread.

This thread is now about evocata/reformata. GO! :laugh4:

Sakkura

10-16-2007, 00:19

And on top of that: y'all have been misreading what he wrote. "See the bold part --- Right let's try this again:" what do you think he meant by that?

And what do you think he meant by the bold part which reads:

Okay, I added the extra emphasis... hope you can read it now...
Well, I know some think Wikipedia is a poor source; but the article I linked above is still backed by some decent sources, and it quite plainly says the Marian reforms introduced a professional army, where the soldiers were trained year round. Now, how extensive that training was could be questioned; but the same could be said of Hellenic forces.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-16-2007, 00:20

Interessting to see long lists of what the Romans had all won and conquered as an argument to raise their stats far over, for example, Germanic or Celtic units. The problem is, that there were only very few lands conquered by the Romans that the Celts did not conquer - or at least exsessivly plundered - before (including Rome). And of these there were only very few that the Germanic did not conquer afterwards.
It is widely interesting to see that many lands conquered by Napoleon were pillaged during XVIII century wars before and "conquered" by European powers. It's also interesting to notice that they were all re-conquered by these European powers before, so that must mean that the Grand Armee really sucked.

Only under Augustus did the army become professional, the Makedonian or Seliukid soldiers were more than a match one-for-one before that.

No, you're wrong. Only after Marius the army became professional. Augustus just reformed and improved it.

I move for Basileos towhatever and his prepubescent buddy Charge, neither of whom can speak in coherent english for that matter (leading me to doubt they can actually understand and comprehend the counter arguments here instead of spouting OMG Y ARENT ROME THE BEST LUL!!!111 I CHARGE PHALANX FROM FRONT AND IT DONT BREAK!!!!1111 EB U SUK, ROME DA BEST like a droid), be banned for relentless and quite frankly unoriginal TROLLING . They can still browse the forums and download stuff but both have lost their talking privileges in this sad, sad display of a thread.

This thread is now about evocata/reformata. GO!

Tell me where I was trolling. Should I be banned just because I and the other disagree with you? Hmm....

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-16-2007, 00:21

Huh? As far as I know, the legions were transformed to standing military units with year-round training in the period after 107 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Reforms

Wiki is wrong. After Marius the legions were often kept under arms because of the almost constant state of war, the term of service was actually fixed under Tiberius according to Tacitus.

Oh yes, a militia capable of defeating the Germans, defeating Tigranes II, the Lusitanians, whatever. You're certainly mistaking the strict Roman discipline with "unwilligness" to fight, and then most of them give a single Roman defeat as an excuse to say that Roman troops were "inferior". Well, so inferior that they manage to defeat the Parthians :P.

There were loads of Roman defeats, two Legions were routed during Corbulo's campaign. The Roman soldiers were only as good as their commanders. I don't know why you think I'm talking about an "unwillingness" to fight. Corbulo's men had spent too long in camp without fighting, Tacitus tells us there were 20 year veterans who had never constructed a night-camp. Even if he is exagerating the situation was certainly dire.

At no point did I say the Romans were inferior, but under Marius they remained a militia and although four months was the standard training period often they recieved far less. These men were either disenfanchised farmers or beggars and vagabonds, of the latter Marius could not take many because they were unfit for service.

The idea that the Greeks were "just" farmers is absurd, like the Romans the local militiamen trained regualrly, and were then drilled en masse to bring them up to fighting stanard after call-up.

Most of the Greeks didn't have a standing army and no continual military training. Post-Marian legionaries at least were continually mobilised, undergoing training (you think they would just be idle all the time). It's true that quality went down during war, when a mass of recruits was needed, but there are so many evidences of the awesome Roman discipline and organization that no average guy could ever manage to do that without heavy training and discipline and, being heavily disciplined and trained, they inevitably also fought well.

See above, the Greeks had standing units of infantry and cavalry, the Silver Shields, Shieldbearers, Companions, Theban Sacred Band.... the list goes on. By contrast until Augustus Rome had NO standing army, only men unfortunate enough not to have been discharged.

When Successor armies were kept in the field for extended periods they reached a comparative level of excellance. When the Romans beat the Makedonians the latter were mostly fresh levies while many of the Roman Triarii had joined as Hastati to fight Hannabal.

Depends on who uses the best tactics :).

Not really, Alexander's army was more flexable, tougher, and at least as well armed and armoured. They also used the superior combined arms tactics that it took the Romans a very long time to adopt.

Take a look at the cavalry engagement at Pharsallus, once Pompey's supperior cavalry were eliminated Ceasar relied on his veteran infantry and he even used those infantry to kill the opposing cavalry themselves, rather than his own horsemen.

Roamn armies were mincing machines, flexable in their own way but also quite limited.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-16-2007, 00:33

Wiki is wrong. After Marius the legions were often kept under arms because of the almost constant state of war, the term of service was actually fixed under Tiberius according to Tacitus.

But they were still constantly under arms, like the Pre-Marian legions earlier.

There were loads of Roman defeats, two Legions were routed during Corbulo's campaign. The Roman soldiers were only as good as their commanders. I don't know why you think I'm talking about an "unwillingness" to fight. Corbulo's men had spent too long in camp without fighting, Tacitus tells us there were 20 year veterans who had never constructed a night-camp. Even if he is exagerating the situation was certainly dire.

At no point did I say the Romans were inferior, but under Marius they remained a militia and although four months was the standard training period often they recieved far less. These men were either disenfanchised farmers or beggars and vagabonds, of the latter Marius could not take many because they were unfit for service.

Does that make the Greeks superior to the Romans as in EB? Actually, the Greeks also suffered a lot of defeats that went to history, and their level of training was quite even.

See above, the Greeks had standing units of infantry and cavalry, the Silver Shields, Shieldbearers, Companions, Theban Sacred Band.... the list goes on. By contrast until Augustus Rome had NO standing army, only men unfortunate enough not to have been discharged.

Yet these are only the elite corps of the army. The great majority of the rank-and-file soldiers was only mobilised during an emergency, and as such they can't be classified as "permanent" soldiers.

When Successor armies were kept in the field for extended periods they reached a comparative level of excellance. When the Romans beat the Makedonians the latter were mostly fresh levies while many of the Roman Triarii had joined as Hastati to fight Hannabal.

Great when you talk in equal terms. The Pre-Marian army wasn't permanent, yet they reached a great level of experience with the continual fighting during the 3rd and 2nd Centuries B.C., particularly with Scipio in Zama.

Not really, Alexander's army was more flexable, tougher, and at least as well armed and armoured. They also used the superior combined arms tactics that it took the Romans a very long time to adopt.

Take a look at the cavalry engagement at Pharsallus, once Pompey's supperior cavalry were eliminated Ceasar relied on his veteran infantry and he even used those infantry to kill the opposing cavalry themselves, rather than his own horsemen.

We all accept that Roman cavalry really didn't have the level of Macedonian Cavalry, yet we're talking about different situations here. As said, if Alexander chose to fight Caesar, then the number of possibilities is great.

Plus, later on the Romans adopted auxiliaries to fill supporting roles to heavy infantry. But in-game, timing isn't relevant as the Macedonian army was pretty decadent in 272 B.C, and the Romans still relied heavily and solely on infantry.

Sakkura

10-16-2007, 00:42

Wiki is wrong. After Marius the legions were often kept under arms because of the almost constant state of war, the term of service was actually fixed under Tiberius according to Tacitus.

But with a near-constant state of war, wouldn't that just mean that the state of readiness of the Roman legions was kept high just as much as it would have been in a peacetime professional army? Perhaps even more, actually.
So in that light, the Roman forces should perhaps be treated as a professional standing army even if they were not formally a standing army.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-16-2007, 00:49

Sakkura

10-16-2007, 00:55

Units that have been kept under arms will have more XP, won't they?

My point is very simple, the base level of training was fairly even and the Romans did not have the elite permenant soldiers other armies did until after Augustus.

So why should a newly recruited Marian cohort be better than a newly recruited unit of mid-level phalangites?
I'm not asking that, I just expect that a cohort should, man for man, stack up fairly evenly with eg. pezhetairoi. Like I said earlier, I haven't done the testing to find out whether this is the case; if it is, then the cohort is fine.

My point about the evocati stands, though. I don't see why veterans should be better at throwing the pilum but identical in every other respect. I doubt the older veterans would have stronger arms or better eyesight; it seems much more likely that their experience (yes, even a freshly recruited cohors evocata would consist of veterans with experience) would give them better morale and perhaps slightly better melee skills. It depends how big the effects of being older vs. being more experienced are, and that is debatable.

The Internet

10-16-2007, 00:56

Wiki is wrong. After Marius the legions were often kept under arms because of the almost constant state of war, the term of service was actually fixed under Tiberius according to Tacitus.

Funny, the experts believe differently?

There were loads of Roman defeats, two Legions were routed during Corbulo's campaign. The Roman soldiers were only as good as their commanders. I don't know why you think I'm talking about an "unwillingness" to fight. Corbulo's men had spent too long in camp without fighting, Tacitus tells us there were 20 year veterans who had never constructed a night-camp. Even if he is exagerating the situation was certainly dire.

No one has ever said that the Roman army has been great since the beggining and it is widely known that sometimes things went pear-shaped in a very bad way, especially if the commander didn't do his job. The same can be said of any army in history, without a good leader no army, no matter how powerful, is useless.

At no point did I say the Romans were inferior, but under Marius they remained a militia and although four months was the standard training period often they recieved far less. These men were either disenfanchised farmers or beggars and vagabonds, of the latter Marius could not take many because they were unfit for service.

The fact that they had nothing else to lose made them better fighters and soldiers. They had grown up living harsh lives and were used to things being rough, joining up with Marius gave them an income, food and a purpose. Their equipment was standardised and so was their training and their is quite a few important historians who believe this wasn't the first time such men had been used. People like those you have described saw the army as a career and a chance to make something of themselves and to gain a lot of money from plunder. The fact that he did not take some with him was nothing new to the Roman army and had happened many times long before Marius.

The idea that the Greeks were "just" farmers is absurd, like the Romans the local militiamen trained regualrly, and were then drilled en masse to bring them up to fighting stanard after call-up.

The Romans did it yearly, the Greeks only did it when it was needed, mercenaries were used a great deal more.

See above, the Greeks had standing units of infantry and cavalry, the Silver Shields, Shieldbearers, Companions, Theban Sacred Band.... the list goes on. By contrast until Augustus Rome had NO standing army, only men unfortunate enough not to have been discharged.

Small numbers of men compared to the rest of the citizens who formed the rest of the army. Much like in Celtic society where a small number of men would be full-time fighters and the rest were conscripts.

When Successor armies were kept in the field for extended periods they reached a comparative level of excellance. When the Romans beat the Makedonians the latter were mostly fresh levies while many of the Roman Triarii had joined as Hastati to fight Hannabal.

Same can be said for the Romans, the longer they were in the field the better they got, infact the same can be said for any army. Please stop throwing out excuses when it suits you, first you say that the Roman armies were less effective than others because they had no real standing army til Augustus BUT then you say the only reason they won is because they had experienced men in the ranks, you are only supporting my earlier statement that in general, a newly raised Roman army would have somewhat more experience than say Greece or Macedon because a good portion of Roman men would of already seen service in previous call-ups.

Not really, Alexander's army was more flexable, tougher, and at least as well armed and armoured. They also used the superior combined arms tactics that it took the Romans a very long time to adopt.

More flexible than armies of that time. superior combined arms? How would an army several hundred years older have superior arms? The Romans carried 2 pila a man, a good sword and a large sheild. The Pila would remove the protection of the Phalanx's shields and leave them vunerable to the swords. The tactics employed by the Romans seems to of come on quite fast by ancient standards and after Alexander, things in the army barely changed in the Hellenistic world.

Take a look at the cavalry engagement at Pharsallus, once Pompey's supperior cavalry were eliminated Ceasar relied on his veteran infantry and he even used those infantry to kill the opposing cavalry themselves, rather than his own horsemen.

Roman armies were mincing machines, flexable in their own way but also quite limited.

He knew his horsemen would never stand up to Pompey's cavalry so he used his greatest asset to deal with them, his veterans, there is nothing wrong with that and if you wish to use that example then it means that Alexander and his cavarly weren't very good because he used light infantry to run along side his cavarly in close support, not unlike Caesar did at Pharsallus.

The Roman armies were indeed flexible, unlike the phalanx which is why they had the advantage in their engagements.

I really do not wish to carry on a debate about Alexander, this is about the balance of the Romans in the EDU and simply wish it to be resolved.

JMRC

10-16-2007, 01:05

Basileos, I think everybody has understood your concerns and since stats are the core of the battles, it's something to which we devoted much time both in development and testing.

The team already explained the reasons why the stats were changed. They are based in the directions of historians and scholars that help the team. You may not agree, but as you saw, there are other people who think the stats are fine.

I would ask you to look at this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=93264) where Watchman makes a "matter-of-fact" report about things that in his oppinion are not correct in the EDU. We'll look at his suggestions to see if anything really needs to be changed or corrected. No fuss and no endless discussions about this or that.

As a sidenote, you must know that no matter how much we adjust the stats of the units, the AI still doesn't have the capacity to win you in battle (unless it has huge odds), so this whole discussion is useless because you will always beat the AI, regardless of the stats, be it roman or nomad.

IMO, you should make a matter-of-fact description of what you think is wrong and, most importantly, the solution you propose. Then, we can look at it and see if they are valid. In the meantime, you change your EDU to reflect the changes you proposed and even if the team doesn't accept your suggestions, you keep your changes and play with the stats that you prefer.

And everybody will live happily ever after.

PS: and don't forget about the -4 penalty. It makes all the difference.

J.Alco

10-16-2007, 01:14

I haven't downloaded the new 1.0 version of the mod yet, so I realise that my opinion is not the best to trust here, but I gotta say, I agree with the EB team regarding their uprgrading spear units' statistics.

I mean, at least this way, playing as Romani, you can do the historical thing when playing against AS, KH, Mak, Ptol, or any of the Diadochi for that matter, and that is: Not face an unbroken mass of spear units head-on, but rather splinter the enemy army, isolate their units, and then hit those units from several sides at once (front+flank, flank+rear, etc). EB is all about historical accuracy, and this, and other tactics, is the best way to reflect how Romans, who were at a disadvantage when it came to phalanx formations, were able to overcome them by using their flexibility and innovative nature to the fullest extent. Historical tactics for a historically-accurate mod, eh?

(Of course, and speaking from campaign experience, when playing as Romani it helps when you constantly outnumber your opponent ~;) )

Hell, the only reason the Romans were able to trounce the Maks at Pydna was because they were able to exploit the rocky and uneven battlefield terrain, which seperated the Mak army nicely enough for Roman units to get between the gaps and butcher the phalanx soldiers at close quarters, where Roman swordsmanship was, I imagine, generally superior to greek swordsmanship.

And this goes both ways. I can imagine that Hellenic players wouldn't want to seperate their armies, or send their units into woods, where their formation is broken, thus again reflecting the rigid and, while formidable, ultimately un-adaptive nature of the Greek/Diadochi war machine.

As Tellos said, this is about creating a more brainy, thoughtful, and tactical-savvy approach to the mod, instead of relegating it to a slug-fest between two colossi. Yes, perhaps the mod is unbalanced and unfair, but then again, HISTORY is unbalanced and unfair!! And as we all should know by now, EB is all about history.

And as to the Cohors Evocata, in 0.81 I've never found them to be particularly superior to the Cohors Imperatoria. Simply slightly better armoured and with better morale. As it was then, and as it should be.

mighty_rome

10-16-2007, 01:20

@mighty_rome:

Yes: the Hellenes & Carthaginians get some really powerful units. At a cost. Litteraly: the use of Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou is prohibitively expensive. And do they beat Romani Legions? No, not really. Unit by unit yes, but not mina for mina. Why? Well, they're not even half the size!

Again and again: the Romani get some of the largest units of such strength compared to any other faction. The only ones close to that are Argyraspidai; and a couple of Carthiginian units.

The Romani certainly have powerful units, but in my opinion the late units just aren't quite powerful enough. And like you said, some phalangite units do get larger unit sizes compared to a Romani cohort (Aanatim Aloopim, some Argyraspides, etc)

I don't have a problem with Romani losing against an elite unit of equal or almost equal size. I'm not say they were the best but they certainly were good. The problem I am seeing is that there are units which cost the same (or less), and can still massacre a Praetorian cohort, even when the other unit is outnumbered.

In my tests a unit of 103 Cohors Praetoriana did indeed lose to 61 Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou in Medium battle difficulty.. and they didn't just lose, they were absolutely massacred. Yes, the Thorakitai is certainly the elite of the elite, and I don't mind losing to them, but I wish it wasn't such a massacre; it was 12 Thorakitai killed vs 92 Praetorians killed. The Praetorians also were cut to pieces by Pheraspides, which cost noticeably less and again is only a unit with 62 men vs 103. (95 praetorians killed vs 31 Pheraspides killed)

All I am saying is that most factions get several elite units, as well as some form of "super-elite", which just blows the late Romani units away, and I just wish the Romani had a little bit better defense to represent their superb training and discipline, along with their use of the well-designed Imperial Italic helmet and large 2" thick scutum shield. So, even more specifically, I am looking for a +1/2 increase in their armor and shield values for Post-Marian/Imperial cohorts.

Now let us get back on topic: spear units have been given better melee abilities; because we felt (and that has been an old, very old, very often told) complaint about previous version of EB... the spear units performed decently against cavalry; but were just horrible in melee compared to swordsmen. ..(clipped)

I understand all your points and I actually have no problem with the elite pike units being as powerful as they are; they're elite, they should be powerful. I just think that the Romani should receive a higher armor/shield rating. That's my opinion. My problem isn't with their sword attack strength at all.

Sakkura

10-16-2007, 01:32

Hell, the only reason the Romans were able to trounce the Maks at Pydna was because they were able to exploit the rocky and uneven battlefield terrain, which seperated the Mak army nicely enough for Roman units to get between the gaps and butcher the phalanx soldiers at close quarters, where Roman swordsmanship was, I imagine, generally superior to greek swordsmanship.

And this goes both ways. I can imagine that Hellenic players wouldn't want to seperate their armies, or send their units into woods, where their formation is broken, thus again reflecting the rigid and, while formidable, ultimately un-adaptive nature of the Greek/Diadochi war machine.

That's a good point. But it should be noted that the RTW engine is not capable of simulating the effects of rough terrain, so it should somehow be incorporated into a unit's stats how good it is in such conditions; that is, giving the legions a bit more power compared to the phalangites than would be merited by the basic performance in less tricky terrain.

Watchman

10-16-2007, 01:34

Tellos Athenaios

10-16-2007, 01:44

Your test actually yielded very, very accurate results. If you'd care to read about the Goidilic units in the Eleutheroi section of the unitpages on the website; you'll come across some fellow of which a historical source tells us they were so powerful that they had destroyed a quarter or so of an invading army (quite large one at that); by the time the other forces reached the fight.

Now that unit is a somewhat lighter copy of the Vasci original; and the Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou is an exact copy of the Vasci. Those Vasci were among the tribes to hold of & beat Romans very, very, very often. They are the absolute zenith of heavy infantry know-how back then -- outfitted in the very best equipment the entire Western world had to offer; recruited from among the best and fittest within the royal guards.

Such things cannot be said about the Praetorians. Actually; Praetorians existed even before Augustus: they are the guards of the tent of the chief commander of the army. As such they are chosen because of their comparative strength as soldiers; but most of all because of their unquestionable loyalty. So there you have it: the best equipment the Roman state has to offer (which isn't particularly good - compared to what you could get in Celtic & Iberian cities; or from the smiths in Syria) plus soldiers who are more loyal and have greater skill at arms than your average back-bone soldier. In the AS they'd have been the Argyraspides based on their skill at arms; and the Royal guard based on their loyality.

But they'd not have been considered good enough for Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou....

Bellum

10-16-2007, 01:54

Romani is usually my main campaign, and while I haven't gotten 1.0 yet, (I'm picking it up from my mothers work tomorrow) I have to say I thought they were overpowered in .8x.

Roman soldiers were not Gods. They relied on experience and good generalship to win their battles. When either of these fails, the unit failed. Rather miserably. So, it should be rather logical, that to have great Roman armies, you should keep the same units on the field for extended periods, and use them with tactical effectiveness.

I guarantee that it will make all the difference.

Sakkura

10-16-2007, 01:55

Didn't I already talk about the difference in the forest penalties ? :inquisitive: And I understand there may be some issues with the "scrub" terrain modifier, whatever the kind of tactical-map ground it now actually covers...
The battle of Pydna was decided by the terrain... But not forested terrain. Those effects are not simulated by RTW and therefore need to be accounted for somehow by the unit stats.

Watchman

10-16-2007, 02:01

But they'd not have been considered good enough for Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou.......who were bad enough dudes to rescue the Basileus. :rockstar:

Those effects are not simulated by RTW and therefore need to be accounted for somehow by the unit stats.That would be the problematic "scrub" terrain then, I presume. Granted even hoplites tended to have some issues with surprisingly minor pieces of rugged terrain, and phalangites doubly so; but as that particular terrain attribute has some issues in-game AFAIK, not much to be done about it.

After all, even if it was pretty secondary the phalangites were still taught to fight with their swords and shields mano y mano if need be too, so it's not like you can really credibly go reduce their melee skills either...

Them's the breaks. You either lure phalanxes into woods, shoot them to bits, or outflank them (preferably all three).

KARTLOS

10-16-2007, 03:09

Whatever... Generally it's widely accepted that Celts and Germans generally had a more robust physical strenght than the average Roman.

Although, like others have said, is it not illegal in Germany? No matter which direction it is oriented?

Considering how many Germans play EB, it might not be the best idea to get EB banned in Germany (although it would be pretty silly if they did, considering the context it would be used in).

but the romans recruited heavily from their newly conquered areas. this meant that actually many of their legionairies would have been of germanic or celtic ethnic stock.

Intranetusa

10-16-2007, 04:43

Waitaminnit... Elite? No, not really. Veterans, yes. Let's separate those words and then reconsider what you say... What on earth do you do with those veterans that makes them run from the first unit of levy phalangitai? Really that must be some horrible tactics: what you mean you simply charge right at the pointy sticks?

Seriously though: you do see that what you've written isn't exactly true, nor fair?

I was just testing basic strength...even running head first, I expect a fully trained veteran Post-Marian Cohort of the Roman empire to defeat a half trained peasant militia levy-phalangite from a disintegrating rebel Greek city state...

And how is what I wrote not fair? If levy phalangites can defeat a veteran post-Marian cohort, we might as well just spam levy phalangites. And I doubt Rome would've conquered anything beyond Italy if their post Marian Veteran cohorts were that weak.

NeoSpartan

10-16-2007, 04:57

I was just testing basic strength...even running head first, I expect a fully trained veteran Post-Marian Cohort of the Roman empire to defeat a half trained peasant militia levy-phalangite from a disintegrating rebel Greek city state...

:wall: :wall: :wall: DUDE!!!

I ask this question to you...

What makes you believe you can take a group of heavy infantry with swords and do a frontal assult on phalanxes at the READY and win?????:dizzy2:

It doesn't matter if the phalangites are levy or not... U ain't gonna walk through 5 metal points! :skull:

UNLESS you FLANK THEM or charge them when the pikes are UP then its where the quality of the phalangites comes into question.

Bootsiuv

10-16-2007, 05:46

Why is my post from the swastika thread quoted in this thread? :inquisitive:

LordCurlyton

10-16-2007, 06:33

For what my input is worth, I rather like the stats. While I have yet to get to the Marian Era (obviously) I find that my trusty Camillan Legions perform roughly comparably as well in 1.0 as in 0.8x. And sometimes I think people get mislead a lot by the numbers, as units that look mediocre seem to perform beyond expectations. Or maybe it could be because I love to use guard mode. Hastati or Principes in guard mode rock as far as pinning even quality units down, Gaesetae included, though they WILL lose, and quite handily after a while if you don't get the support in (ie roll up the weaker flank of the enemy). Maybe people expect something different out of legions of any era, but for me the obivious advantage of playing Romani is this: from top to bottom, even in the Camillan Era, the Roman army's infantry units are pretty even in quality, and even though the difference in quality is evident at the Camillan stage of the game, it is nowhere near as great as, say, the difference between Levy Hoplites, Standard Hoplites, and Elite Hoplites like Spatiatoi or Syrakousoi. That means that a Roman player has no truly weak flank, and as such can reasonably expect the flank facing the stiffest competition to hold out long enough for the side facing inferior opponents to chew through that flank, at which point the battle is over. Of course, if that DOESN'T happen you're screwed six ways from Sunday. But then that's where superior tactics comes into play, no?:whip: Which goes to show that the Roman's best asset was tactics and logistics, plus a certain societal mindset, as has already been stated in this thread previously.
That being said, IF the Evocata are practically identical to standard Marian legions, then I guess I just won't recruit them. I see no problem in giving them one or two more points of attack and defense skill to represent the first term of service. Though I will hardly weep if that is not done.

Patriote

10-16-2007, 07:47

I would like to add my contribution to this post which I find very interesting except maybe for the anti/pro roman boys (although I am myself a roman fanboy:laugh4:) but I just want EB to be as close as possible to reality.

First of all, I always hate when people say that spear was as good as sword in battles. Spear is not worse or better than sword, it was meant to have a different battlefield role. Although I can't quote which page exactly, anyone who read The Prince of Machiavelli might remember this text.

In Machiavelli times, German pikemen but even more Swiss ones were reputed for their quality and were excellent anti-cavalry units. Yet, Machiavelli retold a fight in which Spanish heavy infantry(armor, shield and short sword probably) went under the row of pikes pointed at them using their shield to protect them and then they started slaughtering the pikemen. Only the timed arrival of some allied cavalry drove the Spanish infantry back and save the pikemen. So spear should be anti-cavalry weapon and the sword an anti-spear weapon. As for sword vs cavalry, I think swords already have a penalty:inquisitive:

As for the debate concerning roman soldiers. Roman soldiers were, as warriors, very competent, well trained and in good physical condition nonetheless, but it was their tactical flexibility as an army that allowed groups of armed roman soldiers to excel against others well trained and well equipped armies.
Here a good link to a website that I find extremely interesting:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr000c.htm

It is mainly a study of the evolution of the military theory of the ancient armies.

But the real problem being, as a player, we have SO MUCH control over our troops, thousandfold times the amount of control generals had in ancient and medieval times as we fly over the battlefield as a all-seeing god (especially those playing without the general camera view) able to redirect every unit in a single click and all armies working as well oiled machines with the same efficiency.
But it is impossible to modify this aspect, especially for the AI. If in E:TW, units has to be grouped in formation before the start of the battle and then giving orders, orders that can only be modified with the use of runners then romans could be given an advantage to represent their tactical flexible. Until then, I guess the easiest way to represent this roman "superiority" would be give roman units a somewhat better stats as this would represent this so-called superiority.

BTW, if roman units were to be "power up" I would play them in this way to ad a little more realism to the game. As my battle lines and wings would advance to meet the enemy, instead of ordering them what to do exactly, I would simply delegate them to the AI. Sure they might (and will!) do stupid things but let just call it "battlefield confusion" :clown:

JeffBag

10-16-2007, 09:05

You mean like the -4 or so the "spear" attributes give when fighting infantry ? And IIRC my reading on the topic, the "light_spear" one - which each and every spearman in EB now has - penalized defense... :inquisitive:

Watchman posted this pages back and everybody seems to have overlooked this? This pretty much explains clearly why spearmen have got their stats boosted.

Beefy187

10-16-2007, 09:10

I can go rant about Roman soldiers. But most of the things are probebly already said and I havnt read the entire thread word to word.

I got a idea for the the elite cohort imperatoria (Sorry forgot the name) If its possible you could make the cohort imperatoria upgrade to elite soon as they get like 3 silver chavron. Maybe..

HFox

10-16-2007, 09:18

Firstly many thanks for 1x. Its feckin awesome.....

Reading through this thread I can see no validation to this argument apart from 'I'. There is no justification apart from a lot of conjecture on an individuals opinions on events.

Now the stats could be wrong historically, but they have been set up this way over five years of development. I am sure the team have used all types of feedback and testing to reach this point.

I am sorry, but I see no argument here for the team to answer or even constructively respond to.

'I' does not equal reason.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-16-2007, 11:07

Funny, the experts believe differently?

Two questions:

What experts?

And:

Who am I?

The Romans did it yearly, the Greeks only did it when it was needed, mercenaries were used a great deal more.

Legions were recruited yearly but the level of training was actually fairly even. Greeks didn't actually go to the gymnasium just to get buff.

Small numbers of men compared to the rest of the citizens who formed the rest of the army. Much like in Celtic society where a small number of men would be full-time fighters and the rest were conscripts.

Compared to none of the Romans?

I have tried to explain this every way I can think of but you all simply refuse to pay attention to what I am saying.

So frankly I'm done.

The Romans were not amazing, for most of our period they were just another citizen militia, you might think about how they won in spite of that.

konny

10-16-2007, 11:30

On the post-Marian Legions: Those forces did not appear out of the nowhere overnight. In fact the Roman state allready pays for/provided equipement for the militia soldiers since or soon after the Thrid Punic War. It is all to sensible to assume that a level of unification in armour and weaponary has been achieved in the following century until Marius.

It is widely interesting to see that many lands conquered by Napoleon were pillaged during XVIII century wars before and "conquered" by European powers. It's also interesting to notice that they were all re-conquered by these European powers before, so that must mean that the Grand Armee really sucked.

Ah I see, we are closing in to the main problem of this threat: When an army was more successfull than its opponents, its units must have been better than theirs. Right? Wrong.

Speaking of your example, the Napoleonic Wars, the common battalion French infantry of the line was by its "stats" (if we would make an EB 1800) not better than, for example, a comperable British or Austrian unit. The Prussian army of 1806, that was curshed within a few hours, was a well equiped force of long serving professionals. The army of 1813/15, that sent Napoleon to exile twice, was a levy mob that had to borrough weapons and uniforms from their allies.

So you see, that the quality of a unit most not go according to the victory of an army made of those units - and vice versa.

Thaatu

10-16-2007, 12:11

Why is my post from the swastika thread quoted in this thread? :inquisitive:
Someone's building up for a nazi-flame invasion! Damn, these always end like that.

Anyway, I certainly haven't played with marian or augustian Rome, so I can't comment on much...

I was just testing basic strength...even running head first, I expect a fully trained veteran Post-Marian Cohort of the Roman empire to defeat a half trained peasant militia levy-phalangite from a disintegrating rebel Greek city state...
...other than on fighting against levy phalangites. They may be effective head on, but other than that, I don't put much trust on them. They rout very easily, and once the formation is cracked, that's pretty much it for them. So if someone tests unit stats head on against levy phalangites, he's playing to their strongest part. And remember, just the fact that they can form a phalanx requires a lot of training, so they're not exactly half-trained peasants.

In my tests a unit of 103 Cohors Praetoriana did indeed lose to 61 Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou in Medium battle difficulty.. and they didn't just lose, they were absolutely massacred
I wouldn't be surprised by that.

I don't know, Pyrrhos was regarded as a magnificent general but was only barely able to defeat camillan Roman legions, at proverbially great cost.
I wouldn't say barely. He beat a Roman army twice. Both victories would have been considered great victories, but for the fact that Rome could reinforce, Pyrrhus could not. The third battle is considered a draw by some, a Roman victory by others, but after that Pyrrhus saw no reason to continue his campaign. Thus, it's arguable whether Rome ever defeated Pyrrhus.

KARTLOS

10-16-2007, 12:29

Why is my post from the swastika thread quoted in this thread? :inquisitive:

it just seems to happen sometimes! obviously i was trying to quote the the first post.

Charge

10-16-2007, 12:34

Well why not give Evocata, Principes, other experienced units EXP from EDB and more than 1 turn to build???

Watchman

10-16-2007, 12:42

Uh... the Principes were part of the Republican reservist militia, like everybody else. Required to own a certain minimum level of war gear and be reasonably trained with it, and come to the standards when Rome called for her children to make war.

They weren't normally even more experienced than the Hastati and the other lighter-equipped reservists, simply wealthier and hence better equipped. Ditto for the Triarii and Equites.

Little Legioner

10-16-2007, 13:30

Stop complaining about the stats people. Just do something if you still think about Romani are underpowered.

I'll revisit Romani stats tonight and replace 8.1 stats instead of 1.0. Ok?

Sakkura

10-16-2007, 14:21

I wouldn't say barely. He beat a Roman army twice. Both victories would have been considered great victories, but for the fact that Rome could reinforce, Pyrrhus could not. The third battle is considered a draw by some, a Roman victory by others, but after that Pyrrhus saw no reason to continue his campaign. Thus, it's arguable whether Rome ever defeated Pyrrhus.
Hm, I guess that also depends on the sources. Like, the casualties at the battle of Heraclea are stated as 7,000 for Rome and 3,000 for Pyrrhus by Hieronymus of Cardia (a contemporary Greek) or 15,000 for Rome and 13,000 for Pyrrhus by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (a Greek living under Roman rule in the last years of the republic, ie. not contemporary). Who to trust, who to trust...
So anyway, the Romans lost two battles to a great Greek general, who happened to have cavalry superiority and elephants as well. Let's call it one clear defeat, one narrow defeat and one draw; and those were the first three battles the Romans ever faced a strong Greek army in (as well as elephants), and they didn't exactly get mauled (compare it to the battles of the second Punic war, where Rome indeed got creamed on several occasions).

I think this shows that in a head-on battle, camillan Roman legions were definitely the equal of a solid Macedonian phalanx, with a small contingent of elites (maybe slightly better overall due to versatility; this is debatable though, since any proper Greek general would compensate for this by greater use of combined arms). RTW is scaled down compared to RL numbers, and some things concerning formation just can't be simulated correctly; so the problems the phalanx sometimes faced when their formation got disordered should be included in the unit stats IMHO. With the exception of forests, since they do indeed mess with phalanxes in RTW and EB.

In any event, I think I will stop debating this, since if any imbalance exists it is quite minor, and I don't want to contribute to the brewing flame-war. The only thing I will repeat is that I hope the EB crew take another look at the stats of the cohors evocata, since they compare quite poorly to the regular cohors reformata.

The Wizard

10-16-2007, 16:24

The problem is, "luck" is an important, but not exactly the only factor to be considered. The Romans painted not only Greece in red, they painted the whole area around the Mediterranean plus a lot more to the North. They only did not paint Germania and Parthia in red because their Empire was already too extensive.

"Luck", certainly, isn't the only factor here. People don't get enslaved and conquered due to diplomatic intrigue, bribes, or economical influence. Surely these help, but the absolute conquest and subjugation only come through military strenght. And seeing how the Romani were able to defeat militarily most of the Civilized world of the time + a lot of "less civilized" ones, shows their strenght in arms. It wasn't just throwing a lot of people on your enemy 'till he gets sick and surrenders.You'll notice I was talking about thousands of variables. I never, in fact, even mentioned luck. That the Romans won out was far -- very far -- from a foregone conclusion. Arguing from that point of view (the Romans conquered lotsa land so they have to be l33t!) is a flawed, and, frankly, ignorant way of looking at the real history.

I'll reiterate, however, my previous statement that I haven't actually played the latest version of EB. All I am now commenting on is the most oft-repeated argument in favor of Roman strength of arms, an argument which is logically flawed.

Besides that, I can safely say, as a former member of the EB team, that I strongly doubt that the team has weakened Roman units in favor of those wielding spears without well-researched, argumented, and downright good reasons, let alone wrongfully so.

In fact, I've seen depressingly little real hard numbers and battle tests to support any of the arguments of those complaining at all. Doing so would seriously strengthen your case, guys. Beats using flawed logic.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-16-2007, 16:31

Hm, I guess that also depends on the sources. Like, the casualties at the battle of Heraclea are stated as 7,000 for Rome and 3,000 for Pyrrhus by Hieronymus of Cardia (a contemporary Greek) or 15,000 for Rome and 13,000 for Pyrrhus by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (a Greek living under Roman rule in the last years of the republic, ie. not contemporary). Who to trust, who to trust...
So anyway, the Romans lost two battles to a great Greek general, who happened to have cavalry superiority and elephants as well. Let's call it one clear defeat, one narrow defeat and one draw; and those were the first three battles the Romans ever faced a strong Greek army in (as well as elephants), and they didn't exactly get mauled (compare it to the battles of the second Punic war, where Rome indeed got creamed on several occasions).

I think this shows that in a head-on battle, camillan Roman legions were definitely the equal of a solid Macedonian phalanx, with a small contingent of elites (maybe slightly better overall due to versatility; this is debatable though, since any proper Greek general would compensate for this by greater use of combined arms). RTW is scaled down compared to RL numbers, and some things concerning formation just can't be simulated correctly; so the problems the phalanx sometimes faced when their formation got disordered should be included in the unit stats IMHO. With the exception of forests, since they do indeed mess with phalanxes in RTW and EB.

In any event, I think I will stop debating this, since if any imbalance exists it is quite minor, and I don't want to contribute to the brewing flame-war. The only thing I will repeat is that I hope the EB crew take another look at the stats of the cohors evocata, since they compare quite poorly to the regular cohors reformata.
As for the in-balance between Greeks and Romans, I find it highly questionable the new stats. Phalanxes were already strong in 0.81, but now they got their stats boosted. I mean, even if they had Attack 5, simply having these very long spears would make anything non-phalanx run. Otherwise they're very vulnerable, and I can hardly see how an unit of Militia Phalangites can ever match Post-Marian infantry cohorts.

I'm simply not convinced to believe that Greeks had the same amount of training as a Post-Marian Roman unit. And I'm not convinced the Post-Marian Romans were a "militia" either. Get any serious history book and you'll know the Roman drill was one of the toughest, and it was uniform for all Post-Marian recruits. So saying the Greeks could get as strong as them in the Gymnasium is a highly debatable statement, especially because most of them didn't have a lifetime uniform training and discipline as the Roman Post-Marian cohorts. And also consider that Alexander was dead, and the quality of Hellenic Phalanxes is ina steady decline, with many recruits being levy phalangites who were too busy harvesting their crops to train on any significant level, and with even the Pezhetairoi training quality in decline; their only mission was to keep thrusting their pikes forward, and pray that they don't get attacked from the flank or the rear. But now, it seems that a well-trained Roman soldier, with a reinforced heavy Scutum, a good coat of Lorica Hamata with over 30.000 rings and a bronze helmet has difficulty in defeating even a Levy Phangite in Linothrax. I'm not saying that they have problems from the front, but I had problems charging them from the rear because of the reinforced stats of the Greek Phalangites. And it is impressing that a Hoplite with a round argive shield and only leather and linen has the same amount of defense as a professional Roman soldier with a Scutum and mail armour.

I'm frankly disappointed with the stats in EB 1. I was waiting for more, but the spears are now too powerful. I think the team has been focuing too heavily on making uber-greeks and haven't even bothered to tweak the stats for the Romani, except to give them a little more inferiority. Regardless of what you may say upon the quality of legionaries, history is very different, with the Legions often winning the day in heroic situations. They were defeated badly, too, but they have won so many countless times, even when outnumbered, that I can't frankly accept a mediocre quality infantry as true Roman infantry. As much as there were good and mediocre soldiers in the Roman ranks, so there were in the Greek ranks, and I feel the new uber-spearmen, the majority of Greek spearmen (but also a lot of barbarian militia spearmen too) don't represent that as good as they wanted the Romani to represent it.

So, ok, EB is a superb mod. I liked the balance in EB 0.81, and frankly the Romani were even with many foes; they keep complaining about the Cohors Imperatoria but truly the Augustan Reforms came so late that most other factions already could have stacks of elite armies to beat them. And Spearmen were already powerful enough back then to be a threat, but not an uber-threat like now. Spearmen aren't super-heroes just because of their spears: they need to fight, and even then swords had a clear advantage. In a tight formation, the Romani could very well leave little room for enemy spearmen to maneuver, thus slaughtering them in droves; that's what has made the gladius one of the most successful armies of the time.

Well, I think I'll go back to 0.81 and to RTR.

the_handsome_viking

10-16-2007, 16:41

I personally like the fact that spears are more powerful now, but what people need to remember is that you should look at these weapons in the sense that you would look at various tools for different kinds of jobs. The sword, at least the long sword typically is a very fast, versitile weapon that actually does require a high degree of skill to effectivly use which is probably why its such a famous weapon, the spear on the other hand by its very design is fairly straight forwards that said there is many many many ways to use a spear or polearm, but it is understandable why the spear is typically seen as the weapon of the lower classes but this is probably more of a material thing rather than a reflection of the skill level of most people.

To jump out of the time frame for a second, many Frankish infantry, though heavily armored, often are depicted as fighting with spears instead of swords, the spear type they often had has a very long protected shaft and something that looks like double headed hammer just under the neck of the blade which implies that they used the spears in the pole arm sense for parrying and thrusting and whacking at their oponents, arguably they could also pull cavalry down with the mor melee orientated parts of the spear. So clearly the spear can be a weapon of the elite and was undoubtably one of the more successful weapons in history.

That said, it's a long range weapon, that is its strength and its weakness in many ways, the sword on the other hand is a chaotic, fast and versitile shorter ranged weapon that, if used up close, usually will get the upper hand over a spear user, its that simple, so it really depends on the formation used by the spear warriors to stop swordsmen from getting too close.

I've argued before that what made the Romans very good on the battlefield was that they basically learned to take a lot of damage from the enemy and keep standing, they also would get in darned close and rotate their troops to keep fresh soldiers up at the front lines during combat, this technique right here was basically one of the major factors for their success on the battlefield, their short swords on the other hand obviously were an ideal weapon for up close and personal combat, and the best way to represent this would really be to give the Legionaries high defencive skill and also high armor ability, this should at least be able to counter the arguably more realistic spear stats.

I would also say that swords should be generally faster weapons, as in the attack animations should quite simply be faster than that of the spear users due to the simple fact that its much easier to swing a sword around wildly and quickly than it is to repeatedly thrust a spear at an enemy, this should level out and represent the differences in capacity of the two weapons types effectivly.

Sakkura

10-16-2007, 16:45

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-16-2007, 16:56

I don't think you're necessarily correct that phalanxes got weaker after Alexander. It is my understanding that the AS and Ptolemies tended to add more and more armor, sacrificing mobility for staying power.

Regarding the armor of classic hoplites... Well, they do have greaves, unlike the Romans.
Regarding the Elites, they say the Cohors Praetoria was filled with people who are there only due to political loyalties. I frankly disagree. How can we prove that the Argiraspidai and the Elite Vascone infantry wasn't filled with people of political loyalty and high material wealth, too? No such systems are 100% meritocratic, and many good warriors would never enter these Elites even if they deserved it. As political loyalty doesn't count as skill on the battlefield, that should count on the unit performance, but overall that's how it should have worked, as it was better to have someone with a mediocre performance and strong loyalty rather than a super warrior with doubtful reputation.

Regarding the Hoplites, their only good defence is their shield. Greaves work well against spears, but the leather and linen body armour is not by far capable of having the same strenght of a Lorica Hamata used by the later Romans.

Charge

10-16-2007, 16:57

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-16-2007, 17:00

To jump out of the time frame for a second, many Frankish infantry, though heavily armored, often are depicted as fighting with spears instead of swords, the spear type they often had has a very long protected shaft and something that looks like double headed hammer just under the neck of the blade which implies that they used the spears in the pole arm sense for parrying and thrusting and whacking at their oponents, arguably they could also pull cavalry down with the mor melee orientated parts of the spear. So clearly the spear can be a weapon of the elite and was undoubtably one of the more successful weapons in history.

Spears are very effective weapons, however, IMO EB portrays them in an uber manner. I feel that we could only solve this by providing reliable test data, and that includes training both sides, then giving one side fake spears and shields and the another fake shortswords and shields, then throwing one against another :smile:. That's how we can get good data about it :P.

Tellos Athenaios

10-16-2007, 17:11

This is the reason of their constantly defeats against non-phalanx armies (romans).

I'd not say "constant" -- and I'd not say "This is the reason". The phalanx army is one of the best formations of all time - requiring limitted man power to win a great odds. What it does require however is the support of powerful cavalry or the advantage of the terrain.

By the time the Romans faced some serious phalanx based armies who could rely on reinforcements to replenish the losses as well; the phalanx armies did no longer have that powerful cavalry support.

To say that the phalanx is an inflexible formation isn't exactly true either. It's a back-bone and as such cannot be sacrificed too much; but you can perform some pretty amazing tactics with them. Gaugamela is a classic for a reason...

Also I'd like you to consider that phalanx does not simply mean "Pezhetairoi and the like" -- in fact it is pretty much the Greek name for shieldwall/ heavy infantry. It's a minor note at best; but something which should be the key to how you use a phalanx on the battle field.

dezzerx

10-16-2007, 17:15

Davidian

10-16-2007, 17:16

Dont want to be the obnoxious noob here but isnt it an idea to give some sword troops an "Bonus versus spearman" trait? Like the spearmen have agains cavalry and axeman have against armoured troops.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-16-2007, 17:18

I'd not say "constant" -- and I'd not say "This is the reason". The phalanx army is one of the best formations of all time - requiring limitted man power to win a great odds. What it does require however is the support of powerful cavalry or the advantage of the terrain.

By the time the Romans faced some serious phalanx based armies who could rely on reinforcements to replenish the losses as well; the phalanx armies did no longer have that powerful cavalry support.

To say that the phalanx is an inflexible formation isn't exactly true either. It's a back-bone and as such cannot be sacrificed too much; but you can perform some pretty amazing tactics with them. Gaugamela is a classic for a reason...

Also I'd like you to consider that phalanx does not simply mean "Pezhetairoi and the like" -- in fact it is pretty much the Greek name for shieldwall/ heavy infantry. It's a minor note at best; but something which should be the key to how you use a phalanx on the battle field.
It's interesting to notice that the Phalanx performed very badly against the Legions in several occasions, and Magnesia is a classic example of a superior Phalanx army being routed by a Legion army in inferior numbers. The cavalry excuse can't be used, either, because the Seleucids had about the double of Elephants the Romans had and their cavalry was as strong as the Roman one, if not quite superior. So the Phalanx is only war-winning when you get large piece of flat land to deploy your line of spears, otherwise their tactical rigidity will make them vulnerable in less favourable terrain.

I would say that the Phalanx was a formidable formation, indeed, but the high cost in flexibility and maneuverability meant that you really need to be smart when maneuvering it, otherwise it was much easy for enemy infantry to explore the gaps in the line and send the whole phalangites running for the hills. The Legion wasn't able to defeat them from the front but the much larger flexibility meant that legionaries could quickly maneuver to explore the gaps at an enemy line and strike at their weakest point, thus getting decisive victories repeatedly.

Overall, later on the Phalanx was abandoned and either replaced by heavy infantry or by more flexible Spearmen with shorter spears. It came back to action later on the Middle Ages, but not by any means similar to the Greek Phalanx of the Ancient Age.

Intranetusa

10-16-2007, 17:23

See the bold part?

Right, lets try this again: The Romans were not super soldiers, even under Marius and after they remained militia, even under Nero the legions were not particually impressive.

Did Phillipvs seriously just call the post-Marian Roman legionaries "militia"?
That's totally wrong...the Roman millitary was the prime example of what a militia was not, and was one of the first fully professional armies in the western world.

and I totally agree with what Basileos ton Ellenon said:

1. Decrease their numbers to 160 (I play on huge, their size is 200), increase their stats, keep their current price and upkeep costs (or just make slight changes).

2. Keep their current numbers, increase their stats and their costs (so that nobody claims they are "overpowered").

3. Keep them more or less as they were in 0.81: powerful, numerous and cheap. Many people complain they were too powerful, but it took so long to get the Cohors Imperatoria that this would be not significant except in Custom Battles. The Cohors Reformata was powerful but certainly not capable of standing enemy Elite and even ordinary heavy infantry the way the Cohors Imperatoria did.

As for Pre-Marian units, stats for (Camillan) Principes should be decreased, or at least stats for Camillan Hastati should be a bit increased. Either they decrease the attack of spear units in general, or they increase the attack of all sword units (not just Roman units) to keep a better balance. I need to further elaborate, but discuss...

And finally, maybe the stats for the Evocati should be slightly increased, or they should be erased from the game. It's not worth to have, currently (except for storytelling and role-playing purposes).

Charge

10-16-2007, 17:28

Take for example battle of Magnesia. Phalanx did have a support of heavy cavalry, chariots, cataphracts. Roman cavalry was as always was inferior, but what happen? Seleucids' cavalry was broken (lol) ; phalangite without support= dead phalangite...
In this battle despite cavalry support phalanx did nothing, and in 2 other battles during macedonian wars cavalry wasn't used because of general's stupidity or something.
So post Alexander phalanxes have had less mobility (which means they'are useless against romans without support or due to terrain), and lower quality soldiers (almost levies)...

Basileos already explained...

Tellos Athenaios

10-16-2007, 17:30

Overall, later on the Phalanx was abandoned and either replaced by heavy infantry or by more flexible Spearmen with shorter spears. It came back to action later on the Middle Ages, but not by any means similar to the Greek Phalanx of the Ancient Age.

I beg to differ. The word "pikemen" which were still very much in use by 1600 should ring a bell there.

EdwardL

10-16-2007, 17:34

I beg to differ. The word "pikemen" which were still very much in use by 1600 should ring a bell there.

Making several areas / countries famous for them, such as the Swiss, or Flemish.

The Wizard

10-16-2007, 17:39

The flexibility and raw power of a phalanx properly trained and used was duly proven by the sheer effectiveness of Swiss and German pike formations from the 15th century onwards.

I'd also like to note that Seleucid cavalry at Magnesia was of far inferior quality to that of Alexander or Philip in any of their battles; indeed, the Companions have oft been called the single best formation of cavalry, ever. Meanwhile, as we all know, elephants are not a replacement for good cavalry.

blacksnail

10-16-2007, 18:03

Dont want to be the obnoxious noob here but isnt it an idea to give some sword troops an "Bonus versus spearman" trait? Like the spearmen have agains cavalry and axeman have against armoured troops.
We debated this bonus but decided against it because it caused more problems than it solved. I'm not a stats guy so I can't tell you why, but the short of it is that it screwed up the balance.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-16-2007, 18:16

Did Phillipvs seriously just call the post-Marian Roman legionaries "militia"?
That's totally wrong...the Roman millitary was the prime example of what a militia was not, and was one of the first fully professional armies in the western world.

and I totally agree with what Basileos ton Ellenon said:

Okay, one last time, because then I'm going to lose my temper. Until the time of Augustus a Legion would be formed, trained, deployed and then either return after victory or be destroyed. At that point, if the formation survived, it was dispanded. Training up to battlefield standard was roughly 4 months, usually in Autumn/Winter.

Not until Augustus were permenant named and numbered formations created and wiki even gets the term of service wrong, Legionaries served 22 years, Auxillaries 25, Praetorians 16.

mcantu

10-16-2007, 18:22

Dont want to be the obnoxious noob here but isnt it an idea to give some sword troops an "Bonus versus spearman" trait? Like the spearmen have agains cavalry and axeman have against armoured troops.

The engine already applies a -4 penalty to spear units when fighting sword infantry. Why can anyone remember this when looking at the stats? :dizzy2: (not necessarily you Davidian)

Patriote

10-16-2007, 19:07

Just as many things in life, you cannot determine the quality of an army by looking at results on battlefields. Also let not forget that an army is much than the sum of its parts and the military genius of the Romans was a combination of military, political and sociological elements and RTW cannot replicate them all.

It can be say that armies that win wars are those that manage to adapt to the changing warfare situation. Sure no army were perfect and none were undefeated. But yet, it is ridiculous to pretend that "good" armies won only because of their enemies' weaknesses and not of their own strengths (after they were "good" for something else just being "better" than their opponents)

For those knowing a little bit about war, weaknesses of the enemy do not provide you with an automatic victory. They are mostly opportunities that have to be seized. Just like every military formations, romans' ones had advantages and disadvantages but Romans found a way to minimize their weaknesses while capitalizing on their strength. The greatest strength of the Roman armies was its tactical flexibility which, in turn allowed the Roman subordinates(Centurion I believe but correct if I'm wrong) to take initiatives when those opportunities appeared. Nowadays they call this Boyd's cycle of decision for those interested in this subject.

Also, the Romans have always been good at adopting and evolving, military speaking, to be able, as a people, to survive. During their first confrontations with Gallic armies, Roman armies were often defeated and Rome even sacked. Facing their Samnite enemies, they learned a new way to do battle and after that, they kept on improving their tactics and equipment whenever they faced nations with "qualities" for war. So the argument of "luck" to explain the Roman Empire is rather juvenile otherwise any empire could be consider a result of luck :2thumbsup:

Concerning the debate, IMHO I think some people overestimate the strength of the spear compare to the sword. Sure having a longer reach is an advantage but, especially if held with one hand, a spear, with a single motion to attack, thrusting, is at great disadvantages when compare with all the attacking and parrying motions a well trained men can do with a sword (although I admit a well-trained and equipment spearman could give a swordsman a run for its money) Roman formations(with the exception of spear-armed romans) were more loose than most others formations giving the sword-armed Romans the freedom required to take advantage of their weapon.

So, any of you took a few minutes to read the website link I posted, you will understand why I think spearmen are "overpowered" when compare to swordsmen (although I'm sounding as if I was the one who wrote the original post :laugh4:)

NeoSpartan

10-16-2007, 19:20

It's interesting to notice that the Phalanx performed very badly against the Legions in several occasions, and Magnesia is a classic example of a superior Phalanx army being routed by a Legion army in inferior numbers. The cavalry excuse can't be used, either, because the Seleucids had about the double of Elephants the Romans had and their cavalry was as strong as the Roman one, if not quite superior. So the Phalanx is only war-winning when you get large piece of flat land to deploy your line of spears, otherwise their tactical rigidity will make them vulnerable in less favourable terrain.

....:thumbsdown:

Dude.... seriously...wtf are u talkng about???

-In Magnesia Antiachos had LESS cavarly so in order to make up for that he brought elephants which were put in intervals on the phanax, and the charriots, camels and some cataphracts were deployed on his right flank. He was hoping these "exotic" units would do the trick in destryoing the Romani left cavarly flank but guess what happened???

Romani skermishers (slinger namely) shot at the charriots, those went wild and started to cut the slow moving cataphacts and scare away the camels. Soon the Romani cavarly followed and routed the remaining cavarly and assorted skerimshers.

On the right flank of the Seleucid army Antiachos was leading the strong cavarly portion of his army. He ROUTED the romani left flank and persued it to the Roman camp. LEAVING his phalangites, galatian merceneries and elephants alone!!!!

SO, then the phanlangites formed a squeare of pike with the elephants and galatians and other infantry in the center. The Romani knew better so they DID NOT attack. Instead they threw missiles, rocks and javelings. Eventually the Elephants became roudy and wild INSIDE the square. Then formation was then broken and and everyone had to RUN!!!!!!!!!!!! The Romani proceeded to cut them down.

In the meantime Antiachos was pushed back once he got to the Romani camp. There the routing romans decided to stand thier ground along with the defenders of the camp (thats where they keep all their loot! can't loose that).

Thats how that battle went down! :smash:

I still don't know what ur deal with the spear units. They get a -4 penalty against infantry, thats why the "high" stats.

Ready to go Phalangites are nearly unbreakable in a frontal assult. Of them, Pezetaroi (sp) are profesional, drilled infantry, so they fight good with thier swords too.

Hoplites are a heavy armored infantry, so don't expect to see them get mowed down. Hell thier shield, the Aspis, is harder and heavier than the Roman Scutum.

Charge

10-16-2007, 19:28

agree with rest of your post, but ...

LESS CAVALRY???
12000 cavalry (hetairos, cataphracts, chariots, archers, others, +54 elephants)

against
3200 roman cavalry!

And romans were best in hand-to-hand combat! How you can't understood this?

dezzerx

10-16-2007, 19:51

And romans were best in hand-to-hand combat! How you can't understood this?

Yes how you not can stand under this? This well explained statement backed up by so much evidence!

Anyways this thread is starting to look like some of the threads on a military forum: WHACH ONE IS TEH BETTER?! DELTA OR SAS??!

Watchman

10-16-2007, 20:48

As a random observation, the quality of debate in this thread frankly blows. :skull:

Anyway. As things go, most swordsmen the world over regardless of period had this funny habit of more often than not having a spear as their primary initial weapon (not counting those who had a spear primarily for throwing, so as to damage and disorder the foe before contact, natch), which they would use until it either broke or the fighting moved into close enough quarters its reach became a hindrance and the sword served better. This was the case whether you're talking about Classical hoplites, Hellenistic phalangites, most of the sword-carrying heavy infantry of the Celts and Germans, Migration Period warbands, Vikings, Arab, Byzantine, Chinese or Japanese heavy infantry, just about any mounted soldier, Medieval and Early Modern pikemen and knights...

Heck, one reason gunpowder-era armies eventually stopped issuing swords to the infantry (the pike went extinct quite a bit earlier) was simply that the bayonet, which basically turned the musket or rifle into a spear, was simply more effective - and the equal failure of Ottoman Janissaries, Scottish Highland noblemen with sword and targe, and any number of sword-toting colonial-war native enemies to breach a steady wall of bayonets in hand-to-hand combat speaks volumes as to why.

Quite simply, a close-order wall of spearpoints is a nightmare to try to get through. God forbid should the spearmen have decent shields to boot, for then should you get to within sword-reach in the first place you still have to try to get around that blasted wall of wood, metal and leather... plus some of the buggers will sooner or later drop their spears (or throw them at you - you wouldn't believe some of the things people have used as short-range missile weapons...) and go for their sidearms anyway.

And then there's the offensive applications of the principle. If I've understood correctly the Greek aspis shield was pretty much designed for being used as a battering ram when the whole phalanx of hoplites crashed into the enemy formation as a solid avalanche of bronze and spear-points...

Anyway, in comparision the Roman big-shield-javelin-and-small-sword combination developed as a kind of "jeep" of a tactical system - it might kinda lose to specialist approaches in their strong field, but it had very few real shortcomings either and could be used almost anywhere to more or less equal effect (something quite not possible with the hoplite shieldwall or the pike phalanx). The big shield gave good protection, when used properly the cheap shortsword was quite lethal especially in combination with the shield once you got to grips with the foe, and the heavy shield- and armour-piercing javelin helped create the kinds of breaches in the enemy ranks you needed to bring the deadly little metal pricker into play.

The Celtic longswordmen clearly understood the principle as well, what now employed it with a bit different equipement kit. As did the so-called "copy legionaires" with their javelins, fighting-spears and short swords.

As for Roman soldierly professionalism, everything I've read about it says that the early citizen militia was of somewhat indifferent military calibre. No wonder, as these men spent easily the better part of their time tending their farms and other businesses instead of training for war. There were apparently small cadres of essentially full-time officers who then drilled the mobilized reservists in the actual manipular tactics and whose job it was to turn the hodge-podge groups of militiamen into lean mean cohesive fighting units, but the general rule of thumb seems to have been that the Roman armies tended to take it to the chin in the early part of any new war when the troops were still newly raised and not yet "knit" into effective fighting formations.

Another minor problem was of course that the maniple wasn't quite as "keep it simple stupid" easily effective as, say, the hoplite phalanx or similar close-order shieldwall formation. The looser order and emphasis on swordplay in close combat simply demanded more skill and practice of the soldiers to be really effective, and that was likely one major reason the Romans always tended to have some problems while the mobilized militia armies were still "learning the ropes". Conversely the classical citizen-militia hoplites were highly effective en masse despite not having much more opportunity for extensive practice (for the exact same reason as any part-time citizen-soldier), simply because of the way they fought in.

And the pike phalangite originally grew out of the need to turn psiloi skirmisher-class levies into heavy infantry that could take on the hoplite on at least equal terms; it succeeded quite well by its well-drilled formation of long spears.

Now the early Philippo-Alexandrian pikemen were already full-time professionals, and AFAIK the Greek hoplites had largely converted into full-time mercenary professionals during the Peloponnesian Wars; and professionals of course tended to be a notch more skilled and confident than part-time "Sunday soldiers". AFAIK this didn't really change much by the time the Successors started having turf wars with the Romans; they certainly had their own brands of part-time reservists of somewhat dodgy calibre (although the formidable nature of the pike-hedge in frontal encounters rather compensated), but their backbone infantry was essentially made up of full-time professionals or as close as makes no difference - nevermind now the elite "guard" units.

The Roman citizen-reservist system sort of became unsustainable by the middle 2nd century BC, not in the elast because the sheer size of the Republic's overseas territories meant the soldiers had to spend very long times abroad which duly tended to hurt them financially. In essence, the militia system was impoverished and starved by the results of its own success, and assorted great magnates and aristocrats cheerfully bought out the rural middle class that formed the backbone of the infantry from its estates and turned those into big latifundias. Hence, Rome increasingly lacked the manpower pool capable of furnishing itself with the required war gear for military service. It still needed troops however, so the wealthy and powerful took to recruiting the poor and dispossessed flocking to the suburbs of the cities into the ranks and providing their equipement from their own pockets, naturally enough not exactly altruistically. Hence the birth of the professional legions, a developement which Marius AFAIK really just formalized and streamlined. These were more or less full-time standing formations, at least as long as their de facto owners found it worth the expense to keep them around, with all that entails; regardless, as for example Spartacus' revolt points out, they were anything but unbeatable and particularly freshly formed units could be awfully brittle.

The Macedonians in particular did have problems with getting enough of cavalry support though, not in the least thanks to constant drain of emigrants to other Diadochi and constant battle attrition (and the Galatian rampage through their heartlands cannot have helped). This sort of tended to make them try and rely a little too heavily on the pike-phalanx "anvil" for victory, and since the Romans had learned its weaknesses already with Pyrrhus...

The Seleukids, in possession of the longtime "horse country" of the old Persian Empire, were obviously by far better off in this regard (until they lost some of their primary Iranian cavalry-recruiting grounds to the Parthians anyway), and by what I've read of it at Magnesia their massed cataphracts on the wing that wasn't decimated by their own scythed chariots and elephants and seen off by Roman and Pergamene cavalry pretty much rolled over everything the Romans had deployed against them. Alas the Seleukids apparently didn't quite understand the strenghts and limitations of this type of cavalry, as they then tried to pursue the routing Roman wing with them. This naturally had little more effect than hopelessly disorganizing their squadrons and blowing their horses, which along with the attentions of Roman reserves and rallied units forced them to largely quite the field or get massacred - at which point then the pike phalanx in the center was left hanging high and dry with its flanks bare, and was duly enveloped and cut down.

Had the Seleukids had the tactical savvy (and, perhaps, unit discipline) of reining in their superheavy cavalry, delegating the pursuit to lighter units far better suited for the job, and instead used them to turn the flank Roman center Magnesia might well have ended quite differently.

Charge

10-16-2007, 21:16

Good post Watchman, though I can add that romans hadn't deploy all their soldiers in this battle (~70000 men).

Watchman

10-16-2007, 21:20

*shrug* Armies on campaign can't always be gathered in one spot already for logistical reasons. "March divided fight united" as it were - and a canny commander will of course try to fight united when the other guy is still divided...

'S ain't called the Art of War for nuttin'.

the_handsome_viking

10-16-2007, 23:10

Spears are very effective weapons, however, IMO EB portrays them in an uber manner. I feel that we could only solve this by providing reliable test data, and that includes training both sides, then giving one side fake spears and shields and the another fake shortswords and shields, then throwing one against another :smile:. That's how we can get good data about it :P.

I love mock battles personally. It's a pretty complex situation really, the strange thing about the Legionary is that they seem to be both offensive and defensive in nature, the giant curved shield, yet the aggressive short sword. In tight quarters that little sword will do a lot of damage and if the formation holds well, and the spearmen find themselves in a situation where they cant effectivly use their longer ranged weapon, you will see the short swordsmen landing more hits. But it really depends to be honest, unfortunatly I don't think EB can truly represent the diversity of the Legionary and thus effectivly show why he won so often.

I personally feel that spears have sort of been, the weapons of retards for the most part in the game, and I'm glad to see Celts using the overhanded spear tactic that would have been undoubtably very common during the period because realistically, the only way you can fight with a mass amount of spearmen is to have some degree of formation tactics imployed or else youll just end up hitting each other or obstructing each others capacity to attack.

Perhaps the only way to really get around this is to just make sure the Legioanries have very good blocking capabilities and fast attacks. I'm not sure if attack animation speed can be edited though but it would be key for representing the likes of Celtic swordsmen.

Watchman

10-16-2007, 23:16

I dunno, the legionary is sort of a cross between those Iberian foot guys and a Peltast; a sort of do-anything generalist. Versatile ? Sure. But that also means he's not so good at specialized stuff.

Incidentally, when Caesar had his big showdown with Ariovist didn't his soldiers ultimately have to resort to something to the level of physically hauling the blasted German shields out of the way to start trying to take their shieldwall apart ?

Zaknafien

10-16-2007, 23:16

WOW.

I just came across this thread, and didnt bother to read through the last couple of pages of bollocks.

Some people posting in here don't know half as much about the Roman military as they think they do, and should listen to guys like Phillip who are professionals. Don't be fooled by your l33t Roman propaganda you see on teh internets or in movies.

1) The Romans were not some super-bad ass military machine.

2) Evocata are just what it says they are--re-enlisted veterans. Theyre EXACTLY the same as a regular legionary, just their term expired and theyve been recalled to service. Pretty much the same equipment, and they're probably about 10-20 years older than your average legionary. They're nothing special. AT MOST, they should have a chevron or two of experience, maybe not even that since they've probably spent their golden years farming a tract of land somewhere in Campania.

3) The Pre-Marian and Marian armies both had not set 'training routines' or drill ceremonies. There were certainly no year-round mobilisation or exercises. Field armies grew experienced whilst in the field, and as Phillip succinctly said, the army was only as good as their commander. Sure, you can name a dozen Roman victories, I can name two dozen Roman disastrous defeats. Same legionaries in either case.

Redmeth

10-16-2007, 23:22

Careful Zak I smell another "Why does EB hate Romans" thread brewing...

Zaknafien

10-16-2007, 23:25

this part especially made me laugh

Some dude originally said:

And I'm not convinced the Post-Marian Romans were a "militia" either. Get any serious history book and you'll know the Roman drill was one of the toughest, and it was uniform for all Post-Marian recruits

Admetos

10-16-2007, 23:25

Originally Posted by Zaknafien
WOW.

I just came across this thread, and didnt bother to read through the last couple of pages of bollocks.

Some people posting in here don't know half as much about the Roman military as they think they do, and should listen to guys like Phillip who are professionals. Don't be fooled by your l33t Roman propaganda you see on teh internets or in movies.

1) The Romans were not some super-bad ass military machine.

2) Evocata are just what it says they are--re-enlisted veterans. Theyre EXACTLY the same as a regular legionary, just their term expired and theyve been recalled to service. Pretty much the same equipment, and they're probably about 10-20 years older than your average legionary. They're nothing special. AT MOST, they should have a chevron or two of experience, maybe not even that since they've probably spent their golden years farming a tract of land somewhere in Campania.

3) The Pre-Marian and Marian armies both had not set 'training routines' or drill ceremonies. There were certainly no year-round mobilisation or exercises. Field armies grew experienced whilst in the field, and as Phillip succinctly said, the army was only as good as their commander. Sure, you can name a dozen Roman victories, I can name two dozen Roman disastrous defeats. Same legionaries in either case.

Well said Zak, maybe people will start to listen now... :laugh4:

Watchman

10-16-2007, 23:32

3) The Pre-Marian and Marian armies both had not set 'training routines' or drill ceremonies. There were certainly no year-round mobilisation or exercises.Still, the "Marian" ones were full-time standing formations weren't they ? Even if they were often recruited and equipped rather hastily, and probably often enough disbanded as soon as their paymaster didn't feel like dealing with the upkeep anymore, and the units spent most of their "loose time" sitting on their asses as soldiers have always been wont to.

"Militia" and "levies" are by definition something a bit different AFAIK.
Field armies grew experienced whilst in the field, and as Phillip succinctly said, the army was only as good as their commander.I'd say that goes to about any army though. Crack veteran forces have been utterly wasted by thoroughly incompetent commanders, sometimes without even fighting with the enemy (campaign attrition is a wonderful thing...).

Or how did that one Arab proverb quoted in the loading screens go, "an army of sheep led by a lion will defeat an army of lions led by a sheep." :beam:

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-16-2007, 23:35

Anyway. As things go, most swordsmen the world over regardless of period had this funny habit of more often than not having a spear as their primary initial weapon (not counting those who had a spear primarily for throwing, so as to damage and disorder the foe before contact, natch), which they would use until it either broke or the fighting moved into close enough quarters its reach became a hindrance and the sword served better. This was the case whether you're talking about Classical hoplites, Hellenistic phalangites, most of the sword-carrying heavy infantry of the Celts and Germans, Migration Period warbands, Vikings, Arab, Byzantine, Chinese or Japanese heavy infantry, just about any mounted soldier, Medieval and Early Modern pikemen and knights...

But then there is the clear difference between "javelin" and "spear". Most of them used this because it was too expensive and useless to throw anything resembling a sword at the enemy :tongue:.

Heck, one reason gunpowder-era armies eventually stopped issuing swords to the infantry (the pike went extinct quite a bit earlier) was simply that the bayonet, which basically turned the musket or rifle into a spear, was simply more effective - and the equal failure of Ottoman Janissaries, Scottish Highland noblemen with sword and targe, and any number of sword-toting colonial-war native enemies to breach a steady wall of bayonets in hand-to-hand combat speaks volumes as to why.

Here we go with the classical debate on spears vs. swords, and their practical applications. I know Arthur Wellesley's "bayonet squares" were an effective army against and cavalry and many infantry trying to engage in close combat, but this is a different context. Now, we're talking about having to wield a lenghty and heavy Sarissa. Heavy and long pikes, including the monstruosity built by the Diadochi and with a lenght of about 21 feet, are clearly effective stopping most cavalry and keeping enemies out of range, but then the greater the spear, the greater the tactical rigidity. It is quite interesting that the Phalanx, bot in-game and in reality, is a very rigid formation that only works when nothing goes wrong. In fact it was so unflexible that in Cynoscephalae (sp?) the pikemen took hours to properly deploy, and the exactly not very competent command from the lower to the upper ranks combined with the great rigidity gave a large hole the Romans so thankfully explored. To wield a Sarissa, you must pray that the enemy doesn't come close enough for sword combat, or else you're toast, and in fact the linen coats, the short swords and tiny shields of the Makedonians weren't even a match for the high quality heavy equipment of the Romani. Wielding only swords gives an enourmous tactical flexibility, especially a shorter sword like the gladius: you can maneuver everywhere, if the enemy clashes from the flanks or rear you can quickly turn to face them, if there's a hole there's no need to carry a skyscraper with you... This is one of the reasons the legions won the day against the phalanxes: the wall of spears is formidable, but once the Romani found the smallest hole, the whole line could collapse. So it's a very complex formation that requires a lot of tactical genius and experience to deal with, nothing less than perfection. Alexander, Seleukos, these were competent enough; but what about the average, the mediocre leadership, even the incompetent leadership that came later? They wrote whole books of fatal mistakes. In comparison, the Legion had far more victories, and due to it's tactical flexibility, the legionaries didn't need heroes to command them.

Quite simply, a close-order wall of spearpoints is a nightmare to try to get through. God forbid should the spearmen have decent shields to boot, for then should you get to within sword-reach in the first place you still have to try to get around that blasted wall of wood, metal and leather... plus some of the buggers will sooner or later drop their spears (or throw them at you - you wouldn't believe some of the things people have used as short-range missile weapons...) and go for their sidearms anyway.

What's funny is that it remembers me of a tactical maxim: attack where they weak, avoid them where they are strong, prepare a solid defence when they are concentrated. Despite the whole sword vs. spear controversy, I'm still playing 1.0, and I just won another heroic victory with the Romani against the Makedonians simply by exploring holes in their line. It's the AI, I know, but one could simply keep peppering them with arrows, javelins, pila, stones, whatever, until they leave their defensive formation. If they are not organised enough, then prepare to storm the holes and win the day, as your certainly will if they're wielding sarissas. That's why many carried javelins: in case there was a spear wall, a shower of missiles would open a breach or incite an attack, and that could open the hole of the dreams. Since spearmen generally make a single line, and pike phalanxes mostly had single lines, flooding the gaps could be decisive.

Not counting that the formidable spears could be hit from the rear. In case of the sarissas, that meant disaster and possibly the collapse of the whole line.

And then there's the offensive applications of the principle. If I've understood correctly the Greek aspis shield was pretty much designed for being used as a battering ram when the whole phalanx of hoplites crashed into the enemy formation as a solid avalanche of bronze and spear-points...

So was the Scutum, and it was fairly larger than the Aspis eliminating the need for greaves. A Roman unit would first throw their two pila to mess the enemy formation, then close in using their Scuta as battering rams to disorientate their foes, then hit them decisively with the short swords, which were far more easier to wield in very close quarters than the long hoplite spear.

As for Roman soldierly professionalism, everything I've read about it says that the early citizen militia was of somewhat indifferent military calibre. No wonder, as these men spent easily the better part of their time tending their farms and other businesses instead of training for war. There were apparently small cadres of essentially full-time officers who then drilled the mobilized reservists in the actual manipular tactics and whose job it was to turn the hodge-podge groups of militiamen into lean mean cohesive fighting units, but the general rule of thumb seems to have been that the Roman armies tended to take it to the chin in the early part of any new war when the troops were still newly raised and not yet "knit" into effective fighting formations.

Yet Roman discipline was the one of the strongest, military command was clever, numbers were high, and equipment generally good. If we're talking about the constant period of wars, first against Carthage, then against the Makedonians, there would be a lot reserves but also no lack of hardy, professional soldiers ready to train them, inspire them, and fight well. Rome was more than ready for war when hostilities with Macedon began.

Another minor problem was of course that the maniple wasn't quite as "keep it simple stupid" easily effective as, say, the hoplite phalanx or similar close-order shieldwall formation. The looser order and emphasis on swordplay in close combat simply demanded more skill and practice of the soldiers to be really effective, and that was likely one major reason the Romans always tended to have some problems while the mobilized militia armies were still "learning the ropes". Conversely the classical citizen-militia hoplites were highly effective en masse despite not having much more opportunity for extensive practice (for the exact same reason as any part-time citizen-soldier), simply because of the way they fought in.

But then, as said, the Romans had no shortage of veterans to lead the army. Short Swords are still easy to learn, and more maneuverable in close room compared to longswords and even the spears. So, a Roman with a sword fighting in close order witha shieldwall could stab a lot more than the spearmen, break his spear, and hit him once a vulnerable spot was found. Plus the Romands had the great asset of the Pila, meaning that many Aspis would be rendered useless and many would be killed, thus breaking the cohesion of the shield wall for enough time so the Romans could strike and give the hoplitai a serious pain. Plus there is the dilema: strenght vs. speed, and it meant that hoplites pointing their spears to the front would be vulnerable from the rear, unless they formed some kind of "defensive box". But then, it was just easy to just kill them with javelins, arrows, stones, whatever could be thrown at them.

Now the early Philippo-Alexandrian pikemen were already full-time professionals, and AFAIK the Greek hoplites had largely converted into full-time mercenary professionals during the Peloponnesian Wars; and professionals of course tended to be a notch more skilled and confident than part-time "Sunday soldiers". AFAIK this didn't really change much by the time the Successors started having turf wars with the Romans; they certainly had their own brands of part-time reservists of somewhat dodgy calibre (although the formidable nature of the pike-hedge in frontal encounters rather compensated), but their backbone infantry was essentially made up of full-time professionals or as close as makes no difference - nevermind now the elite "guard" units.

This is true of the earlier times, however Makedon was in decline by the time of Roman invasion so a lot of the ranks were filled with fresh levies- Deuteroi- who had little experience. They still had some trained citizen corps, but the quality of the army was in a steady decline due to the constant wars, migrations and economic crisis. The worst dangers and defeats only come whe you're vulnerable.

Now these Deuteroi, they weren't better than the Hastati in the Roman line. Their lesson was to simply keep thrusting their spears, and if there was a hole, then try to use their swords, but many got toasted because the Roman equipment and skills were much better for close combat. And so, if the Deuteroi routed, then the professionals could be surrounded and slaughtered.

It's interesting to notice that even in Pydna the Makedonians still had a moderate share of cavalry, enough to match the Romans, yet they would still lose.

The Roman citizen-reservist system sort of became unsustainable by the middle 2nd century BC, not in the elast because the sheer size of the Republic's overseas territories meant the soldiers had to spend very long times abroad which duly tended to hurt them financially. In essence, the militia system was impoverished and starved by the results of its own success, and assorted great magnates and aristocrats cheerfully bought out the rural middle class that formed the backbone of the infantry from its estates and turned those into big latifundias. Hence, Rome increasingly lacked the manpower pool capable of furnishing itself with the required war gear for military service. It still needed troops however, so the wealthy and powerful took to recruiting the poor and dispossessed flocking to the suburbs of the cities into the ranks and providing their equipement from their own pockets, naturally enough not exactly altruistically. Hence the birth of the professional legions, a developement which Marius AFAIK really just formalized and streamlined. These were more or less full-time standing formations, at least as long as their de facto owners found it worth the expense to keep them around, with all that entails; regardless, as for example Spartacus' revolt points out, they were anything but unbeatable and particularly freshly formed units could be awfully brittle.

They were mostly permanent soldiers and the army had its share of tough veterans, except when necessity mean capite censi had to be recruited and trained quickly. Even so, the Roman army was gradually increasing in quality and the great victories over Pontus, over Tigranes II, the superb legionaries commanded by Caesar, all showed a degree of skill, quality and professionalism that was rare in armies of the period. The Greeks had a heavy mercenary corps, but these weren't as loyal to their commanders as the legions were; of course they revolted too, but most of the time they kept their loyalty to their Commander.

Besides, Roman training was uniform, as was equipment. Most soldiers after peace settled where trained almost continuously. I've read somewhere that some cohorts were reserved for veterans, average soldiers and raw recruits; the 1st and 2nd cohorts being composed of the tough guys who have seen battle and training, and the 7th cohort reserved for the raw recruits. Quality itself varied immensely inside the Roman legions, and Ancient authors do reference how "effeminate" the Eastern legions were, and their inferior quality kept them as garrisons to hold the Eastern parts of the Empire enough so that the crack troops from Europe could come and win the war. It would be fine if EB looked to further represent this disparity, maybe by making distinct legionary units and not just a single "Cohors Reformata".

I have to go now, but I'll reply to your other points when I have time. Interesting discussion, though.

Krusader

10-16-2007, 23:37

If I had had mod powers this thread would have been locked.

Spears & Swords ain't the issue here. "My Romans can't beat everyone" is the main reason here and no one has brought forth any evidence from battles in EB 1.0 to back up their claim.

And I'd advice you to check "Elephants in 1.0....WoW" thread. That is the proper way to raise criticisim or ask questions.
But a good thing came out of this though. Now we know will not be able to beta-test any future EB versions (that includes EB2 which has seen more progress lately).

And yeah, you are downloading this mod for FREE. You haven't spent money on it have you? Don't come on to the forums expecting to receive full customer support and that "customer is always right" thing.
You want answers to questions? Check FAQ first then ask us and please be polite.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-16-2007, 23:39

1) The Romans were not some super-bad ass military machine.

Oh yes, and Greeks were really THE SUPER-HEROES :P.

Patriote

10-16-2007, 23:47

Does anyone ever wonder WHY spearmen have a -4 penalty when fighting against sword armed soldiers ?

From what I have understand all spearmen had they attack profile increase to counter this penalty but maybe someone could answer, why did the EB team decide to compensate for that penalty??

I always thought the sword(including any "variations" of swords as well as axes and one-handed scythes and etc) to be one of the main weapon of "assault infantry units" and spear the weapon "invented" to compensate for the appearance and tactical problems create by cavalry on the battlefield.
Right now, it sounds like a big plot where some kind of snobbish from political elites have refused to use spear since the dawn of humanity in spite of its superiority:inquisitive::laugh4:

I know that CA implanted a lot of useless or incoherent stuff in their game (namely their units, buildings, factions, regions & cities to only name that:smash:) but this penalty probably has a reason to be there. Then why did human kind even bother forging swords and training men to use properly them in combat if you can instead build 10 times(approximation here) the same number of spear and just give them to troops who will require a lot less time to master its use without reducing their combat capacity ??

Anybody can enlighten me on that ? :2thumbsup: Even if it means disturbing my present knowledge :wall: :laugh4:

Zaknafien

10-16-2007, 23:50

People often ascribe too much to the supposed "Marian Reforms". In truth, Gaius Marius really only applied many of the same useful standard operating procedures that successful generals had been applying for decades before, namely Aemilius Paullus and Scipio Aemilianus, primarily. The Marian legions were in reality much the same as previous "Polybian" era legions, save for the large-scale recruitment of the capite censi soldiers.

To be eligible for service a citizen must have registered as an assiduus , i.e. a citizen with proper property qualification. As early as 146 BCE this minimum amount was 4,000 asses (Polybius 6.19.2). Below this, a citizen was counted as proletarii, who were, except in emergencies, exempt from service. An assiduus was not neccessarily a rich citizen, a farm between 2-7 iugera would probably be enough to qualify him for service in the legions.

Interestingly enough, after the humiliating defeats of the 2nd punic wr, the property qualification was lowered to 4,000 asses, previously it was higher.

It was probably further reduced to 1,500 asses (Cicero, Rep. 2.40), either in 140 BCE or between 133 and 125 BCE. Finally, in 107, Gaius Marius accepted volunteers from any level of the citizenry (Sallust, Jug. 86.2, etc).

This wasnt as revolutionary as some people think, and had been done previously as well in cases of emergency. The reason Marius did this was because it was difficult to recruit landed yeomen after the decades of low morale from Spain and elsewhere. Spain was the nightmare and cancer of Roman foreign involvements, and took nearly a century to pacify--it sapped the will and fighting spirit of countless soldiers, and was financially unattractive to officers and generals. People were not reporting for levies because of the lack of military esprit, which led the Senate to believe the population of Italy was in fact declining.

Marius didnt invent the cohort, but he did perfect it, spending the years waiting for the Germans. He improved mobility by following Paullus and Aemilianus' doctirnes of expelling the camp followers and slaves, expecting the legionaries to carry their own kit. Basically marius just gave the legion more mobility. While he himself was concerned with training of his army in 104-103, conducting marches and gladitorial instructors melee training, this was personal preference, which many generals had done before, and many would not bother to do afterwards.

The biggest factor of the "Marian" reforms was that from then on, the dominating factor in Roman armies would be the rural Italians, most of whom who had never been to Rome or held no loyalty for the Republic's institutions.

As for evocata, it was Sulla's proscriptions and confiscations of land that gave him enough for the veterans of his 23 legions. With the money he had looted, he settled them on lands in Campania, Umbria, and Etruria (Appian, B. Civ 1.104).

However, these vets were quite differeant than Marius' 20 years prior, and the return to, or discovery of, farm life didnt suit them very well. So, through disillusion or inexperience, many of them lost or sold their farms, and reenlisted as evocata, becoming professional soldiers. They simply sucked at being civilians.

I think I'll write my Masters' thesis on this issue. LOL

Sarcasm

10-16-2007, 23:52

http://www.smellypoop.com/images/photos/toilet23.jpg

Best. Thread. Ever.

Charge

10-16-2007, 23:53

Just eb guys very, very hate vanilla RTW, so they tryed all they can to lower romans in the rank of peasants (their dream).

Sarcasm

10-17-2007, 00:00

Listen you twat, you need to get out of this sub-forum. Fast.

You're pissing all over the hardwork the guys in charge of the Roman faction have done so far. You're standing here basically saying we have a massive bias against Romans, which is most definitely not true, and reveals a complete ignorance of what goes on in the hidden forum. These guys really love ancient Roman culture and believe me, they'll try to represent them as best as they can. To represent them as anything else as they were is to do them a disservice and to totally miss the point of what made the Romans conquer much of the known world. Respect the people that have worked, anyone can see they know a whole lot more than you do on the subject.

Watchman

10-17-2007, 00:01

...like I said, the quality of debate on this thread is sorta pants for the most part.

But then there is the clear difference between "javelin" and "spear". Most of them used this because it was too expensive and useless to throw anything resembling a sword at the enemy :tongue:.A difference that most of the time was anything but clear. You obviously won't be throwing a pike much anywhere, but about anything smaller than the "longspear" level (eg. of which the 2.5m hoplite dory) was more or less throwable, and many types of mid-sized spears worked equally well for melee and ranged combat. Example gratia the dual-purpose German framea for one.

And, yes, swords suck as ranged weapons. Most weapons specifically made for close combat tend to. Kinda stating the obvious.

Now, we're talking about having to wield a lenghty and heavy Sarissa.Since when ? The talk was about "spears". "Spear" and "pike" are not synonymous, although the pike is a type of spear.

Neither are they one and the same thing in RTW.

And yes, pikes always worked just fine against infantry too. That they're unwieldy flagpoles is entirely beside the point, as the whole idea of the weapon is that is employed in large numbers in an organized fashion. It doesn't need to be agile or any good for one-on-one combat; it has no reason to. What (hopefully) stops an enemy that gets past the point of your pike is the pike-points of the second rank, and so one. Should some lucky bugger get past all those into face-to-face range then yes certainly your unwieldy flagpole is as good as useless and you'd better be reaching for your sidearm to deal with him, but pike fronts are notoriously difficult to penetrate in normal circumstances so...

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-17-2007, 00:02

Just toanother quick note, but show me Zaknafien, the definite proof that Roman training was so sucky. The Roman reputation for training says something very different.

And then tell me what was so great in Greek training that has made them equal, even superior to the Romans in the game.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-17-2007, 00:03

...like I said, the quality of debate on this thread is sorta pants for the most part.

A difference that most of the time was anything but clear. You obviously won't be throwing a pike much anywhere, but about anything smaller than the "longspear" level (eg. of which the 2.5m hoplite dory) was more or less throwable, and many types of mid-sized spears worked equally well for melee and ranged combat. Example gratia the dual-purpose German framea for one.

And, yes, swords suck as ranged weapons. Most weapons specifically made for close combat tend to. Kinda stating the obvious.
Since when ? The talk was about "spears". "Spear" and "pike" are not synonymous, although the pike is a type of spear.

Neither are they one and the same thing in RTW.

And yes, pikes always worked just fine against infantry too. That they're unwieldy flagpoles is entirely beside the point, as the whole idea of the weapon is that is employed in large numbers in an organized fashion. It doesn't need to be agile or any good for one-on-one combat; it has no reason to. What (hopefully) stops an enemy that gets past the point of your pike is the pike-points of the second rank, and so one. Should some lucky bugger get past all those into face-to-face range then yes certainly your unwieldy flagpole is as good as useless and you'd better be reaching for your sidearm to deal with him, but pike fronts are notoriously difficult to penetrate in normal circumstances so...
Edit- Removed, superfluous.

Megalos

10-17-2007, 00:06

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-17-2007, 00:09

If you have these big convictions, why don't you go ahead, and show definitive proof to the contrary?
Practically any history book or academic site you can stumble upon shows that Roman training was hard, that soldiers served for twenty five years, that marriage wasn't even allowed, and that there are detailed descriptions of how Romans trained and spent their days. Try a basic research on Google and you'll find it.

Megalos

10-17-2007, 00:12

Links? On-Line documents? I'm sure you have many.

Watchman

10-17-2007, 00:14

Practically any history book or academic site you can stumble upon shows that Roman training was hard, that soldiers served for twenty five years, that marriage wasn't even allowed, and that there are detailed descriptions of how Romans trained and spent their days. Try a basic research in Google and you'll find.Right, and are they covering limited periods or generalising based on limited periods nevermind now taking at face value the ideal that, as often happens, didn't necessarily connect with reality all that much ?

'Cause I know I've read enough studies suggesting it was anything but unusual for the Romans to have sometimes startlingly major troop-quality issues regardless of period. The quality of commanding officers seems to have been a rather decisive factor in it.

And let's not even get started on commanders...

It's sort of like those Byzantine military manuals. They describe the optimum ideal as the Byzantine know-how of the time saw it; the actual armies however tended to be something quite different.

Spoofa

10-17-2007, 00:15

I think all 68 of his posts have been in this thread giving us ridiculous information about his bias towards romani legionaries.

antiochus epiphanes

10-17-2007, 00:20

Just eb guys very, very hate vanilla RTW, so they tryed all they can to lower romans in the rank of peasants (their dream).
what the hell is that suppose to mean? do you think we really spent 3 years on a mod to make the romans sucky? nah your just flaming the thread...

Just toanother quick note, but show me Zaknafien, the definite proof that Roman training was so sucky. The Roman reputation for training says something very different.

And then tell me what was so great in Greek training that has made them equal, even superior to the Romans in the game.

Practically any history book or academic site you can stumble upon shows that Roman training was hard, that soldiers served for twenty five years, that marriage wasn't even allowed, and that there are detailed descriptions of how Romans trained and spent their days. Try a basic research on Google and you'll find it.
if you want to question our accuracy or anything else, id suggest you would come prepared, dont just come on hear and say" your wrong everybook says soo!"we aint going to do your side of the argument for you.

Zaknafien

10-17-2007, 00:21

Well, I'm glad you asked (not really, cause now I have to type alot).

Some historians have traditionally ascribed the high level of training and discipline to Romans that you've probably come to know. Lawrence Keppi put it as such:

"Discipline and training were its hallmarks; the care with which the camp was laid out reveals no ordinary grouping of amateur warriors."

But honestly, does this apply to all of the Romans? Most Roman armies were, on the one hand rather heterogenous and consisted of a core of more seasoned troops, with a lot of inexperienced troops added in to give it bulk. In Livy, he gives us a detailed story of the dilectus of the army to fight Perseus in 171 BCE. (AUC 42.32). It talks about how there are so many experienced centurions, etc, that all of them couldnt get the proper posting and were complaining.

Livy's story reflects common practice, of course any Roman commander recruiting wanted to get as many experienced officers and soldiers as possible. This is reflected in Livy 32.9.1

"Consulem T. Quinctium ita habito dilectu, ut eos fere legeret, qui in Hispania aut Africa meruissent, spectatae virtutis milites, properantem in provinciam prodigia nuntiata atque eorum procuratio Romae tenuerunt."

Or, blah blah blah, Titus Quinctius wanted seasoned soldiers from Spain or Africa.

Even Marius:

Sallust (B. Jug. 84.) said:

Ipse interea milites scribere non more maiorum neque ex classibus, sed ut lubido quoiusque erat, capite censos plerosque"

Note: "Mostly proletarians, not all of them!"

Marius' Mules as we know them did not really constitute a professional mercenary force, but became nearly as good as one by experiencing one military campaign after another--Africa, Numidia, Germanics.

From 88 BCE onward, most wars became longer and had to be fought in far off lands, which naturally led the armies fielded to gain more cohesion and a higher level of esprit and drill. Legions came to represent something like a home to the soldiers serving in them, for many, indeed, it was all they knew.

New legions, recruited in the Social Wars and Civil Wars, had to go against these cohesive legions that had been around for in some cases years, and were certainly no match. Not because of a lack of some supposed training, but because they were new formations.

The contingency legions (levies) of the Marians who fought Sulla in 82 and those of Ahenobarbus and other Pompeian generals who commanded recruits against Caesar's veterans had no chance of winning.

In Familiares 10.24.3f Munatius Plancus, one of the combatants in the civil wars of 44-43, wrote to Cicero that the armies that were commanded by Brutus were large, but worthless, because they consisted of miserable recruits who would have to confront the smaller but more homogenous legions of Caesaran veterans.

It wasnt until Augustus and the establishment of a professional army that a regular training routine was emplaced.

konny

10-17-2007, 00:31

Heck, one reason gunpowder-era armies eventually stopped issuing swords to the infantry (the pike went extinct quite a bit earlier) was simply that the bayonet, which basically turned the musket or rifle into a spear, was simply more effective

The reason was quite simpler: the issuing of swords stopped sometimes in the 18th Century because they were absolutly not needed. Hand to hand combat had allready become that rare an event that there was no need for a second side arm. The bayonnets too were not intended to be used against other soldiers but to create a fence of pikes against cavalry.

Watchman

10-17-2007, 00:46

The reason was quite simpler: the issuing of swords stopped sometimes in the 18th Century because they were absolutly not needed. Hand to hand combat had allready become that rare an event that there was no need for a second side arm. The bayonnets too were not intended to be used against other soldiers but to create a fence of pikes against cavalry.Actually, already back in the 1600s or so when even musketeers were usually issued swords, most rather used their guns as clubs instead.

Anyway, it is certainly true that the bayonet was above all a cavalry defense - it essentially converted every musketeer into a passable spearman, and thus rendered unnecessary the pikemen who'd thus far been needed to fend off the nasty horsies. But it was very soon found to be just about the best "cold steel" weapon around for massed shock action; it took less space and skill to wield than a sword, and had much greater reach (AFAIK military firearms were as staggeringly long as they were in no small part just to increase the reach of the bayonet - and those could be quite large too). Swords in fact were long retained alongside (or sometimes combined into one), often as much as tools as for combat sidearms; but when the infantry delivered an assault with "cold arms", and some armies downright specialized in it, it was all about an avalanche of bayonets.

Or received such an assault, for that matter. Although usually if the defenders couldn't turn the attackers back with firepower their nerve tended to break and they'd turn tail before contact, but some very lenghty, bitter and bloody bayonet fights are also recorded. Still, for example the sword-and-buckler Highland nobility were effectively enough stopped cold by the line of pointy things stuck on muskets too.

Anyways.

As the Roman legions go, would I be too far off if I summed up the "Marian" developement as the system basically remaining unchanged, save for the "hoplite" reservist recruitement system being replaced with one based on volunteers and salaries - and with Augustus finally introducing (or trying to anyway) standardized and regular training, whereas such had previously been basically up to the initiative of individual commanders ?

...sounds almost like the transition from quasi-condottieri mercenary armies of quite... varied and colourful quality to regular state armies in the 1600s really. :thinking:

Zaknafien

10-17-2007, 00:50

Indeed. And it wasnt even really Augustus, he just had the wherewithal to station legions in specific places, organize them along a standard structure, and give normalcy and opportunity for commanders to do things--like train. Plus they were getting paid more now so they had to do something during the week, might as well whack a pole with a wooden gladius once in awhile.

Sakkura

10-17-2007, 01:20

2) Evocata are just what it says they are--re-enlisted veterans. Theyre EXACTLY the same as a regular legionary, just their term expired and theyve been recalled to service. Pretty much the same equipment, and they're probably about 10-20 years older than your average legionary. They're nothing special. AT MOST, they should have a chevron or two of experience, maybe not even that since they've probably spent their golden years farming a tract of land somewhere in Campania.

I'm pretty sure this thread is heading toward a lock, fast too. But I'll try to add something that hopefully is less flame-ish than most other stuff being tossed around. If nothing else, it might dilute the flame material when people stumble across this thread later.

Evocata have, as far as I can see, lost 4 armor between 0.81 and 1.0. This means their armor is now exactly equal to regular cohors reformata.
I applaud that change. I cannot imagine that evocati ever were that much better armored than regular legionaries. However; cohors evocata now have 15 morale, exactly the same as cohors reformata. This I think is perhaps a little too harsh. After all, they are veterans, and they even voluntarily reenlisted; seems to me that their experience and apparent dedication (even if their real choice was often to starve or reenlist) should produce at least somewhat better morale?
Oh, and their attack value with the pilum has been increased. Seems a little strange to me to be honest.

TWFanatic

10-17-2007, 01:31

disclaimer: Anyone who takes offence from this post, which goes out of its way to be overly polite, seriously needs to chill.
@Zak:
I like the quote by Polybius in your sig. ("Who is so petty or inert as to not wish to know how the entire inhabited world...fell under the Romans' mastery?") I recall using it on the first page of a report of mine in college. I think I'll reference it in this post too.

Before I ask my question, please realize that you do not have to answer. This is just a request...for my own personal education and for others if they're interested.

Most of the discussion that has gone in this thread (minus the flaming) has been basically this: Side A argues that the Roman army is better than it is portrayed in EB, and side B denounces this. You are on side B IMHO.

With all due respect, most of what you've done in this thread could be viewed as portraying the Roman army as mediocre. So my question is this: In the words of Polybius, how did the entire inhabited world fall under the Romans' mastery? If not by their military might, then how?

Spoofa

10-17-2007, 01:34

political timing.

Watchman

10-17-2007, 01:45

Strategy, politics, economy, a commanding position in a peninsula at the very divide between the eastern and western basins of the Med, a fair few clever ideas applied effectively, and some luck ? Seriously, you don't need to have any real tactical advantage over your opponent if you otherwise play your cards right.

Zaknafien

10-17-2007, 01:58

@TWFanatic-- Decline on the part of their enemies, never facing a truely challenging opponent, stubborness, manpower, luck, logistics, and geography.

TWFanatic

10-17-2007, 02:35

Unfortunantly, many of those elements are very hard to represent with RTW.

never facing a truely challenging opponent
In EB, all successor factions are far superior to Rome. Doesn't this seem to contrast with history?

Watchman

10-17-2007, 02:44

The Romans didn't start fighting with the Diadochi until nearly a century after the starting date of EB you know; at which point the latter had been busily bleeding each other white and developed not a few internal issues and other external problems. Nevermind now that Macedon is borderline on the ropes already at campaign start...

TWFanatic

10-17-2007, 03:04

Ever played EB MP? Phalanxes and heavy cavalry beat the best of the Roman infantry every time unless played by a complete oaf. And I haven't played MP with 1.0 yet. I can't imagine how poor Rome is now. This certainly seems to contradict Polybius' Histories (chapter 28 through 32 I believe), where he discusses the Roman maniple's superiority over the Macedonian phalanx. If Polybius (and history, for that matter) is right, then why are my Roman maniples and cohorts inferior to the phalanx (and vice versa)?

Speaking of phalanxes...if you look throughout history, you will see that in battles involving phalanxes (classic Greek or Macedonian), there were typically very few casualties until one side or the other broke. Why, then, do phalanx units in EB have such high attack statistics, and why do they kill so quickly?

Zaknafien

10-17-2007, 03:19

Actually you will note than in victories over the phalanx, successful Roman commanders never chose to engage the opposing force where the phalanx could be successfully deployed (i.e., even, open terrain). Only a fool would do so, as it is nigh impossible to defeat a phalanx when it can present a frontal press against its enemy.

The way Romans achieved victory was to wait until it became disordered on the rough, as at Pydna, or charge into its unprotected rear or flank as at Cynoscephalae or Magnesia.

It was the Romans' good fortune to never face a truely first class enemy, and never two second class enemies at the same time. Carthage, Macedonia, and the Seleucids could field armies similar in size and training to the Romans, for instance. Cynoscephalae might be regarded as a fluke overall, and Magnesia as a standard cavalry victory, for the Romans energetic ally Eumenes precipitated the rout of Antiochus' infantry with an Alexandrian-style flank charge.

Spoofa

10-17-2007, 03:30

Alexandrian style flank charge ftw

blitzkrieg80

10-17-2007, 03:42

wait... someone forgot to mention the Carthaginian sarissa: as in, we sure are repeating the same debates of history and RTW... there is no magical army formation or tactic people... there is no uber~;) -unit of the ages... spears will always be better for range and swords will always be better for close up- where's the rub?

AntiochusIII

10-17-2007, 04:33

It was the Romans' good fortune to never face a truely first class enemy, and never two second class enemies at the same time.To be fair, Hannibal Barca wasn't exactly a second class enemy, no matter how much the aristocratic idiots in Carthage tried to hamper their own war effort. Moreover, the Persia of Darius III that Alexander conquered was a far cry from the Persia of Darius I. When he met serious opposition by highly competent and well supported enemies (I presume that's what you mean by first class), like say with Poros in India, he wasn't exactly rolling over them either.

What is true however is that Rome never really faced the Hellenistic Empires at their best, except perhaps at Magnesia. And even then one could argue that neither Antiochus nor his army were in their best elements.

What I think this thread needs the most is actual gameplay records (screenies, replays, whatever) to show that the Romans really had troubles doing stuff that they were supposed to do well at (like killing phalanxes at the flanks), otherwise we're here shouting "ROME IS UBER" and "ROME SUCKS" until the octosquids have had enough and kill us all.

Bootsiuv

10-17-2007, 04:42

Even when the Seleukids were in turmoil, I wouldn't rate them as 'second-class' enemies either. Surely the empire had degraded by this point, but it was still an empire nonetheless.

artavazd

10-17-2007, 04:54

One thing is certain all empires came into existence because of a power vaccume. From Persia, to Rome, to America. The story is the same with all.

NeoSpartan

10-17-2007, 05:02

I see your point, but PLEASE don't bring this
..., to America... up again. It has the unfortunate tendency to mess up discussion threads.

Bootsiuv

10-17-2007, 05:06

Indeed. Not a good thing. I've actually been guilty of this in the past, but have since learned to not concern myself with such things....it never produces good results, and only detracts from the discussion....not that I know exactly where this discussion is going. :no:

bovi

10-17-2007, 07:58

As if this wasn't messed up already.

https://img136.imageshack.us/img136/563/threaddivertedvt9.jpg

Moros

10-17-2007, 11:08

To be fair, Hannibal Barca wasn't exactly a second class enemy, no matter how much the aristocratic idiots in Carthage tried to hamper their own war effort. Moreover, the Persia of Darius III that Alexander conquered was a far cry from the Persia of Darius I. When he met serious opposition by highly competent and well supported enemies (I presume that's what you mean by first class), like say with Poros in India, he wasn't exactly rolling over them either.

Hannibal did win a lot of battles did he not. But we all know that Rome won by just outsourcing our Elephant loving Carthaginian. One army killed? Raise another. Rome only had to kill one big army (Hanibal's) and it had won, Hannibal needed to defeat multiple armies. Or he could just lay siege to Rome...:wall: :sweatdrop:

Octosquids!? Don't mess with them, I believe the bartixians even use them at the battle of Omenuphlam under the lead of Obokassix Ranix II the slimey.

Davidian

10-17-2007, 11:25

Can anyone reply on my suggestion?

Is a "Bonus fighting spear\pikemen" possible for swordsmen?

Then you wont have to rebalance anthing.

JeffBag

10-17-2007, 11:43

As stated many times before, spearmen already have a -4 penalty when fighting other infantry, so there is no need for additional boni for swordsmen.

Tellos Athenaios

10-17-2007, 14:23

Even when the Seleukids were in turmoil, I wouldn't rate them as 'second-class' enemies either. Surely the empire had degraded by this point, but it was still an empire nonetheless.

Well, it's how you define first & second class. First class would mean to me; int their full potential. Antiochos III did not reign over a such a first class empire.

He had to make do with whatever funding was available and he had to make do with the few military resources he still had. One generation after him the Seleukid Empire was definitely declining to the point of regional power; but not that much either anymore. It's the time of the great success of both Baktrian & Parthian armies against their former overlords. It's the time that Pontos is on the rise.

A Terribly Harmful Name

10-17-2007, 14:31

Well, I'm glad you asked (not really, cause now I have to type alot).

Some historians have traditionally ascribed the high level of training and discipline to Romans that you've probably come to know. Lawrence Keppi put it as such:

But honestly, does this apply to all of the Romans? Most Roman armies were, on the one hand rather heterogenous and consisted of a core of more seasoned troops, with a lot of inexperienced troops added in to give it bulk. In Livy, he gives us a detailed story of the dilectus of the army to fight Perseus in 171 BCE. (AUC 42.32). It talks about how there are so many experienced centurions, etc, that all of them couldnt get the proper posting and were complaining.

Livy's story reflects common practice, of course any Roman commander recruiting wanted to get as many experienced officers and soldiers as possible. This is reflected in Livy 32.9.1

Or, blah blah blah, Titus Quinctius wanted seasoned soldiers from Spain or Africa.

Even Marius:

Sallust (B. Jug. 84.) said:

Note: "Mostly proletarians, not all of them!"

Marius' Mules as we know them did not really constitute a professional mercenary force, but became nearly as good as one by experiencing one military campaign after another--Africa, Numidia, Germanics.

From 88 BCE onward, most wars became longer and had to be fought in far off lands, which naturally led the armies fielded to gain more cohesion and a higher level of esprit and drill. Legions came to represent something like a home to the soldiers serving in them, for many, indeed, it was all they knew.

New legions, recruited in the Social Wars and Civil Wars, had to go against these cohesive legions that had been around for in some cases years, and were certainly no match. Not because of a lack of some supposed training, but because they were new formations.

The contingency legions (levies) of the Marians who fought Sulla in 82 and those of Ahenobarbus and other Pompeian generals who commanded recruits against Caesar's veterans had no chance of winning.

In Familiares 10.24.3f Munatius Plancus, one of the combatants in the civil wars of 44-43, wrote to Cicero that the armies that were commanded by Brutus were large, but worthless, because they consisted of miserable recruits who would have to confront the smaller but more homogenous legions of Caesaran veterans.

It wasnt until Augustus and the establishment of a professional army that a regular training routine was emplaced.
I recognize your points, Zak. I'm not here without any evidence, indeed, all the history books I've read and many do indeed glorify the experience of the Romans.

But as I said, and confirmed before, there were several different levels of training among legionaries. An ancient writer (do'nt recall his name) used to say Eastern Legions were inferior to the Western Counterparts, and of course there were a lot of recruits going on with tough, seasoned warriors.

As I proposed, wouldn't it be a good idea for EB to make different legionary units representing these disparities within the legions? One made mostly of recruits, cheap, but with inferior stats and more numerous, another with less numbers but tough, seasoned and more expensive warriors with more stas, etc...? I think this would be far better tahn just generalizing everything into a "Cohors Reformata" or "Cohors Imperatoria", plus EB has the reputation of making several units even if their differences were just small (In my opinion :P). I guess this would sove complaints that the Romani are underpowered and give them a good elite, while at the same time expensive enough to not attract complaints.

Charge

10-17-2007, 14:34

Last advice to the roman fans: stop posting here! Instead open EDU and increase legionary's pilum, armour, defence, shield, morale, cost value and play without insults. If you care about MP, than...

Those who's debating about history, I very doubt that this thread is different than others I've saw. They all stuck with their starting opinions.

Listen you twat, you need to get out of this sub-forum. Fast.With pleasure :bow: hehehe ~:wave:

blacksnail

10-17-2007, 14:47

You are mistakenly implying that this thread was in some way a debate.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-17-2007, 14:52

As I proposed, wouldn't it be a good idea for EB to make different legionary units representing these disparities within the legions? One made mostly of recruits, cheap, but with inferior stats and more numerous, another with less numbers but tough, seasoned and more expensive warriors with more stas, etc...? I think this would be far better tahn just generalizing everything into a "Cohors Reformata" or "Cohors Imperatoria", plus EB has the reputation of making several units even if their differences were just small (In my opinion :P). I guess this would sove complaints that the Romani are underpowered and give them a good elite, while at the same time expensive enough to not attract complaints.

As a point of order, history books are not evidence, ancient writers and artifacts are.

To answer your point. A veteran unit is represented by a higher level of experience anyway. Why would we have a veteran and green version of a unit we already had. If you build a unit of Cohors Reformata then those a green troops. If you want veteran units I suggest you send them out to fight.

Either way the Roman faction already had 2.5 times as many unique units as any other faction. We are at our absolute limit.

paullus

10-17-2007, 15:18

I'd disagree that the army Antiochos took to Magnesia was second rate. He had nearly 10,000 heavy cavalry. His phalanx was much smaller than it could have been because of the call-up for the campaign, and due to casualties in Hellas, but aside from that, and a weakened left flank with its foolish dependence on scythed chariots, he had a very expensive, fairly successful army at his command.

What's more revealing is not to downgrade Antiochos, but to look at what actually happened at the battle:

1) On the Seleukid left, the failed scythed chariot charge was followed up by a vigorous Pergamene attack, which scattered a weak and disorganized (due to the chariots) Seleukid left, leaving one phalanx flank wide open.

2) On the Seleukid right, a major assault on the Roman left routed thousands of Romans (mainly allies actually) and the steady pursuit of them toward the camp drew the Seleukid right well away from their 16,000 strong phalanx as they pursued a defeated but not scattered Roman left. They encountered heavy fighting outside the camp, as pockets of Seleukid attackers came to grips with the routing enemy and the camp guards. By the time Antiochos got that wing under control again, with its ~20,000 high quality, undefeated troops, point 3) was well underway.

3) The Seleukid center, denuded of its flanks, and with a much smaller potential frontage (due to spacing and rank depth) than the two Roman legions opposed to it, and so, facing the immediate prospect of being attacked on the flanks (obviously dangerous to phalanx), they formed a square to force a Roman frontal assault. At this, the Romans balked. They would be attacking (slightly uphill) into a compact pike formation. Rather than attempting hand-to-hand combat, the Romans allowed their auxiliaries and allied light troops to pummel the Seleukid phalanx, until the weight of missiles eventually overcame their remaining resolve, and the Seleukid katoikoi routed.

First class enemy? I'd say so. Victory for the legions in hand-to-hand combat? By no means. Helpful in this discussion? I can only hope.

The Persian Cataphract

10-17-2007, 15:19

I find an absurd when they say the average Roman legionary was just another ordinary soldier. Then I quote the battles Romani had with several barbarians that ended up in heroic victories against Buddica, the Parthians, and practically everyone who dared to raise their hands against the Post-Marian and Imperial legions. They keep telling: "Teutoburger Wald, Carrhae" but they ignore that Germany was just ignored later, and the victories over the Germans and their shiny barbarian infantry were just as crushing as the one against the Britons and the Parthians. Wasn't for Adrian's unwilligness to keep Parthia, and the general sense that Rome was too big, then Parthia would become a Roman province.

...I'm not in the mood. In the least. Apparently someone has a difficulty understanding that neither Mesene/Dasht-î Meisân/Mesopotamia nor sacking Ctesiphon equals the capture of Parthia, even in spite of numismatic propaganda machine minted during the Trajanic age. Those conquests were not safe either. Trajan had failed to capture the Parthian client state of Hatra, and the fact is that Trajan captured Ctesiphon merely through improved logistics, rather than open battle. In other words, don't flatter yourself. The most minor of clashes with the Indo-Scythians or the subsequent Kushans were more devastating than even the most gruesome sack of cities in the Parthian west; That the last of the Parthian-Roman battles ended up in victory to the Parthians, resulting in the end of an almost 200 year long conflict (With no significant change in borders) speaks bounds about your dishonest perception.

If Hadrian did not withdraw his troops, the Arsacids would have little trouble in rallying the nobles to counter-attack; With the Roman East spread so thin over Mesopotamia, a perfect season could turn the tide of the conflict; Instead when Septimius Severus understood this underlying weakness of the Parthian army, only shortly after the withdrawal, the strategy that entailed the same successful model for logistics was further capitalized for another capture of Ctesiphon. Caracalla too managed to "defeat" the Parthians through this way; Quick mobilization, but also deception. Artabanus, in the midst of a civil war, still managed to prove that the Parthians did not take insults lightly. The battle of Nisibis, even with many injured Parthian cataphracts (Thanks to the usage of caltrops) still managed to carry the day for the Parthians.

The shift between Parthian and Sassanian rule was perceived with little difference by the Romans; Both Ardashir and Shapur were considered Parthian. Not entirely an outrightly false label, but Shapur proved himself to be an absolutely devastating force to be reckoned with.

Now, unless you've got some evidence that Romans were knocking on the gates of the Mithradatkart citadel and marched all the way to Hecatompylos to pay visit to the Parthian Shahanshah... No, the Romans never conquered the Parthians. I know certain Romanophiles are infatuated with the idea of Rome ruling the world and "The world is Rome", but in my presence, I'll make it absolutely sure that this image not only is shattered but also completely discredited.

You are free to leave at anytime.

Bellum

10-17-2007, 16:53

They did, at least, manage a big chunk of it for awhile. :P

The Persian Cataphract

10-17-2007, 17:22

If by "A big chunk" is represented by Zabdicene, Adiabene, Osrhoene, Sophene, Assyria, Mesene and Characene, which constitute the formerly Parthian possessions seized by Trajan, then you have a skewed idea on proportions; The Parthian empire constituted of more than just Mesopotamia. Only a few years of foreign possession at most; Where do we hear of Pacorus, Pharnapates and Quintus Labienus who almost recreated the old Achaemenid frontiers for the Parthians? Poor Ventidius Bassus gets to stand in the shadow for literally saving the Roman East and brilliantly conducting the battle of Cyrrhestica, smiting Pacorus, while opportunists like Trajan and Septimius Severus get to stand in the spotlight for victories that did not even involve a great battle. Caracalla? Artabanus invited him after said person had nagged him for wanting to marry his daughter. Artabanus repaid the insult after he was deceived. So much for "Roman valour"...

I'd rather not follow popular perception; Tocharii and Sacae killed two Parthian King of Kings in battle/open conflict while being a serious threat to Parthian economy. Fortifications of the Iranian East dated to the Parthian period appear to be more sophisticated, which further hints at the magnitude of the Indo-Scythian and later Kushan threat. Shapur I made sure to impose a heavy-handed silence upon the Kushans, until the advent of the Hephtalites. Ever heard about the White Huns? They almost put to end the Sassanians after having killed most of the royal entourage and nobility through a devious trap; Chosroës I repaid this by permanently crushing the Hephtalites. Then came the Göktürks who supplaunted the Hephtalites as the main enemy in Central Asia. The Göktürks too were defeated, in two instances almost completely, all the while Shâhîn and Shahrvarâz were busy having fun in the newly seized Egyptian (Almost all the way to Carthage) provinces and Asia Minor up to Chalcedon, including Cyprus and Rhodes.

Paying in mind all the civil wars of the projected Persian empires through the Parthian and Sassanian dynasties, and the fact that they multitasked themselves out of wars between several super-powers... I have gained a completely new perception and appreciation for their military achievements.

Lysander13

10-17-2007, 17:39

...I'm not in the mood. In the least. Apparently someone has a difficulty understanding that neither Mesene/Dasht-î Meisân/Mesopotamia nor sacking Ctesiphon equals the capture of Parthia, even in spite of numismatic propaganda machine minted during the Trajanic age. Those conquests were not safe either. Trajan had failed to capture the Parthian client state of Hatra, and the fact is that Trajan captured Ctesiphon merely though improved logistics, rather than open battle. In other words, don't flatter yourself. The most minor of clashes with the Indo-Scythians or the subsequent Kushans was more devastating than even the most gruesome sack of cities in the Parthian west; That the last of the Parthian-Roman battles ended up in victory to the Parthians, resulting in the end of an almost 200 year long conflict (With no significant change in borders) speaks bounds about your dishonest perception.

If Hadrian did not withdraw his troops, the Arsacids would have little trouble in rallying the nobles to counter-attack; With the Roman East spread so thin over Mesopotamia, a perfect season could turn the tide of the conflict; Instead when Septimius Severus understood this underlying weakness of the Parthian army, only shortly after the withdrawal, the successful logistics was further capitalized for another capture of Ctesiphon. Caracalla too managed to "defeat" the Parthians through this way; Quick mobilization, but also deception. Artabanus, in the midst of a civil war, still managed to prove that the Parthians did not take insults lightly. The battle of Nisibis, even with many injured Parthian cataphracts (Thanks to the usage of caltrops) still managed to carry the day.

The shift between Parthian and Sassanian rule was perceived with little difference by the Romans; Both Ardashir and Shapur were considered Parthian. Not entirely an outrightly false label, but Shapur proved himself to be an absolutely devastating force to be reckoned with.

Now, unless you've got some evidence that Romans were knocking on the gates of the Mithradatkart citadel and marched all the way to Hecatompylos to pay visit to the Parthian Shahanshah... No, the Romans never conquered the Parthians. I know certain Romanophiles are infatuated with the idea of Rome ruling the world and "The world is Rome", but in my presence, I'll make it absolutely sure that this image not only is shattered but also completely discredited.

You are free to leave at anytime.
Bravo Professor TPC...~:thumb:
I don't know about anyone else but i always enjoy TPC's post when shedding insight to Parthian or Sassanian rule. It's obviously coming from someone who know's his business...

The Celtic Viking

10-17-2007, 17:54

I, too, appreciate them, just as I appreciate Psycho's posts about the Celts. I'm really lucky to have found such a great mod, with a forum that hosts such exceptional individuals as them. Kudos to you. :2thumbsup:

Thaatu

10-17-2007, 18:21

To be eligible for service a citizen must have registered as an assiduus , i.e. a citizen with proper property qualification. As early as 146 BCE this minimum amount was 4,000 asses (Polybius 6.19.2).
I hate to cut in on this, but that's a lot of ass.

The Wizard

10-17-2007, 18:39

[...] no one has brought forth any evidence from battles in EB 1.0 to back up their claim.My point exactly. And since it doesn't look like that's forthcoming any time soon, best lock this thread.

TWFanatic

10-17-2007, 19:20

Moros

10-17-2007, 19:23

Can anyone reply on my suggestion?

Is a "Bonus fighting spear\pikemen" possible for swordsmen?

Then you wont have to rebalance anthing.
Yes it is possible to give them that, but that would be the purpose. Btw: I tought you guys found that the spearmen were to strong in melee in comparison to the sword units? This would only make the spearmen stronger.
And would give the sword units big bonusses fighting cavalry (+8 at minumum.) Also it would make no sense.

Thaatu

10-17-2007, 19:29

One thing I don't understand is this: Zak has kept mentioning that Rome never faced the Hellenic factions at the height of their power. True. But why, then, do the successor factions have the strongest rosters of any faction in the game? Not only that, but they can easily access their strongest, elite units in the campaign as well.
The situation was a little different in 272 BCE, when Seleucids and Ptolemaics were the strongest powers in Europe. EB aims to create an accurate picture of the starting date, and there's no way to simulate social decline in RTW, so...

Sarcasm

10-17-2007, 19:39

What's the deal? This is a good thread, I've enjoyed reading it and learned a thing or two. Only a small minority has been mud-flinging.

One thing I don't understand is this: Zak has kept mentioning that Rome never faced the Hellenic factions at the height of their power. True. But why, then, do the successor factions have the strongest rosters of any faction in the game? Not only that, but they can easily access their strongest, elite units in the campaign as well.

As has been said, the Romans faced the Hellenistic powers 100 years after the start of our mod. At the start of our mod, Rome is just beginning to get out of it's regional power status and the hellenistic kingdoms are still powerfull enough not to consider them a threat (though that begins to change in the course of the first Punic War and thoroughly acknowledged by the start of the second).

glouch

10-17-2007, 20:43

i've seen this thread go from genuine debate to childish snowball fighting to genuine faux-bad-mouthing.

some of the people who've posted in this thread say(i'm not going to point my fingers at anyone) say that they were just voicing out their opinions and nobody should be upset. here's a question: if you were the ones who were reading your own comments, won't you feel even just a little bit upset? you say you're doing this for the good of EB, but what have you done? you've insulted the people who've made EB possible for all of us. it's not what you're saying that's wrong. it's the TONE with which you are saying what you are saying that is wrong. anyone who has a decent EQ would know that.

no one here needs to know how supposedly knowledgeable you are about ancient history. and certainly no one here needs to know how terribly inflated your egoes are. what the community needs are genuine suggestions, genuine solutions, and genuine dialogue, not masked barbs targeted at people who don't agree with YOU(just like how YOU don't agree with the way the romans were portrayed or how the spearmen and swordsmen were portrayed). the very reason why this thread got off topic was because your refusal to consider the arguments of the people who tried, as best as possible given your attitude, to explain how everything works.

you can yap all you want about how spears are better than swords, or how the romans are better than the greeks, or even how jumbled up the cohors evocata unit is, and that's fine. but remember that the EB team made this mod for EVERYONE who wants to have fun and at the same time experience a world that is as historically accurate as possible within the limits of the RTW engine and not just you. they put enormous amounts of time and effort, not to mention other things, into this mod, all free of charge. and all you do is rant about certain imperfections in their work that you yourselves have benefitted from in some way or another, and that includes actually being able to criticize it.

the point is, they deserve respect.

on topic i think the balancing is ok, save for a few isolated issues, but not everything is perfect. that fact wouldn't stop me from saying that EB 1.0 is the best mod of RTW i've ever played.

Goth47

10-17-2007, 20:59

Very well said glouch, I would just like to add that its simply not possible for the EB team to mod this game in a way that pleases everyone.
The best solution for all of you out there who dont like the unit stats of this unit or that unit is to mod the game in a way that makes the game better for you as an individual. You could even post your work as an EB sub-mod for others to download and try. Editing the Export_descr_unit file is very easy and satisfying.

Thanks
Goth

paullus

10-17-2007, 21:34

I think my post may have been swallowed up in the midst of the TPC lecture, since the issue it addressed is still being brought up in the same way. The Successor armies in the early 2nd century may not have been of the same calibre as Successor armies of the early 3rd century, but I'm personally not quite convinced of that. What's more important to realize is that the Roman victories over Successor armies were not due to Roman hand-to-hand prowess against the front of a pike phalanx.

At Kynoskephelai, the cohesive and elite part of the Makedonian army whupped up on the Romans. The Romans gained victory when their center and right wings enveloped the unformed and spread out blocks of the lesser pike regiments of the Makedonian phalanx.

At Thermopylai, the Romans had to resort to those "cowardly" Persians' tactics in order to gain the victory over a quite small Seleukid force.

At Magnesia, the Seleukid right was victorious and later withdrew safely from the battlefield. Their departure in pursuit, and the dissolution of the Seleukid left allowed the Romans to defeat the Makedonian phalanx, not on account of their hand-to-hand prowess, but through an incessant missile barrage.

At Pydna, the different sections of the Makedonian phalanx were at first successful, inflicting only light casualties (probably wounding rather than killing in most cases) as they pushed the legions back. As they came into uneven terrain and as different parts of the phalanx were more successful than others in pushing back the Romans, legionaries were able to exploit gaps and get into the heart of the phalanx. The result there was due less to the legionaries' ability to negotiate the many rows of pike points, and more to the gaps opened into sections of the pike phalanxes due to uneven rates of advance.

That help? Oh, and I do kinda agree that our pike phalanxes, since the move to 1.5, have gotten a bit too effective at killing people, due to changes between the patch levels. I think its been improved since the first 1.5 releases (a LOT), but perhaps we'll toy with it a little more. I would like pike phalanxes to cause a fair many knock-downs, lead to exhaustion, but not necessarily kill a whole lot of people.

Decimus Attius Arbiter

10-17-2007, 22:33

Just wondering. What do people think of the other spear units in the game that aren't hoplites or pike phalanxes. I haven't gotten to 1.0 yet so I don't know if their stats have been upped to.

Maksimus

10-17-2007, 23:02

Because this is one hot and very interesting debate, and my english is not so god (not for this kind of terminology) I will just say my part and leave with respect to others.

There are more sources than we can imagine, and the most of them are not IN ENGLISH.. so please think about that, if you dont belive it try 'googling' around to find the best historians in the world ('most' of them are in their national Academy -- they are 'Academics') - and most of them are at their studies not on the web..

I remember one of those lectures, That one roman legion (2500) could actually beat some 50000 barbarians on the battlefield..and I am sory if this falls on someones national pride.. At that time no nation of today was, and even more important no nation of today can compare to Ancient times..

And when we came to history-- why are Latin people brown and black??? They should be yellow and light --- and why are most of greek units shaved??? Why??? Do you know when shaving came to Europe att all????

Well, here is one question for 100 000 $ -- When and Why Shaving came to Europe ??? Do you know? And dont act like this is not important -- I look every day those textures with shaved soldiers ... --THAT IS NOT ACURATE! no:

I hope someone has good answer;)

Watchman

10-17-2007, 23:07

The Romans, like everyone, had this bad habit of soundly inflating the numbers of their opponents to both make victories look more magnificient and defeats less embarassing, and of course just give the whole affair a properly "epic" feel - and convey the impression of vast numbers, since it's not like anyone actually counted in the actual battle.

Anyway, usually when the Romans really did defeat a huge "barbarian" army it was a case of them fighting against a popular revolt - that is, a lot of angry peasant types but very few real combatants. Those match-ups have always had a tendency to end up as ghastly and somewhat one-sided massacres.

Krusader

10-17-2007, 23:24

The situation was a little different in 272 BCE, when Seleucids and Ptolemaics were the strongest powers in Europe. EB aims to create an accurate picture of the starting date, and there's no way to simulate social decline in RTW, so...

Europe? :inquisitive:

Back to ala-aste with you :wink:

Zaknafien

10-17-2007, 23:25

I remember one of those lectures, That one roman legion (2500) could actually beat some 50000 barbarians on the battlefield..and I am sory if this falls on someones national pride.. At that time no nation of today was, and even more important no nation of today can compare to Ancient times..

Ever hear of a palce called Arausio?

Maksimus

10-17-2007, 23:34

Ever hear of a palce called Arausio?
Only after that came the saviour of Rome, Gaius Marius (and Arausio was a setback of one Roman army that was not profesional, and was 3 times smaller 200000 of barbs to 70000 romans -- not pro legionaries). And I was actualy refering to Ceasar in Gaul battles and his fights against barbarians, someone could say that those were simple rebelions, but the point is not in that, the battle is what it is, in Arausio there were a lot of roman 'children' ...

But a whole point is tu summarise armies strenghts, If romans had veterans that fought across the Europe and in tactics advantage as a result of their commanders - then it will be clear that pro-roman soldies (that most people consider Roman) should be much better on the field than some barbs (not to say that medics and know-how were on the side of Rome -- and the % of recoverd troops were higher in roman than in other armies..)

And WHAT ABOUT SHAVING? Why are there shaved soldiers in EB --- learn from the RTW in that aspect - shavin came to europe as a trend in the army only abou 50 bc in Roman armies....

:Zzzz: (I must)

Zaknafien

10-17-2007, 23:55

Only after that came the saviour of Rome, Gaius Marius (and Arausio was a setback of one Roman army that was not profesional, and was 3 times smaller 200000 of barbs to 70000 romans -- not pro legionaries). And I was actualy refering to Ceasar in Gaul battles and his fights against barbarians, someone could say that those were simple rebelions, but the point is not in that, the battle is what it is, in Arausio there were a lot of roman 'children' ...

But a whole point is tu summarise armies strenghts, If romans had veterans that fought across the Europe and in tactics advantage as a result of their commanders - then it will be clear that pro-roman soldies (that most people consider Roman) should be much better on the field than some barbs (not to say that medics and know-how were on the side of Rome -- and the % of recoverd troops were higher in roman than in other armies..)

And WHAT ABOUT SHAVING? Why are there shaved soldiers in EB --- learn from the RTW in that aspect - shavin came to europe as a trend in the army only abou 50 bc in Roman armies....

:Zzzz: (I must)

:inquisitive:

Must. Resist.Urge.

The_Mark

10-18-2007, 00:00

Don't, it'll just build up inside you and you'll spill your guts in the internal forums, where it doesn't educate anyone. Remember, the goal of EB is to educate. Just be polite as hell, or at least posh as hell with it, it's much more fun that way.

blitzkrieg80

10-18-2007, 00:43

really, how much sense does it make to even say the barbarians had hordes? for example, pastoral populations are very small in comparison to agricultural, especially dense city-populations, so when the Huns came in hordes, it was really a much smaller number (smaller than the Romans whom they defeated)- completely inflated, as mentioned by others, to make Romans feel better about themselves... it's science fact, pastoralism cannot support even close to the same number of people per area of land.

different_13

10-18-2007, 02:15

Yeah, I read a book about Attila, and some of the figures brought forward were staggering (regarding square miles of land required to feed the Huns' ponies, not to mention just the sheer size, as most warriors had at least 2 horses..)

Maksimus, the size of a legion on paper (fighting personnel only) was just over 5000 men, I think.

Ah, Wikipedia says

The size of a typical legion varied widely throughout the history of ancient Rome, with complements of 4,200 legionaries in the republican period of Rome (split into 35 maniples of 120 legionaries each), to around 5,500 in the imperial period (split into 10 cohorts of 480 men each, with the first cohort at double strength; the remaining 220 being cavalry– 120 men– and technical staff).
which sounds about right to me.
Of course in practical terms the actual amount of able soldiers would have been below that.

Anyway, I've personally never noticed any strangely balanced spear-armed warriors. I don't look at the stats much, so I could be missing something.. but I've never really had a "Wtf?!" moment in battle. I haven't noticed cheap spear-warriors defeating better sword-armed warriors.
I have noticed phalangites killing a bit quickly, but I understand it's very tricky to sort that out (and phalanx v phalanx goes pretty much as you would expect - most of the killing is done when I either envelop them, or when they break formation).

TWFanatic

10-18-2007, 03:16

I think my post may have been swallowed up in the midst of the TPC lecture.
I know I read it, and enjoyed it.:yes:

The result there was due less to the legionaries' ability to negotiate the many rows of pike points, and more to the gaps opened into sections of the pike phalanxes due to uneven rates of advance.
I recall reading about that tendency of the phalanx in Ch. 28 of Polybius' Histories.

The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear. If, then, it is easy to take precautions against the opportunities and peculiar advantages of the phalanx, but impossible to do so in the case of its disadvantages, must it not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems is enormous? Of course, those generals who employ the phalanx must march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive influence on the ultimate victory. And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.

Unfortunately, that effect is hard to represent with RTW.

Good posts everyone. I could argue with points here or there but I'm too tired tonight. Reading will have to suffice.

QwertyMIDX

10-18-2007, 03:32

Watchman

10-18-2007, 08:54

Yeah, I read a book about Attila, and some of the figures brought forward were staggering (regarding square miles of land required to feed the Huns' ponies, not to mention just the sheer size, as most warriors had at least 2 horses..)Only two ? They must've been largely settled down then; true nomads tended to have a dozen or so (the Mongols reckoned some 18 to be a good number to start a campaign with - partly as a preparation for the inevitable attrition).

Anyway, the "horde" thing regarding the steppe peoples is AFAIK a sort of mistranslation from a Turko-Mongol term. Lemme see now... ah, here.

Main Entry: horde
Pronunciation: \ˈhȯrd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, German, & Polish; Middle French & German, from Polish horda, from Ukrainian dialect gorda, alteration of Ukrainian orda, from Old Russian, from Turkic orda, ordu khan's residence
Date: 1555
1 a: a political subdivision of central Asian nomads b: a people or tribe of nomadic life
2: a teeming crowd or throngA bit of unfortunate coincidence there methinks.

Anyway, the steppe armies tended to have absolutely sodding huge herds of horses by default and were no less keen than anyone else to try and make themselves appear more numerous than they actually were, as it's always useful if you can flat out intimidate an enemy into submission.

Maksimus

10-18-2007, 10:39

Shaving and other forms of hair removal (like the use of lye) were popular Europe way before 50 BC. Hence all the art depicting people with shaved facial hair before 50 BC. It was particularly popular among the Celts in fact.

Well, there were tribes that shaved even before, but I missed the point, I meant shaving among hellenes.. And that is only after Alex campaigns ... (Filip II was wery popular and he was a role model for his army -- so no body shaved... the army never shaved actually -- not even when romans came... not greek armies. and some romans to... )
In the Game, All units are shaved as hell to the bone and that is very unrealistics - and not acurate - they should at least have some 'small' facial hair... And about Companions, They were nobles in a way, they all had some facial hair --- That is a major setback of all (almost all) RTW mods, shaving was not popular at all not in the army -- not to say on the East..
The role model for faciall hair should be (i think I will write it right) - native levy phalanx:juggle2:

....still I did not wrote why shaving came to europe as a 'megatrend'

:hourglass:

Watchman

10-18-2007, 12:46

different_13

10-18-2007, 13:07

Alexander was apparantly a big fan of shaving, so I can imagine his army (and the successors) being pretty-much clean-shaven.

In Greece facial hair (long hair in general, in fact) was often seen as a sign of tradition (dare I say it, old-school) - which is why Spartans continued to have long hair and beards well after most of Hellas went clean-shaven.
Apparantly one of the original reasons for beards was because Hoplite helms weren't padded - the hair acted as a minor cushion. I could also imagine it as a status thing - hoplites not having to work, and therefore being able to have long hair (unlike slaves etc, who's hair would interfere with their work).

Celts, as mentioned, were famous for shaving. The rarely had beards - drooping moustaches were the big thing (oh, and braids :book: )

Watchman - I said at least two, as I wasn't sure on the actual number. Didn't know it was quite that many though! Damn!
When you think about it though, it's kinda obvious - they'd need horses for transport, horses for battle, spares, beasts of burden..

Thaatu

10-18-2007, 13:16

Europe? :inquisitive:

Back to ala-aste with you :wink:
Aww, come on! So I rounded up the borders a little. If I said Asia, the Chinese would've come after me, and if I said "the whole world", the Chinese still would've come after me... Hindu Kush is good enough of a continental border for me.
:stupido:

Watchman

10-18-2007, 13:17

The nomads and their little horsies ? Well they had a lot of them to begin with relative to population (seeing as how horses eat grass and humans, well, don't... :beam: ), so they could bring a lot of remounts along. They needed those too, as whatever its many fine qualities the small grass-fed steppe horse isn't very big and strong, and tires rather quickly if it has to dash around the place carrying a full-grown man (the armoured nobles had to use specialised breeds); so the classic skirmish tactics required a constant change of mounts when the previous one tired.

On the plus side, on march it meant they could always swap for a fresh horse and keep going.

Mind you, while the settled peoples usually had bigger and stronger horses (grain-fed and all that), they rarely had more than two per cavalryman tops so obviously the steppe "swarming" tactics were kinda no-go by default...

Bellum

10-18-2007, 21:04

If by "A big chunk" is represented by Zabdicene, Adiabene, Osrhoene, Sophene, Assyria, Mesene and Characene, which constitute the formerly Parthian possessions seized by Trajan, then you have a skewed idea on proportions;

Oh, sorry, I missed your reply. I wasn't talking that, I was talking about the whole 'The World is Rome' thing. They may not have subjected Parthia, but the did manage a good chunk of the known world.

Sometimes I overstate the obvious so much it's hard to tell what I'm talking about, sorry. :sweatdrop:

Maksimus

10-19-2007, 13:08

You know, most of the coins I've seen featuring the profiles of Hellenic and Roman grandees have a noted lack of facial fair... the Hellenics were probably sticking to a fashion left over from Alex, whereas the Romans apparently just preferred a clean shave.

Most of the Eastern troops are liberally festooned with beards and/or moustaches mind you, as are at least some skin variations of regular Hellenistic infantry.

Actually yes, you are right about the coins -- but only - most of the coins that were made after Alex. The army did not have the resources or abitilies to have a clean shave that like it is represented in the game, Makedonian nobility liked tradition (exept the rulers) - that means vanilla face skins (so the nobility hated shavind, most off all, Macedon liked Filip II even more than Alex) - and not to say those 'shaved' as hell Companions and Royal infantry -- that is simply not true -- long (or medium) hair and beards or small facial hair were common realy.

Alexander was apparantly a big fan of shaving, so I can imagine his army (and the successors) being pretty-much clean-shaven.
Alex was no fan of shaving - he was just 'feminized' and was blonde, his hacial fair was so rare and thin that he could not grow beard like other nobles.. So, only after that he started to shave, and that was in the middle of his campaigns... That is how shaving became so popular and came to Europe...
First, Alex generals started to shave (as a sign of 'frinedship'), then their officers and than most of the army -- but not in their Homeland ! :no: ..
After some campaigns and Diadokhoi wars -- an old system of shaving just came back... why is that so hard to belive? There are no evidence that in greek armies were people that did that (shaving) -- most og units did it by themselfs.. Right?

note: and about the COINS - that was a fashion in the Greeco - Baktrian and Successors states after Alex - so they could be represented to the people as his heirs -- look in macedonian pos-alex coins - there are many or most with some facial hair

be well

Watchman

10-19-2007, 13:15

Given that personal grooming tools turn up already in Bronze Age grave-goods up in these Scandinavian backwaters, I'm having serious trouble understanding the bit about "the army not having the resources or abilities to have a clean shave"; if they can afford the weapons and armour (and, God forbid, the running expenses of a mobilized army nevermind a professional one), they sure as fig can afford the basic personal grooming equipement. And warriors were always if anything only more vain than others, and no less prone to following fashions, so one would think they managed easily enough if that was the popular norm.

Plus having to pick assorted bloodsucking insects out of your body hair on campaign might kind of do wonders to promote a clean shave... I doubt lice and such are a particularly new pest for armies.

paullus

10-19-2007, 13:46

yes, this is quite a silly conversation. if it helps, "bearded" and "clean-shaven" are part of the identification categories in Ptolemaic Egypt, and many, many Hellenic soldiers are clean-shaven.

Also note that many of our Hellenic soldiers, while lacking a large bushy beard, do have some growth. I'm not sure exactly at what you're complaining.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-19-2007, 14:15

Yes, it's also worth pointing out that "bearded" is synonomous with "barbarian" in Latin.