-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
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.
+
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderland
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 ;-)
+
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_rome
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
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
@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?
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
@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.
I'm not taking anything away from the Parthian general but Crassus was very rusty and allowed the cavalry he had to get too far ahead and shot himself in the foot, but even with the cavalry he had, it was useless against all the skirmisher cavalry the Parthians used. If he had hired local horse-archers or even foot-archers then he might of been able to hold them off and survive.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniMe
+
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_rome
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)
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
@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:
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor1234
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Luck, an unwillingness to surrender, and good timing.
Nothing more needs to be said when talking about the Roman Empire...
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Internet
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/...legionary1.jpg
and we would be talking some new form of Latin. :2thumbsup:
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
I'm wondering why chief-roman Zak haven't showed himself here yet..
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
p.s No I didn't do it... but I'll be doing something like it soon though. i am now INSPIRED!
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
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/showt...=83475&page=12
Look at PSYCHOS V post.
If you want and have the time read the WHOLE thread. :dizzy2:
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Look at it this way, Alexander vs Ceasar: Ceasar is toast.
Depends on who uses the best tactics :).
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
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
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Yeah I guess so would a historian who specialises in Imperial Rome...?
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
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.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
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:
Quote:
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...
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
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).
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
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.
And in 0.81/0.82 everyone was going on about how the Gauls were over-powered, this isn't about the Gauls conquering places first, it was a hell of a lot easier when they were a much more diverse culture and weren't centralised like the Romans where they could just travel to new lands when they felt like it.
-
Re: Spears are very unbalanced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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: