Roman Legions seem too weak

I'm not sure if this has been brought up and if so, there is probably a reason for it, as the EB team is great when it comes to accuracy but in my Roman campaign I've noticed on every occasion, my Augustan legionaries are being cut to ribbons by light iberian skirmishers, Caetratti light infantry might be their name. It is so bad that I lost an entire unit of legionaries to one unit of these seemingly inhuman light infantry while only killing about 17 of them, during a city siege. Both my legionaries and the enemy had no chevrons of experience. I also lost an entire unit of legionaries, excepting 5 men, fighting hand to hand on a wall against a unit of peltastai, although at least in this case I did manage to wipe the peltastai out.

I try to play somewhat true to how the Romans really fought, using only nominal amounts of cavalry and archers, while relying instead on legionaries and allied infantry but I've been horrifed to see my legions get decimated by unarmored and medium skirmishers in hand to hand combat. I'm finding that I might have to employ hammer and anvil tactics in order to not lose entire units to skirmishers but I know the Romans never really employed such cavalry tactics, so I feel ingenuine doing so. Is this historical? Did the Romans truly lose a great deal many men even when fighting what should be highly inferior troops? I do not mind, in fact, I love it when I have to fight a unit of true elites, like Spartans, and I see my Romans biting the dust but against skirmishers?

This is less a criticism and more a question about the motives behind making the legionaries seemingly so weak. I am not, by the way, expecting my legions to be superhuman at all, I am just confused to see them wrecked by skirmishers. I'm sure there is a good reason behind the weakening of the legions, since, as I mentioned above, you guys are great with the accuracy, I would just be interested in hearing the reasoning, even if only for my own educational purposes. Thanks in advance and great job with 1.0, I'm enjoying it immensely. Keep up the excellent work.

Iberia was a major problem for the Romans, and remained so for a very long time. You will notice that many Iberian troops wield the falcata - a weapon with AP power. Therein lies your problem.

Roman troops were hardly the end-all of infantry. In fact, they only became the tremendous fighting force we know them as under a few select generals. Most of the time their victories came from the use of sheer force, an unrelenting drive, and a nearly complete lack of care for casualties.

Well, both the units you mentioned are hardly exactly your steriotypical skirmisher, the peltastai are just about "legionaries" in their own right, plus the defenders of walls get a bonus when figthing on them, and the caetratai are notorius (in both real life and ingame) for butchering large quantaties of over armoured heavy infantry - thats what they are for.

Iberi Caetrati are a prime target for a good cavalry charge. Of course, that doesn't work too well when assaulting cities...
Plus, it seems that fighting on walls gives lopsided results in general.

Doesn't sound like you have battle difficulty set to medium...

Never use wall fights as in indicator of how good a unit is,... besides taking forever the attacker usually takes many more casulaties than usual... I prefer to sap myself.

A unit of Camillan Hastati will cut a unit Peltastai to pieces (suffering many loses for sure), so that should be true for Imperial Legions as well. Wall fights have their own rules.

Amongst the Iberi units, there are some that look like nothing but have AP swords. I had really started to fear these guys and prefer to encounter any stack of Carthagian heavy spearmen with Sacred Band cavalry than facing one of these units Iberi holding a gate, or simillar situations with them.

Ran a few tests a while ago as the Casse in custom battle.
Cohors Reformata beat Rycalawre
Polybian Principes beat Rycalawre unless you get lucky (3 deep seemed to work only if you busted the middle of the Roman line).

And then look at the cost ratios; something like 1:2 per man (Roman:Casse) and after that conclude that Roman troops are pretty good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Roman troops were hardly the end-all of infantry. In fact, they only became the tremendous fighting force we know them as under a few select generals. Most of the time their victories came from the use of sheer force, an unrelenting drive, and a nearly complete lack of care for casualties.

---

The Roman infantry was among the best in the world, especially by the time Marius made his changes(most likely started prior to Marius). A combination of arms,armor,training,discipline and triplex acies made them very formidable.

The Marian reforms were made because the Romans kept loosing battles and were on the brink of being destroyed....hence the use of the word reforms, not improvement, not cpd, not anything else which indicates building on something thats almost perfect already. :wall:

'very formidable' describes my mother in law.......now if only she could be reformed.... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HFox

The Marian reforms were made because the Romans kept loosing battles and were on the brink of being destroyed....hence the use of the word reforms, not improvement, not cpd, not anything else which indicates building on something thats almost perfect already.

---

Without going into much detail:
496-418 Roman wins 17/ Roman losses:3
391-302 Roman wins 40+/ Roman losses:5
298-265 Roman wins 15/ Roman losses: 4
264-241(First Punic War) Roman wins 12/ Roman losses 6
225-219 Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 1
218-202(Second Punic War) Roman wins 30/ Roman losses 16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War
201-200 Roman wins 2/ losses 0
200-197(Second Macedonian War) Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 0
197-195 Roman wins 3/ losses 0
195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0
194-192 Roman wins 5/ losses 0
191-190(War against Antiochus) Roman wins 6/losses 0

The above list is basic and it didn't go into some of the minor battles/skirmishes, yet in others it did. It certainly gives you a good idea of who won or lost most of the battles. I don't have time to continue but it is along the same lines. The Romans certainly lost huge numbers against Hannibal but eventually with good commanders finally defeated him. The above list should be considered to be slightly off on the win/loss columns by a potential of 2-3, I was rushing.

From what I've read it certainly sounds like you're on VH for battle difficulty. No matter how AP falcata (pl?) are, they only halve armour values so you should still have one mighty hunk of armour between you and him. And since I conquered spain in the late Camillan and early Polybian era with ease despite hordes of Qarthadastim caetrati and scutari, it seems a bit incredible that caetrati can eat up Augustans so.

@ Frostwulf: Have you found some numbers concerning the minor battles/guerilla in Spain?

Not knowing the facts, I'd guess the Romans had a real hard time at trying to pacify it and lost most of their troops after the conquest of Spain. Well, this reminds me a bit of a modern-day situation: the second US-Iraqi War and its aftermath.

Yours, T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Without going into much detail:
496-418 Roman wins 17/ Roman losses:3
391-302 Roman wins 40+/ Roman losses:5
298-265 Roman wins 15/ Roman losses: 4
264-241(First Punic War) Roman wins 12/ Roman losses 6
225-219 Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 1
218-202(Second Punic War) Roman wins 30/ Roman losses 16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War
201-200 Roman wins 2/ losses 0
200-197(Second Macedonian War) Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 0
197-195 Roman wins 3/ losses 0
195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0
194-192 Roman wins 5/ losses 0
191-190(War against Antiochus) Roman wins 6/losses 0

The above list is basic and it didn't go into some of the minor battles/skirmishes, yet in others it did. It certainly gives you a good idea of who won or lost most of the battles. I don't have time to continue but it is along the same lines. The Romans certainly lost huge numbers against Hannibal but eventually with good commanders finally defeated him. The above list should be considered to be slightly off on the win/loss columns by a potential of 2-3, I was rushing.

---

The Roman army was never exceptional in our period, but it's standardisation and it's homogenisation meant it lack serious weaknesses in it's core element. The infantry. Having said that, the chronic problems on missile troops and cavalry were only solved at the end of our period.

Roman success had two causes; brute force through superior numbers, and ALWAYS maintaining a reserve force.

You must be joking... I conquered half of Iberia in the Camillian era using a few native Roman troops as a core surrounded by hordes of allied Iberian light spearmen and light swordsmen and generals who barely scratched 1 command star. I conquered the other half in the Polybian era with much the same legions and never even suffered 1 defeat.

You must be playing on hard or medium battle difficulty. However i will agree that Roman troops take way too many casualties against javelins, even non-AP ones hurt hard. You get 1 unit (or nightmare situation, more than 1 unit) throwing javelins at your Roman heavy infantry and large full bodied shields be damned you will take 50% casualties in that unit, especially the Camillian and Polybian units, 1 volley of javelins and your hastati are decorating the ground in the hundreds with their blood.

Well that's the Romans for you: they use light infantry to take the bulk of the casualties-- and if things turn less than pretty that way they'll send in another 10.000 of them.

Mind you based on their equipment you shouldn't even bother with placing the Hastati for your first line. You take a shorter, slightly curved line of Principes, and keep a longer curved line of Hastati behind them. The main part of those Hastati rush in just before the enemy infantry engages. Rear guard are the Triarii and you move them in when enemy cavalry engages your flanks.

This way you should have less casualties inflicted by enemy missiles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The Roman infantry was among the best in the world, especially by the time Marius made his changes(most likely started prior to Marius). A combination of arms,armor,training,discipline and triplex acies made them very formidable.

---

Frostwulf, go home. If you want to ignore something like three or four discussions in recent history on the topic then be my guest. I don't want to see this collapse into the same miasma of suck that you turned the German and Celtic threads into.

WTF did he do in the topic's ? If he is that annoying I'm sure you can make something to his posting abilities .

May be we should have a sticky thread explayning that and why the Roman army was not a force of 250,000 elite warriors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Without going into much detail:
496-418 Roman wins 17/ Roman losses:3
391-302 Roman wins 40+/ Roman losses:5
298-265 Roman wins 15/ Roman losses: 4
264-241(First Punic War) Roman wins 12/ Roman losses 6
225-219 Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 1
218-202(Second Punic War) Roman wins 30/ Roman losses 16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War
201-200 Roman wins 2/ losses 0
200-197(Second Macedonian War) Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 0
197-195 Roman wins 3/ losses 0
195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0
194-192 Roman wins 5/ losses 0
191-190(War against Antiochus) Roman wins 6/losses 0

The above list is basic and it didn't go into some of the minor battles/skirmishes, yet in others it did. It certainly gives you a good idea of who won or lost most of the battles. I don't have time to continue but it is along the same lines. The Romans certainly lost huge numbers against Hannibal but eventually with good commanders finally defeated him. The above list should be considered to be slightly off on the win/loss columns by a potential of 2-3, I was rushing.

---

Bullshit list. :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Bullshit list. :thumbsdown:

---

/boggle

Gotta love how people want to say someone is wrong but don't even try and post opposing facts. I realise that some folks have some prejudice culturally towards the Romans but - since every culture / race in this time period are nothing more than bands of street thugs willing to slit their neighbors throats for a few bits of gold - can we dispense with the prejudice? Let's try and leave modern morality and law out of a place where it really doesn't fit or apply.

Maybe he's wrong - but until I see people actually citing different numbers with actual sources I'll reserve judgement.

On topic - I find the Romans to be represented well enough in the game - decent but not great units and cheap enough that you can afford to lose a few or a stack.

Well that's what you get when you cite:

195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0

Because a) (Minor point) It's not like there was one grand plan of conquering Iberia or sth.

More (Not compeltely 100%) like tribe x defies Romans rule, by god we shall send an army forthwith. Tribe x anihilates Romans and forces the retreating consul to accept the independence - by god we're the laugh of the whole of civilised world! Oh dear: they did it again!

Tribe x = Numantines, forcing the Romans in republic era to acknowledge their skill.

And there were others, who could do that job just as well too.

Because b) In front of people who actually worked to accurately represent such things as the Roman Legions, the Iberian tribes etc. etc.
Because c) You post a list which is worthless as source material because it gives you no sort of 'window' to refer to. The list doesn't contain casualties, army make up, terrain advantage for either side, etc. etc. And if history teaches us anything about military efforts, than it is that those tell us a lot more about succes or failure than the amount of battles you won or lost. And for the record: the campaign of Hannibal was one grand failure: IIRC about 50% of his troops were either gone or seriously ill before he even could begin with accomplishing any sort of objectives he had in mind. (Those 50% fell to: 1) Iberians who didn't like the Carhties crossing the borders; 2) Gauls who didn't enjoy it either; 3) Winter.)
Because d) You create the impression the Iberians can be brushed asid fairly easy: just look at Wikipedia - that'll prove me right and you wrong. And mind you as far as the Romans go Wikipedia even managed to get the duration of military service wrong. Ask Philip about that. -- Or look up the last debate on this Romans were the Best topic (Spears are very unbalanced thread). :gah2:

EDIT3: As far as the seriousness and the ferociousness of the Iberians is concerned. Augustus (Octavius Caesar) boasts of being the first to competely have subjugated Iberia! And that's when...you ask? Well in his Res Gestae which is written towards the end of his rule as Princeps, so we talk 20 AD-ish. Also it's worth nothing that Iberia is explicitly depicted on the Augustus of Prima Porta (famous for the decorations on the cuirass, famous for being the Roman copy of the Greek Doryphoros, famous for being the arche-type of all (later) Emperor statues) alongside with Gaul, and Parthia. (Gaul and Iberia are mourning their loss, the Parthian king humbly returns the Roman standards taken from the previous Roman generals who attempted to conquer him.)

:wall: :dizzy2:

...


:shrug:

I updated the post, if it concerns my reply. Webbrowser went nuts. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The Roman infantry was among the best in the world, especially by the time Marius made his changes(most likely started prior to Marius). A combination of arms,armor,training,discipline and triplex acies made them very formidable.

---

Actually, the quality of Roman arms and armor was often lower than their opponents. Their weapons/armor was cheap and produced in mass.

Their weapons and armor (chainmail, and later the famous 2nd century CE iron band armor) were made of carburized iron of varying quality. Roman metallurgical skills were actually quite poor compared to other civilizations at the time and they never developed steel.

Well, to be fair it wasn't a copy of the Doryphoros. It just took the pose, which was famous and well attested already and looked good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

May be we should have a sticky thread explayning that and why the Roman army was not a force of 250,000 elite warriors.

---

Actually that's a great idea. I'm writing an college-essay on misconceptions of the Roman military and that type of info would help a lot. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starforge

/boggle

Gotta love how people want to say someone is wrong but don't even try and post opposing facts. I realise that some folks have some prejudice culturally towards the Romans but - since every culture / race in this time period are nothing more than bands of street thugs willing to slit their neighbors throats for a few bits of gold - can we dispense with the prejudice? Let's try and leave modern morality and law out of a place where it really doesn't fit or apply.

Maybe he's wrong - but until I see people actually citing different numbers with actual sources I'll reserve judgement.

On topic - I find the Romans to be represented well enough in the game - decent but not great units and cheap enough that you can afford to lose a few or a stack.

---

Heh...So a completely random list supported by a wikipedia article that's awfully biased *for* the romans you believe? Fine. Good for you.

My opinion that the list was bullshit was not because I'm prejudiced towards the Romans - thank you very much for passing judgement without really knowing a thing about me. To portray them as something that they were not is to do them a disservice really. They won, indeed, and their victory is even more impressive the more due credit you give to their opponents and realize that they were not super-men. Think about it.

That list, not only is largely arbitrary, it ignores that an extremely large number of the casualties the Romans suffered were not in set piece battles, and is basically prejudiced (now there's a good use for the word) towards those cultures that chose not to resort to field battles as their main way to stop them. But even those cultures did confront them on occasion in mass, and contrary of what it says in that post, they did win plenty of battles. Just not the wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Well, to be fair it wasn't a copy of the Doryphoros. It just took the pose, which was famous and well attested already and looked good.

---

Granted: a naked midget wouldn't have looked as .... impressive? :laugh4:
The whole thing about the Doryphoros which makes it *the* Doryphoros, is the detail to both realistic and ideal proportions and pose.

I used to question EB madly because of this, but now I have one less issue with this mod. Legionaries, the Cohors Reformata especially, are still by far the BEST infantry on the world.

They're not elite, but they're cost-effective, and that's their key word. With 12 attack (0.13 lethality) they are by far the most skilled swordsmen in the whole game; in Medium, they'll defeat toe vs. toe most rank and file infantry on the game, stand cavalry charges, trash opponents except for their very elites. They come in great numbers for a low cost, so if any pesky enemy elites get in your way, you could just throw not one, but two, more and more legionaries to overwhelm these elites with your numbers.

The key, of course, is to keep your guys in formation and get as many of them per unit as possible fighting. That includes using 3 to 4 rank deep formations, and setting them to fire at will also helps.

The point with Roman infantry is that it is excellent heavy infantry, and cheap. The war winning solution that put thousands of nations under the Roman yoke wasn't a chosen group of elites, it was a mass of well-trained, well equipped core troops. When only 10% of the enemy army is superior to you, it's just plainly easy to overwhelm them with these rock solid infantrymen.

Reminds me of WWII, and how american soldiers complained about the quality of American guns vs. German guns. The point is, they won because they could put a lot of competent troops on the field, not because they prioritized individual elites and very high quality weapons that didn't work (either due to bad projects or chronical lack of ammo) like the Germans did.

Are you playing on Medium?

--------


I'm still not satisfied with the uber phalanxes, the weak pila, and the stat increases for Hellenistic units in general, however. So I still think it arosed because of "pro-hellenism" instead of historical accuracy on the first place.

Edit - And what about the worthless Cohors Imperatoria, worthless Evocati, and worthless Cohors Praetoria? I still think the Romani deserve an uber unit in the game, at least to make the Praetorians worth their costs.