Roman unitsize

This post is about some questions/suggestions for the unit text file. I do not mean this as an attack on anybody, but I just want to share some thoughts on the roman units, which are the only one I been studying so far, since they are my biggest interest, and the faction I by far now the most about. The following numbers are all on large unitsize.

First a couple of minor things: I have removed officer and standard bearer from early triarii, because they destroys the unbroken front that is needed for phalanxes to work, and it might be worth considering doing this for all units that have the ability to form a phalanx. (If it is not hardcoded, it would be even better to place officers to the rear of the phalanx formation, so they don’t disturb the “wall” of spears)

The late Principes have the attribute of being a mercenary unit. Unless there are some ingame reasons I don’t know about, I don’t think they should be a mercenary unit, since they never was in real life.

My biggest issue is with the numbers of soldiers in the roman units after the Marian reforms. The following units all suddenly consist of 100 men deployed in 6 lines, in contrast to pre Marian units who consist of 80 men in 4 lines. Cohortes Praetoriana, Cohortes Imperatoria, Cohortes Reformata and Cohortes Evocata are all 100 men units, and I don’t know of any historic evidence that implies, that such a change in the standard centurie had taken place, and I really think that these units should go back to 80 men in 4 lines, with the appropriate adjustments in training and upkeep. I haven’t found any gameplay reasons for the enlargement of the standard unitsize for the “ordinary” roman infantry.

The Levantine Saggitarius Auxilia has 120 men in a unit, which in my opinion make them way to strong compared to other archer units, who all have between 60 and 80 men in a unit.

I have therefore cut all these units to 80 men and made the necessary adjustments in prize.

But I would very much like to hear the reasons for the high numbers of men in the above mentioned units, both out of curiosity, but also because I don’t want to upset the balance of the gameplay, with changes, that EB already have tested, and that have proven for some reason not to work properly. I guess that about covers it for now!:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crac des Chevaliers

First a couple of minor things: I have removed officer and standard bearer from early triarii, because they destroys the unbroken front that is needed for phalanxes to work, and it might be worth considering doing this for all units that have the ability to form a phalanx. (If it is not hardcoded, it would be even better to place officers to the rear of the phalanx formation, so they don’t disturb the “wall” of spears)

---

Would be great but that is hardcoded - either officer on the side or no officer at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crac des Chevaliers

The late Principes have the attribute of being a mercenary unit. Unless there are some ingame reasons I don’t know about, I don’t think they should be a mercenary unit, since they never was in real life.

---

It is either mistake or it is needed for model sharing purposes, but it do not make Principes available as mercenaries. To be typical merc's they have to appear in special txt file (I do not remember name, sorry)

The jump in unit size was decided to show the change from manipular organization to one based on cohorts (which are bigger than maniples). The number of men in the Levantine Saggitarius Auxilia unit should be 80, I'll fix that in the next build. Also you're paying per man in each unit, so if you want smaller or bigger units you should adjust the costs to reflect your changes.

O'ETAIPOS is right about the mercenary_unit attribute, it's entirely a model sharing issue. The late principes model is shared with another roman unit (late hastati I think) and if you take off that attribute one unit will have the wrong skin. RTW only allows one skin per unit per faction and using the mercenary_unit attribute is just a way to have another skin on the same model. It shouldn't affect gameplay at all and it doesn't make the principes hireable anywhere.

Thanks to both O’ETAIPOS and QwertyMIDX for the very quick reply. The part about the mercenary entry now makes perfect sense.

For the Levantine Saggitarius Auxilia I have changed the prize to 1021 and upkeep to 255. I hope that is about right to keep the balance in unit cost.

Have you discussed the possibility of removing all officers and standard-bearers from units with the ability to form a phalanx? I have found that it improves on the effectiveness when there isn’t “holes” in the line that the enemy can move through. And if I am facing phalanx units the ai has enough trouble maintaining an unbroken line without the addition of holes coursed by officers!

About the increase in numbers in the roman infantry, I can’t say that I agree. I know that the roman army went from a manipular system to one based on cohorts. The problem is that the basic manipel was two centuries strong and the cohort numbered 6. This doesn’t change the fact that the standard centurie had the same number of soldiers - around 80. The overall number of soldiers in the legion also didn’t change (until later) and the cohort system was more a tactically change to make the legion more uniform and flexible on the battlefield and capable of better operating in smaller units. Therefore, I don’t think that an increase in numbers from 80 to 100 is a good way of reflecting these changes. The result of the change in system is already illustrated through the chances from principes/hastate/triarii to cohorts reformata as the main battle soldier and the rest must be up to player tactics on the battlefield. In regard to gameplay, I find that the increase in numbers gives the Romans an unfair advantage - since most other heavy infantry with similar fighting styles only number 80. Instead the stats for roman post-Marian infantry could get a slight increase to reflect their status as some of the best heavy infantry in the ancient world at this time and to maintain the overall balance with the fever men per unit.

This is not a big problem since it can rather easily be modded by the player (even I have figured out who to do it!)~;) but I still think it might be worth considering again if the 80 soldiers per unit isn’t a better solution with the appropriate changes to cost and stats. I realize that it is all a part of a bigger and complex picture to keep all units stats and prize in balance - but as a big fan of both the Romans and a lot of the changes EB has made to the original game I just wanted voice my opinion. I guess we all have an opinion on making the perfect game so I appreciate EB members and others taking time to read all this.:bow:

I will certinly bring up your issues with the rest of the team and see what they think. As a side note, be careful not to get trapped in the idea that 1 man in RTW actually represents 1 man, that's not the way EB delt with the issue.

I had a thought about your phalanx oficer problem, but I don't know if it will wrok for sure. I was thinking why not jsut skin the phalanx oficers as normal phalangites. Like I said don't know if that will work, but if it dose it should not be that hard, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

As a side note, be careful not to get trapped in the idea that 1 man in RTW actually represents 1 man, that's not the way EB delt with the issue.

---

This is an excellent point to consider Crac des Chevaliers. Remember that a unit is only a representation of a much larger group of soldiers. In-game, a 20 unit stack, numbering roughly 4000 strong (obviosly it will vary depending on unit sizes, ammount of units, etc.), and that is meant to represent an entire army. Just as a unit of ships have "only" 52 soldiers. This is not supposed to imply that a fleet would only contain 52 men, of course. It just simplifies things for the game. So I don't think it is a big deal whether or not a unit size is historically accurate (although I am sure every effort is made by the EB team to do so), considering the engine and the limitation on the number of soldiers in the game does not constitute for a completely historically accurate game.

We have made no effort to make unit size historical from a unit standpoint; we use unit size as a campaign-scale adjuster and economic/unit stat adjuster.

I thought gaps in the phalanx line were historical. It seems unlikely to me that a highly-ordered, dense formation like the phalanx could advance over more than a short distance without gaps falling if the ground is uneven. IIRC at the battle of Pydna the Roman infantry eventually managed to exploit these gaps in the Makedonian line, thus winning the battle.

If it were me I would leave thelate Roman unit sizes the same as their predecesers, why? Well That way three battlefield units always represent a Cohort. Whether you fight in three thin lines with four cohorts on line or in two deeper, staggereed, formations is up to the player.

As to the issue of officers in phalanx, well short of using shieldwall in 1.6 I think we can live with it. Its really not something to worry about unless your line is all ragedy to begin with.

Front of a phalanx is near invincible against regular troops anyway. I don't think a couple of losses here or there is any big deal. Just means regular troops have a chance is causing some damage and have a slight chance is forcing a gap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I thought gaps in the phalanx line were historical. It seems unlikely to me that a highly-ordered, dense formation like the phalanx could advance over more than a short distance without gaps falling if the ground is uneven. IIRC at the battle of Pydna the Roman infantry eventually managed to exploit these gaps in the Makedonian line, thus winning the battle.

---

I know in the Spartan battle line they would march with a 10 yard gap between each 160 man group (I forget the name). Upon nearing the enemy though they would signal the groups to close the gaps, leaving a huge wall of spear points with no exploitable gaps. Gaps tended to be what cuased the downfall of phalanxes though. So I would guess by this time in history that military leaders would have known that and fixed the problem.

Also on the note of cohort size, why are the preatorians the same size cohort as the regular infantry. I realize doubling or even raising the size by 50% could be massively overpowering, but considering how late in the game they would come they wouldnt change much. You could make them cost and arm and a leg though, as they should, they were the emporers guard, Romes guard. Also the preatorian Cohort is missing a charge strength in their secondary attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

I know in the Spartan battle line they would march with a 10 yard gap between each 160 man group (I forget the name). Upon nearing the enemy though they would signal the groups to close the gaps, leaving a huge wall of spear points with no exploitable gaps. Gaps tended to be what cuased the downfall of phalanxes though. So I would guess by this time in history that military leaders would have known that and fixed the problem.

---

But the Spartan phalanx was different from the Makedonian one, and off course the Spartans were some of the best drilled soldiers in Greece. Don't know of they still were in EB's timeframe though, but I also don't know which period (before or after the rise of Makedon) you are reffering too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

But the Spartan phalanx was different from the Makedonian one, and off course the Spartans were some of the best drilled soldiers in Greece. Don't know of they still were in EB's timeframe though, but I also don't know which period (before or after the rise of Makedon) you are reffering too.

---

I'd be refering to around the timeframe of Thermopoly. But it was a simple manuever that prevented the front from weakening so I doubt that they would have gotten rid of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

I'd be refering to around the timeframe of Thermopoly. But it was a simple manuever that prevented the front from weakening so I doubt that they would have gotten rid of that.

---

Spartans used shorter spears than the Makedonian, especially in the classical period, so I think that their units would have an far easier time spreading out of moving closer to fill the gaps. On the other hand, the Makedonian phalanx was rather immobile in post-Alexandrian times. So I am not convinced the Makedonian phalanx was a solid line.