Praetorians, Imperatoria, Evocata

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

In EB 1.0, I admit that some stat values to me seemed quite questionable, but what about the 5 phalanx shield and 4 shield value for hoplites and legions? Is there any resonable explanation of why a guy with a small, round shield should get more than guys with cumbersome heavy Scuta and the Aspis?

But my main issue here is with Roman units. The Cohors Reformata is, as always, fine, but now that the Cohors Imperatoria is just the same as a Cohors Reformata, except for the graphics, then isn't it a waste of a slot? Why just don't create a single "Legionary Cohort" instead of having two identical units? Either that, or the Cohors Imperatoria should be made better than the Cohors Reformata. Or even worse, giving the "Romans are weaker than their reputation suggested" line of thinking I've found so widespread around here; but at least different.

And as for Evocata, I suggest that pilum attack gets lowered to the normal 4. But they should get at least 2 more armor points for the greaves they're depicted as wearing, and also to make the Praetorians worth their cost and limited AOR again. Now, both Evocata and Praetoria seem worthless, as I can just spam Cohortes Reformatae in much larger numbers with no noticeable loss of punch. Indeed, now the Romani have no true elites.

I know this will remind us a lot of the previous discussion we had about the true effectiveness of the Roman army. But I just wish to avoid that and suggest only a moderate re-tweaking so as to not attract the previous flame wars of earlier discussions where I either posted and discussed or just read about.

[NeoSpartan]

hasn't this been and is currently being discussed in like 3 threads already????



On the subject of shields, pikes have bigger value BUT they have a reduced armor value. This is intended to show/play the vulnerability of a phalanxs to rear attacks.

[Foot]

In EB 1.0, I admit that some stat values to me seemed quite questionable, but what about the 5 phalanx shield and 4 shield value for hoplites and legions? Is there any resonable explanation of why a guy with a small, round shield should get more than guys with cumbersome heavy Scuta and the Aspis?

But my main issue here is with Roman units. The Cohors Reformata is, as always, fine, but now that the Cohors Imperatoria is just the same as a Cohors Reformata, except for the graphics, then isn't it a waste of a slot? Why just don't create a single "Legionary Cohort" instead of having two identical units? Either that, or the Cohors Imperatoria should be made better than the Cohors Reformata. Or even worse, giving the "Romans are bad" line of thinking I've found so widespread around here; but at least different.

And as for Evocata, I suggest that pilum attack gets lowered to the normal 4. But they should get at least 2 more armor points for the greaves they're depicted as wearing, and also to make the Praetorians worth their cost and limited AOR again. Now, both Evocata and Praetoria seem worthless, as I can just spam Cohortes Reformatae in much larger numbers with no noticeable loss of punch. Indeed, now the Romani have no true elites.

I know this will remind us a lot of the previous discussion we had about the true effectiveness of the Roman army. But I just wish to avoid that and suggest only a moderate re-tweaking so as to not attract the previous flame wars of earlier discussions where I either posted and discussed or just read about.

Already started a flame-war by implying that EB are Roman-haters. Go flog a dead horse elsewhere, you and your attitude are not welcome here.

Foot

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

hasn't this been and is currently being discussed in like 3 threads already????



On the subject of shields, pikes have bigger value BUT they have a reduced armor value. This is intended to show/play the vulnerability of a phalanxs to rear attacks.

On the subject of shields, pikes have bigger value BUT they have a reduced armor value. This is intended to show/play the vulnerability of a phalanxs to rear attacks.

Hmm... Interesting, but isn't the sheer size of the pikes enough to keep away people at a formidable distance? What's the use of a shield wall when you have a pike wall? Against other phalanxes, of course, the stats would quite cancel themselves, but a phalanx was already quite unbeatable from the front and vulnerable from the rear without the need for more shield values.

Again, the phalanx should never have a lot of armour. The great majority of phalangites were light infantry holding huge poles, and their poles, not their armor or shields, were their main tool for victory. Basically all they had was a light linen suit, a helmet, a shortsword (almost a dagger) and sometimes, greaves, with their little shield. The phalangites' light equipment was of little use when the pike barrier was breached, and was more the result of the combination of heavy armor + pikes being quite impossible and the fact that most commanders would hope to defeat their enemies with pikes, not with deadly close quarters combat. Indeed, resorting to the phalangite sword was more of a desperate secondary act than anything strategically valuable.


Already started a flame-war by implying that EB are Roman-haters. Go flog a dead horse elsewhere, you and your attitude are not welcome here.

Foot

Where, exactly? Because I said some had the opinion the Romans were not as strong as frequently said? Where exaclty did I say you were "Roman-haters"?

[larsbecks]

My understanding is the extra point accounts for the ability of massed pikes to deflect some arrows while in formation. As for the rest of the stuff, I had some gripes with various units but I deal with them by changing some things in the EDU to suit my tastes.

[iwwtf_az]

My understanding is the extra point accounts for the ability of massed pikes to deflect some arrows while in formation. As for the rest of the stuff, I had some gripes with various units but I deal with them by changing some things in the EDU to suit my tastes.

exactly. in real life the hundreds of pikes would deflect a number of arrows or other projectiles. in rtw, this can't be done other than stats. this topic comes up all the time.


also, if you don't like it a simple change in the edu will fix it according to your own personal opinion.

[Pharnakes]

Where, exactly? Because I said some had the opinion the Romans were not as strong as frequently said? Where exaclty did I say you were "Roman-haters"?



Or even worse, giving the "Romans are bad" line of thinking I've found so widespread around here;


Just in case you are to stupid to check over your own post for anything that might cause offence to the eb team (and the rest of us, tbh).

[Zaknafien]

You have a flawed line of thinking, for some reason you seem to think cohors imperatoria should be 'better' than cohors reformata.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Just in case you are to stupid to check over your own post for anything that might cause offence to the eb team (and the rest of us, tbh).
Edited for sake of semantics. Now, of course, if I can only put some polite words and carefully selected so as not to not even resemble anything but agreement, then people will stop doing this.


You have a flawed line of thinking, for some reason you seem to think cohors imperatoria should be 'better' than cohors reformata.

Because it's unpractical in gameplay terms to have two virtually equal units. It uses an extra slot for little purpose, and all your previous reformed legions will need to be completely disbanded and rebuilt, which never happened in history, at least several legions from the Republican period continued to be used in the Imperial without significant changes.

[The Internet]

He has a point, why have two units that are almost the same as each other in the same faction? This is more a question about unit slots more than how alike they were historically and i personally think this part of the arguement is valid.

[Treverer]

He has a point, why have two units that are almost the same as each other in the same faction? This is more a question about unit slots more than how alike they were historically and i personally think this part of the arguement is valid.
With the same logic, one could argue that one the two medium phalanx units (pezhetairoi & klerouchoi phalangitai) were superfluous. I've not read such a request though ...

T.

[Sakkura]

With the same logic, one could argue that one the two medium phalanx units (pezhetairoi & klerouchoi phalangitai) were superfluous. I've not read such a request though ...

T.
Those are not identical in stats, Cohors Reformata and Cohors Imperatoria are.

[glouch]

Internet, although he has a point in terms of maximization of unit slots, let us not forget that EB is also about historical accuracy. just because troops were in the imperial period doesn't necessarily mean that they're stronger than all the other past units, so i don't really think making units stronger is the answer.

i on my part completely trust the EB team to make a mod that is both entertaining and historically accurate(therefore educational).

the beauty of EB is that nobody was forced into this, and anybody can tweak the system however they want to reflect their own views/opinions about what 'historically accurate' is to them.

Foot's right, Basileos, whether you meant it or not, you did somehow had a hand in the flame war a while back; after all, it took place in a thread you yourself started. i think you're intelligent enough to know that you challenging him to produce evidence when it's all over a *certain thread* *somewhere* won't help your cause.

[Zaknafien]

the fact of the matter is, the majority of people who play EB play as Rome. They want to enjoy the best Roman experience possible, and have the widest variety of historically accurate troops. Imperatoria will NOT be getting removed, ever, period.

[Pharnakes]

the fact of the matter is, the majority of people who play EB play as Rome.


NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

You have just shatered my faith in humanity, Zaknafien.:laugh4:

However, this brings us to the question: if, in gameplay terms, there was no difference between impretoria and reformata, then what was the difference histroicaly?

Just a different pattern on their shield, or was it more than that?

[palmtree]

On the subject of shields, pikes have bigger value BUT they have a reduced armor value. This is intended to show/play the vulnerability of a phalanxs to rear attacks.

Doesn't this also have the (unintended?) consequence of making pike units much stronger when assaulting and defending walls?

[Pharnakes]

No, they suck on walls.


Excpet maybe the pantodapoi, with their ap axe, and the elites who are of course jus good every where.

[Tellos Athenaios]

In EB 1.0, I admit that some stat values to me seemed quite questionable, but what about the 5 phalanx shield and 4 shield value for hoplites and legions? Is there any resonable explanation of why a guy with a small, round shield should get more than guys with cumbersome heavy Scuta and the Aspis?

Already given, many times over: the extra shield is to represent the fact that the phalanx units didn't suffer from missile fire from the front like other units did. And to make up for the limitted melee abilities they get, to balance them out with similar quality units.

In other words: to bend the rules of RTW engine to suit the historical reality more - as far as possible for us to recreate.


But my main issue here is with Roman units. The Cohors Reformata is, as always, fine, but now that the Cohors Imperatoria is just the same as a Cohors Reformata, except for the graphics, then isn't it a waste of a slot? Why just don't create a single "Legionary Cohort" instead of having two identical units? Either that, or the Cohors Imperatoria should be made better than the Cohors Reformata. Or even worse, giving the "Romans are weaker than their reputation suggested" line of thinking I've found so widespread around here; but at least different.

This is the luxury of the Romani team they get. Other factions don't quite get as many units to play with - if they did you would've seen many more units of the same stats elsewhere. Again a limitation of the game - we cannot cram in every single unit which existed in the time period; but we make do with what much we can do- and again: the Cohors Imperatoria is basically a later era copy of the Cohors Reformata. Exactly the same soldiers with slightly different equipment and a different name to suit some Emperor's tastes for power better. ~:)


And as for Evocata, I suggest that pilum attack gets lowered to the normal 4. But they should get at least 2 more armor points for the greaves they're depicted as wearing, and also to make the Praetorians worth their cost and limited AOR again. Now, both Evocata and Praetoria seem worthless, as I can just spam Cohortes Reformatae in much larger numbers with no noticeable loss of punch. Indeed, now the Romani have no true elites.

I wish to remind you of the fact that Evocata are de facto the same soldiers as the ordinary legion as far as equipment goes. Okay, with greaves on. I know people like to compare Argyraspidai with Pezhetairoi because the Silvers are the elite/veteran version of the Citizens but they differ in the following aspect as well: the Argyraspidai wear much better quality gear. And they get only 2 additional armour points for the fact that they have a greave more, and that they have their entire body-armour upped to a new level.

Comparing the Roman units where the difference is limitted to 2 greaves... 2 more armour or indeed 1 more armour does not quite make a fair sight. We have had some internal talk of going for a system whereby we would work with much higher values for every aspect of the unit stats so we could flesh out more subtle differences, and we could minimise the rather overpowering effect of experience (given we also offer veteran versions) but it was decided against because we didn't have enough time to properly test this through. (We talk pre 1.0; and IIRC the idea dates back to pre 0.81a.)

So you may imagine this is the limit of the current system, rather than 'as it should be' - but it is also a limit not quite worth removing because we are going to work with M2TW anyway. (Which is an entirely different stats game, as far as I am aware - and which therefore would be the right platform to start working with this.)

Now before you start asking me more about this: I don't know either. It's a project of our 'hardcore stats guys' so I to will have to wait and see what future versions of EB will be like.


I know this will remind us a lot of the previous discussion we had about the true effectiveness of the Roman army. But I just wish to avoid that and suggest only a moderate re-tweaking so as to not attract the previous flame wars of earlier discussions where I either posted and discussed or just read about.

Unfortunately it does. I wish to remind you of the fact that (whether or not you intended to) you did manage to offend, and sometimes downright insult quite a few EB members. And if I get Pharnakes right there will be other non-members here as well who feel this way. So you shouldn't be surprised
if you get some curt responses: after all they think "Jeez Not This Shit Again". In other words they will be like a bowl of petunias "oh no not again".

[Maeran]

The pre-Augustan legionary is basically a prinicipe with much better basic training and his gear on a stick.

The Imperial legionary is just the same, except he keeps posting up demands for lorica segmentata in the forum.:laugh4:

[Tellos Athenaios]

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

You have just shatered my faith in humanity, Zaknafien.:laugh4:

However, this brings us to the question: if, in gameplay terms, there was no difference between impretoria and reformata, then what was the difference histroicaly?

Just a different pattern on their shield, or was it more than that?

Yes it was more. The former legions were still a levy in the sense that it was still about the SPQR calling upon the citizens to fight whenever the SPQR went to war. De facto the SPQR was always at war, so there was always a legion or two around.

Now Augustus removed the internal (political) workings which caused much of the constant warfare; and changed the military to have a standing proffesional fighting force at all times: the birth of the 'Augustan Legions'. So there you have it: one is a levy force and the other is a professional force.

[Charge]

Unfortunately it does. I wish to remind you of the fact that (whether or not you intended to) you did manage to offend, and sometimes downright insult quite a few EB members. And if I get Pharnakes right there will be other non-members here as well who feel this way. So you shouldn't be surprised
if you get some curt responses: after all they think "Jeez Not This Shit Again". In other words they will be like a bowl of petunias "oh no not again".
Shortly in russian you said:
"Чё вы, дебилы, пристали со своими римлянами нах? Имели мы и всех, недоносков..."

to be more accurate, it more represents Foot's reply..

And Basileos seemingly didn't understand it so far...:brood:

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't speak Russian so I have no clue wether or not the Russian is what I meant... :embarassed:

Before you start wondering: I happen to have paraphrased two things:
1) A picture I saw, posted by Spendios;
2) A bit from the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy - if you read that book you will understand the reference fully. ~;)

[TWFanatic]

I sympathise, Basileos ton Ellenon. I suggest going the modder's way: simply edit the stats to fit your preferences (as I did, reducing phalanx armor and differentiating legionary stats). You can even implement a new Cohors Imperatoria skin (I use one with lorica segmentata armor).

The truth is that you won't be liked much around here if you aren't a suck up. So modding things yourself is the best way to go, even though your points are entirely valid. Good luck.

[brymht]

Eh, its understandable not everyone would agree, but remember, if you don't think a unit's stats were accurate, you can change them! I've made a few small changes to EB 1.0, which was pretty darn near perfection in the first place. I added hellenic slingers to a few locations as AOR for Romani, and a few other AOR changes, such as adding scutarii and balaeric slingers to Rome's recruitment tree, since they were recruited by various roman factions and allies.

I think its fine to ask questions of the brilliant resident historians at EB, but at the end of the day, we are all enjoying the fruits of thier free labor. Once they give an answer, you should really respect thier time and move on. If you still disagree, make the changes in your own unit file.

[Treverer]

the fact of the matter is, the majority of people who play EB play as Rome.
I hope they don't play exclusively with the SPQR ...

[Charge]

the fact of the matter is, the majority of people who play EB play as Rome. :dizzy2: This is equally to say that the majority of people who play vanilla play as Numidia...or Britain max..

[CirdanDharix]

The equipment and fighting style of the early imperial legionnaries remained basically the same as that of the "Marian mules", but the organisation improved, equipment quality was more uniform (and generally slightly higher), the training was probably slightly better. So IMO giving a slight boost to the Augustan legionnaires would be justified, or else they should be made the same, but cheaper to represent the better organisation.

[brymht]

A slight boost and made more expenssive would be accurate as well.

[bovi]

The truth is that you won't be liked much around here if you aren't a suck up.
Sucking up is not required. Many do anyway :shrug:.

You won't be liked much around here if you:
*put words in others' mouths
*talk in derogatory terms about team members (or their level of effort, which is for no pay)
*act immature, like for instance using swearwords, particularly when conveying criticism
*refuse to see reason
*use lots and lots of unnecessary smilies (except if you're named Abokasee)
*post flames
*post flamebait
*reanimate old, rotting threads
*post racist beliefs, tasteless jokes prone to offend etc

I'm pretty sure there are more. These are the ones I can recall off the top of my head. Just so noone gets the wrong idea, I'm not accusing the original poster of doing these things.

[mAIOR]

I kinda of agree with him in the two extra armor (I added not just to the romans but to the Carties elite african Infantry wich got so much worse since .8X...). That and lowering the price on Imperial legionaires as to represent better organisation.


Cheers...

[kambiz]

I'm not a Romani fan ,However I've played them in v0.81 And I think Basileos ton Ellenon is right. Because while Praetorians were far more powerful in 0.81 ,Still because of their very limited AOR ,And considering I have plenty of golden experience republican legions and Evocata ,They were not my emipre's elite unit as they should be. I only held them because of historical joy ,and their upkeep was nothing for my already wealthy emipre. the bloody jobs were all up to Republican legions and Evocata (All first trained before imperial reform) and those of early recruited imperial legions.

EB is a historical mod ,and I don't mean to change this as I love this mod because the same historical accuracy. However ,Still some values are question for me. Cohors Evocata for instance ,regardless of those leg greaves,they are reenlisted legionaries ,which means they are seen battle and thus have some real combat experience compare to ordinary legionaries. If we pose some already recruited troops in front of the same amount of toldiers who have passed away the same training ,But have experienced real battles ,Then logically those experienced ones can beat the newly recruited soldiers. But Evocata's defence skill is the same as ordinary legionaries !

There is some changes I made in the satues of these units that I'd like to offer you. I used Cohors Reformata as the base unit

http://aycu14.webshots.com/image/35173/2005130333780908290_rs.jpg

Cohors Evocata

http://aycu32.webshots.com/image/32511/2005199656830856913_rs.jpg


Increased thier Defence Skill with one point to reflect the experience they gained from their previous battles. It'd not a big deal ,just one point more than ordinary legionaries.
Also added one point to their Armor becuase of those greaves they have on each of their legs. I see you mentioned/counted the single greave Pezhetairoi (and two greaves those Ptolemaioi Agema) have ,So why not give one point to them for the two greaves they wear?!

Cohors Praetoriana

http://aycu33.webshots.com/image/35992/2005141262107875936_rs.jpg


I added two point to the armor value of these guys ,Because not only they have one greave for each legs ,But they also using imperial gallic helmet compare to ordinary legionaries. BTW ,They get the best empire can provide. Also at least in look ,Their armor seems not inferior to those of Selukidd ,Aigyptous and Makedonian elite phalanx have !
Also decreased their "Defence Skill" ,Because Although their training is a bit more extensive ,But still is pretty much the same as ordinary legionaries. They are only the sons of more important romans ,Willing to fight ! So I see no reason having them one point Skill than other legionaries.

Cohors Imperatoria

It is true that these guys are not better than their Republican bretheren ,But Still for sake of gameply and as the player have to waite till imperial reform to get them and thus expect something better ,I suggest to at least lower either their coast or their upkeep just a little bit. And it is not ahistorical Imo ,because are recruited in in roman imperial era ,and Legionary equipment already have become standardized. Also As rome have more territories ,thus more smiths available to produce these gears ,And we know that when something being massed produced ,Its price being lowered. By decreasing heir upkeep with 30-50 mani ,The players are encouraged to use them instead of Republican Legionaries:yes:

This is just my humble opinion ,Not intended to disregard your efforts:sweatdrop:

Cheers

[Watchman]

Greaves are actually worth two points (eg. compare Peltastai and Thureophoroi). These fellows are otherwise identically armed, but the veteran "old salts" background of the Evocata ought to be good for a slight hike in skills and morale. The Praetorians are a little so-so in that respect, given that they were AFAIK picked more for their political reliability than anything (nevermind now the later developements of the corps...) and tended to be a little short of practical experience in "soldiering" - but a higher morale value than the regular Cohorts have might at least be called for, if only due to the reliability thing and sheer pride in their elevated status.

[King Philip II]

@Kambiz: I like your changes and will probably implement this when I get to the reforms in my Romani campaign. It was my idea to just give them +1 experience, but that seems a little over the top. I would also increase upkeep by 10% (loss of revenue from the farms/shops they are leaving) and remove the "hardy" attribute.

[NeoSpartan]

whats the "hardy" attribute???

[King Philip II]

"Hardy" is good stamina and "very hardy" is very good stamina - it's displayed as a small heart on those great unit cards from the Recruitment Viewer.

[Pharnakes]

Why would you remove it, though?

They didn't get fatter just cause they had an fat Emperor instead of fat Senators.:beam:

[kambiz]

like your changes and will probably implement this when I get to the reforms in my Romani campaign.You're welcome mate:yes: But I made these changes only in those pic ,Not in the files. Because I prefer the standard setting of the game. This is just an offer to the EB team ,And if this look logical enough to them ,then I'm sure the team will implement it in the next release:yes: As I said ,I'm not a roman fan ,I'm Pahlava (And eastern faction in general) fan. But as I had a romani campaign in v0.81 ,I checked their units in EB1 to see what changes have been mad to them.

BTW ,there is no difference for my Knightly cast Savaran ,If the team keep the same status or make the Legionaries as powerful as they were in 0.81. They are nothing to my men. They even less important than their Hellenic pike bearer bretheren who already become the servants of the "Great King". My men see them as bunch of good looking boys ,Still not experienced a big thing like our Kontos in their butt :laugh4:

Cheers :smiley:

[Zaknafien]

Why would you remove it, though?

They didn't get fatter just cause they had an fat Emperor instead of fat Senators.:beam:

well, they didnt campaign either. Praetorians were parade troops, essentially. Which is why artists who used them as basis for legionaries on things like Trajan's column placed them all in LS.

[Watchman]

What, you mean they should be wearing the LS or something ? ~;p

[Zaknafien]

in later periods, yes.

[King Philip II]

Why would you remove it, though?

They didn't get fatter just cause they had an fat Emperor instead of fat Senators.:beam:

I would assume that middle-aged men didn't have the same stamina as they did when on active service.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Middle-aged is a rather broad term. If you'd ask the Greeks the age of 40 was about the best age you could have - as a man that is. (It is called the "akme"; or top.)

Mind you middle class citizens which is what the 40 year old veterans were, mostly, did have the time on their hands to regularly go and see the local gym from the inside. They did have the money to keep fit; they did have the money to go and see a doctor whenever they needed to... And they did have a lil' bit of experience which told them when and how to spend their energy: they knew how to endure battle.

[King Philip II]

Middle-aged is a rather broad term. If you'd ask the Greeks the age of 40 was about the best age you could have - as a man that is. (It is called the "akme"; or top.)

I used the vague term of "middle-aged" on purpose, since I wasn't sure what the average age were of re-enlisted legionnaires.

I thank you for your kind words - being in the early forties myself, I was pleased to see your response :)

Anyway, my purpose was just to figure out some stat changes that would differentiate the Evocata from regulars, without making them anything special.