Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarema
Sorry, but that just isn't true. Roman legionaries received a good training and were generally well-motivated, but not up to the level of elite units. They were rank-and-file, not elite. Just because they won does not mean their basic grunt was superior to everything the enemy had. The Romans had the best, most flexible rank-and-file unit of the time, and that's how it is in the mod.Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
You know, that's not really a good analogy since Legionaires are discounted rather than cheap throw away. If you want to see a zerg rush, go watch some MP games of Getai.Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
They are more like Marines where you can do a disproportionate damage to them since they are so cheap and plentiful you can gain critical mass to be immune from rush attacks or attack the zerg at like 3 places at once though they die rather easily in small groups to everything.
Or this if you're totally awesome or named NaDa.
:smash:
Yeah... we can suspect in EB 2, the roman legionary's price will be definitely higher, but their regeneration rate at the recruitment pool is very high... maybe SPQR will be capable to train 3 unit of legionaries per city everytime without gettin exhausted their recruitment. Except when the population was unavailable... this way is more realistic then getting cheap supperior line soldiers come in 100 me, while the others come in 80 men.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
You could ask Jugurtha, Mithridates, Arminius or Surena if roman legionaires were super humans...Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarema
They were the best medium infantry in the world at the time. But they weren't super humans, and you have to know how to use them.
Still you can assume that they were more powerfull than normal hoplites at that time :book::book:Quote:
Originally Posted by -Praetor-
Not to mention the eastern infantry, which the romans slaughtered even when outnumbered 5 to 1:2thumbsup:
Yeah... except when Marcus Antonius had to withdraw from Northern Iran, although the terrain there favoured his troops...Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
Just depends on what you mean by Eastern infantry. It's not just one unit type, and they weren't all bad.
Pantodapoi, Kavakaza Sparabara, Gundi Nizagan, and Hai Nizgarmantik :laugh4: Not to mention Nomad verieties....Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
They are bad infantry, useful only as meatshields against swordsmen, although the later two are useful vs nomads...
They are actually good, unless you throw them at professional Romans, Northern Barbarians, or certain elite units. Every unit type has its purpose and its strengths (except Apeleutheroi). Drapanai for example totally suck against missiles. Still nobody calls them bad, because they have other strengths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
BTW Pandas are by far the worst of the lot. Gund-î Nizagân and the Hai guys are quite decent vs. missile troops, so use accordingly.
Don't forget about infinite reinforcements :beam: Actually, scratch that. Imagine the EB1 AS stacks except with infinite reinforcement....:skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
I've got unlimited men on the battlefield, and manage to throw off many times several AS attacks, especially when their army comprised solely (if not mostly) pantodapoi...Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
And when they start throwing Argyraspidai, I have their "holy :daisy: they are soo :daisy: effective!" counter.....
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/u...sea_axemen.gif
Thanks to their eagerness to be sent on certain suicide missions, they even sent those poor argyraspides running when they simply charge the phalangitai's flank.... Just think as a bit ineffective, as well sightly exspensive form of drapanai.....
Yeah they are really good armoured unit killers.
At least I thought so until I fought an AS stack complelty made of phalangitai, the better armoured thorakitai, kataphraktoi and Fms in a plain in syria...:book::book:
Instant death for everysaba army (At least when you are not using greek units):sweatdrop:
They fare much better vs missiles than Drapanai though, plus they come in larger numbers. Sadly they don't have javelins, unlike most other axemen. Still a cost-effective and pretty unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
Still the arabs have morale 11 vs. 15 for the drapanai.
Makes alot of difference for an assault unit.
Can't say I share the same experiance as others with with the sabean units.
They neither have the morale of thracians, sweboz or lusos, nor the armor
of greeks and romans making them much too fickle for my taste.
Another unit I dislike:
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/u...thorakitai.gif
Thorakitai are a bit of a fan favourite thanks to their good combat stats but I would trade them for
basically anything. With a very slow animation and no stamina they are the slowest unit in the game.
Even pezheteiroi move much faster. Maybe I'm just not patient enough to use them.
To write something positiv:
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/u...s_ambakaro.gif
Ambakaro get a undeserved bad rap. They have 6 javelins to soften the enemy but
their speciality is to cut through infantry in melee. With 18 morale, very good stamina
and ap swords they are a legions worst nightmare west of Thrace.
I prefer them to the Vascii tanks as with elite units I look for offensiv capability.
WHat good is ridiculous armor if your allies get slaughtered all around you?
Of course the Arab guys are still inferior to Drapanai. Playing Saba is a bit of a PitA, as it requires a lot of micro-ing. Still that is what makes it interesting to me. You have no "I win" units or formations like Makedonia or SPQR; instead of that, you have to rely on your wits, just as with the barbarian factions. Defeating elites with mediocre units feels very rewarding.
As a side note, IMO the biggest weakness of Saba is not their unit roster (which I can manage with), but their inability to build paved roads.
e: yes but Thorakitai are still useful as (not-so-mobile) cavalry eaters. I prefer them to phalangites, because although slow, they are reliable and more versatile.
Thorakitai are not too slow.... at least their line is much more flexible than phalangitai line... and they are not helpless against javelin throwers (they can throw some javelins, that's all)
Actually with KH, My Thorakitai rules all the Mediterania!
But that's their greatest strenght. Invading ai armies take forever while you can just use ships.Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
Not sure what you mean with more versatile. You can use both as barrier. But facing mobile armies whoQuote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
are not good in melee like e.g. an army with lots of cheap skirmishers I would often use a kind of inverted hammer and anvil. Engade the enemy with my quick assault units then let the phalangitai
charge in their back using swords. You can't do that with Thorakitai, the fight would be over
before they reach the enemy.
They are less vulnerable to charges or concentrated missiles from awkward angles (usually backside). Also they are better on walls, where Phalangitai get slaughtered (I guess it's because of the low defense skill).
I haven't yet really tried your inversion tactics, so I can't say much about that. When I engage skirmisher armies, I usually play barbarians (who are fast enough to catch the buggers) or cavalry factions, or I just shoot them to pieces in true Achaemenid style.
all trueQuote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
Which is why Hyrkanian Hillmen are the true Drapanai of the East. They have 15 morale just like the Draps, but they have shields, which mean they don't die quite as fast (but still fairly fast) to missiles, and javelins, and they have 40 more men in a unit (on huge). However, on the downside, they have a lower lethality attack and most importantly, they cost over twice as much as Drapanai, which means they can't really fill the role Drapanai do of being cheap and expendable assault troops as well. But they are still a stellar unit and I've had great success with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by team_kramnik
"lings", "destroy barbaropolis" "(...)kicking Romaioi butt(...)" "...the graetest of all Barbaroi", "kill all romans" - it's getting kinda boring, u know.Quote:
Satalexton:Roman legions are 'lings. Individual 'lings may be weak, but the idea is that u can have a seemingly endless rushes of them. What happened when a Romaioi 'ling spam failed? They send more of them.
As for the "lings" - if i memory is correct, the romans always defeated the greeks in the first battle (Flamininus at Cynoscephalae, Ameilius Pauluysa at Pydna, Acilius Glabrio at Thermopylae, Scipio Asiaticus at Magnesia and others not-so-well-known). The only exception was Pyrrhus, but he fought the romans before the legion became an efficient war machine it was made after tha battle of Baecula. And even Pyrrhus didn't manage to defeat the romans, his war could be called a "bloody stalemate" (at best).
I agree, but it even elite roman units (cohors evocata, antesignani) don't beat elite hellenic inf units...Quote:
Ludens:Sorry, but that just isn't true. Roman legionaries received a good training and were generally well-motivated, but not up to the level of elite units. They were rank-and-file, not elite. Just because they won does not mean their basic grunt was superior to everything the enemy had. The Romans had the best, most flexible rank-and-file unit of the time, and that's how it is in the mod.
I do realise that it is impossipble to recreate all the advantages of a legion in a computer game - it has already been said in some thread so i'm not going to repeat it. Still, i think the legions are a bit to weak compared to greek inf in EB - other than that, the mod i perfect and i love it :beam:
Yeah, right, but i don't understand why people bring up those FEW defeats that the romans sustained, thinking that it will make us forget about their countless victories. It's like: "HAHA! You see? The Romans DID lose at Carrhae and T. forest! So i was right! they are useless as soldiers after all!".Quote:
Praetor: You could ask Jugurtha, Mithridates, Arminius or Surena if roman legionaires were super humans...
They were the best medium infantry in the world at the time. But they weren't super humans, and you have to know how to use them.
Why are we using latin alphabet in here? Why are our judicial systems all bade on the roman one? Is it because Rome conquered the world, or because greeks conquered rome and thoght :"hey, their stuff is better than ours, we must change our ways!"
And Romans were far more than just "medium inf" (even if u mean "the best medium inf"). True professionals, second to none. I believe someone quoted Polybios of M-polis who gives the reasons why phalanx is no match for a legion...
I really disagree with everything you said. It seems you lack proper history background, because some of the comments are just wrong.
The Romans lost a lot of battles, they just didn't lose any wars.
You can't compare the elite Roman units with other elites. the Hellenistic elites were units which were equiped from toe to face with the most expansive and best armour available. That's the reason they were so few in numbers. Rome on the other hand, had a lot of the "elite" units, but they weren't elite because of their equipment, they were elite because they were veterans.
Actually Rome has no elite units, only the Pretorians could be considered as such, but their drawback was that they almost never had experience.
The Romans were great line soldiers, but nothing special.
The thing is, that rome could mass in a heartbeat 50.000 of these men, which was impossible for any other country to achive. Even if Rome lost an army, it could raise a new one practically in the next day. Things could be grim for Rome, if the enemy had had the same possibility.
Imagine: At Magnesia, the Romans got really lucky IMO, and the chariots and the departure of cavalry to far outside the battle were the main reason the Romans won. If Antiochos had the same resources as Rome, he would fight another battle, leave the chariots, augment his cavalry force, and Rome could be defeated.
That's a lot of "if-s", but that's my opinion.
Long story short, Rome had very good soldiers in huge numbers, but not any great elites
I don't understand this lobby to improve Roman units. They already have some of the best rank-and-file infantry in the game, and it is certainly some of the most cost-efficient infantry in the game (as it should be). It wouldn't be fun to play with the Romani if their units could just steamroll over anything in their path.
The Romani campaign is already one of the easiest campaigns in EB, I don't understand why there is a need to make it easier.
anubis88, you completely misunderstood my post. I am comparing greek and roman forces. And i might have amnesia, but i don't remember any battle in which the greeks defeated the romans (besides the battle of pyrrhus, but i worte sth about that didn't i?)
Yeah, nothing special. creating and maintaining the worlds mightiest empire was really a deed achieved by an army which was "nothing special". Actually they got lucky. At magnesia they got VERY lucky. and at watling road they were just lucky. At Alesia thay were also lucky. And at zama, cynoscephalae, tapae, they never had a BETTER TRAINED, BETTER ORGANISED, BETTER LEAD and BETTER ARMED army, they were just lucky. And the fact that they were able not only to create an empire but also hold on to it for hundreds of years was also a matter of luck, not of an almost perfect army and wise policies. It was just luck.Quote:
The Romans were great line soldiers, but nothing special.
The thing is, that rome could mass in a heartbeat 50.000 of these men, which was impossible for any other country to achive. Even if Rome lost an army, it could raise a new one practically in the next day. Things could be grim for Rome, if the enemy had had the same possibility.
And if some other tribe/state could amass such great armies, they could be beaten easily, right?
But wasn't it the greeks who had numerical advantage in most battles? the romans always defeated them in the first battle. If they would lose, rome would justfield another army. But rome never lost to greeks.
As for rome's opponents fileding massive armies - i'm probabbly ignorant, but i always thought that the gauls, for insance, outnumbered caesar's men in gaul? and didn't the cimbri/teutones outnumber the romans in their battles? and the battle of tigranocerta, and all others?
Dammit, in most of their battles the romans were actually outnumbered, but nobody seems to remember that... People only remember Hannibal form the 2nd punic war (but they refuse to remember other roman-punic battles, like the battle of Ilipa or baecula, and seem to refuse to acknowledge the fact that other punic generals were not like Hannibal). Actually, if the Carthies would implement wiser policies towards their spanish and african subjects (just as rome did towards italians), Carthage could be able to field equally large armies. but the fact is that rome was smart, Carthage (nd others) were not.
I'm tired of writing, people who say roman army was inferior to the greek one just think they are Demiurges, who can change reality by wishful thikning (or wishful talking).
They were better in the way that CAPPED font is better than uncapped font in making your point. I'm so sick of that discussion, you can answer him Ludens.
Anyways:
@Winsington - They are actually a little underpowered as a faction in Marian and beyond. They have no heavy infantry with AP and get ripped apart by AP armed heavily armored units like those Dacian Strateoi. The post-Marian army gets ripped to shreds by cataphracts while the Polybian units can hold thier own due for whatever reason due to their slightly better per man stats. Maybe if the Roman infantry had more killing power, they would be a contender for jack of all trades in EB but as of right now they are just mediocrely effective but numerous sword infantry that have to attrition everything. However they are quite decent at taking forever to die so Archer + Marian Legion can be harder to break than phalanx + Archer.
Polybian Principes are probably the best general infantry in the game though.
I'm speaking of MP. Everything beats AI.
now that was just rude...
You said it, the Romans were smarter, not more 1337. The reason they were successful were:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarema
- they had the right guys at the right time
- they could muster mass quality heavy infantry faster than anybody else
- many of their enemies were disorganized, had depleted militaries or civil wars going at the time Rome engaged them
AFAIK they were never famous for elite units. Plus nobody here said that Greeks always pwned Romans. They certainly didn't. Still Romans lost many battles against the Parthians and Sassanids, and were finally defeated by Germanic/N. Iranian hordes. Had the Greeks been properly organized and unified, Rome would have had a much tougher time conquering them.
The only real empire the post Marian Romans faced was the Parthian/Persian one, which they couldn't defeat. And that despite a lot of infighting among the Parthians.
Ah, I see.... I never made it that far into the game with the Romans so I wouldn't know. The Camillian and Polybian units always seemed quite good to me, but I wouldn't know about the Marian ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Obviously beating the AI is not particularly difficult with the units as they are now, but if you make them better then the challenge will just decrease more, and I don't think that's a good thing. But, for multiplayer, I can understand the concern, as it makes it more effective to bring a Polybian army rather than a Marian army, which doesn't really make sense.
I dont understand the people atacking the romans here at all. Of course people do not like the winners, but the charming loosers like hannibal and pyrrhus(yes he lost).
Still saying they just had more manpower is nonsense. The romans really fought most of their famous battles without much numerival superiority.
And saying the romans units were no match for other empires cavallery is in my opinion only speculation. Actually we do not know... What we do know is that the romans always won and they won against armies with a huge part of elite troops.
Numerical superiority isn't manpower. Manpower is the body of men that a state could use to fight wars. Romans always had more of that. Said body of men were by and large heavy infantry, not equestrians. Roman cavalry was proved to be inferior throughout it's history, and demonstrated by the their policy of using regional auxiliaries to fulfill that role instead. Of course, it doesn't matter if your native cavalry arm is poor if you are a faction based in heavy infantry. That is irrelevant.
Though I am a phalanx proponent, I must say that I do not feel any sympathies for either side of the argument here at the .org. There is too much pretentious, too much hard-line statements and static arguments. The idea that two fighting styles in ancient history could so mismatched is absurd. The fact remains that the Romans fought the phalanx at a height in their power, whilst the successor's had declined sharply.
What do you mean by decline? In their power? Maybe! in their strategy and tactics? Very unlikely. The phalanx also had its evolution from Philips levy driven army to the professional agyraspidai or the more heavily protected macedonians.
Pyrrus is an excellent example for modern tactics, but still he lost to the romans, even before they had their professional armies.:book: