Spears are very unbalanced

Am I the only one who realised that the new stats have made Spearmen so terribly overpowered? I mean, the balance in EB 0.81 was very nice and EB 1 has some excellent features, but the new skins and the unbalanced stats are making me mad. Basically, what I've seen is that the developers have overpowered to much anything holding spears, including most Greek units such as the hoplites and the Makedonian pike phalanxes.

But most of the Romani stats are screwed, now. The awesome and professional Roman Legions from EB 0.81 have turned into a bunch of weaklings, and that includes the Cohors Evocata. Their attack wasn't upgraded to reflect the new balance changes, and their defense even got lower. Now I'm having to trouble to defeat a bunch of hoplites with a Cohors Evocata!

I say that we must return to the old balance. Spears are very overpowered, to a degree that lacks any realism. Were they so strong, then why would Ancient peoples such as the Celts and the Romans bother to make expensive swords to their nobles and professional infantry? Indeed, many times a spear is weaker than a sword, less maneuvarable than many shorter swords, and many times it lacks the punch of a longsword manned by a professional warrior.

Plus could anyone give me details on how to get the old Roman legionary graphics? I have nothing against the new ones, except that their faces, well, for my personal taste they don't look as good as the tough old Roman face. Plus they're bigger and have no proportion with most other Romani units. They were a fine idea, except for a few tweaks I would make for myself, but then wouldn't be better to wait 'till all other soldiers are reskinned?

Apart from that, they are good and all... But the old graphics were fine. Just remove the trousers from the Cohors Imperatoria, the Imperial Itallic Helmet from the Evocati, and it was fine. At least it did have some similarity with the other Roman skins, and all were very good works of art.

Quite the opposite. In fact the spears were underpowered.

Let me remind you that if any unit was overpowered it'd be the Romani Legions. I mean, it's not like they were any better than pezhetairoi as far as we can judge. Still they were statted if they were some kind of elite soldiers; which again they are not. Now they are not a "bunch of weaklings" but they aren't an elite unit either. Perhaps, then, for the very first time you'll have to rely on brains; or take our advice and not play on anything more difficult than M (for battles) to win a fight against equally strong opponents?

I suggest you try some other factions as well; see if you still think that the Legions are a bunch of weaklings now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

But the old graphics were fine.

---

Wait until a Romani Member sees this.

Because they were. Not. Fine. By any means. At all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Quite the opposite. In fact the spears were underpowered.

Let me remind you that if any unit was overpowered it'd be the Romani Legions. I mean, it's not like they were any better than pezhetairoi as far as we can judge. Still they were statted if they were some kind of elite soldiers; which again they are not. Now they are not a "bunch of weaklings" but they aren't an elite unit either. Perhaps, then, for the very first time you'll have to rely on brains; or take our advice and not play on anything more difficult than M (for battles) to win a fight against equally strong opponents?

I suggest you try some other factions as well; see if you still think that the Legions are a bunch of weaklings now.

---

Wrong. Legionary Cohorts had full-time professional, tough training and excellent equipment. Really above even the Pezhetairoi and only inferior to the Elites, and EB 0.81 did well; Legionaries were strong, but not excessively overpowered.

Rome did have war-winning troops. Why aren't the Evocati elite anymore? They are supposed to be, but now what's the worth in recruiting them? The Romani are underpowered now, in fact.

I really would like to know why such changes were made. Most Greek and barbarian spearmen weren't even full-time warriors. Rome was the first to have a stable and permanent system capable of training solid soldiers, and the legionary infantry was the most superb not only in tactical capability but also in unit strenght. That's why Rome conquered the whole world; many had economical links with many places, but only Rome was able to effectively conquer a lot thanks to their superb military machine. And that's not represented well now.

Quote:

---

Wait until a Romani Member sees this.

Because they were. Not. Fine. By any means. At all.

---

Sorry, but apart from the minor historical innacuracies, I liked them. I found them one of the best legionary graphical mods, really.

Quote:

---

Indeed, many times a spear is weaker than a sword, less maneuvarable than many shorter swords, and many times it lacks the punch of a longsword manned by a professional warrior.

---

To butt in for a moment, that may (note may) hold true for single combat, but definitely isn't true when you're talking massed formations of men. The spear was probably the most cost-effective, useful weapon in the ancient world when it came to massed warfare: just stick the pointy end in the enemy's direction and keep it there. It was anything but weak and ineffective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

To butt in for a moment, that may (note may) hold true for single combat, but definitely isn't true when you're talking massed formations of men. The spear was probably the most cost-effective, useful weapon in the ancient world when it came to massed warfare: just stick the pointy end in the enemy's direction and keep it there. It was anything but weak and ineffective.

---

And that doesn't mean it was weak and ineffective before. However, with the strenght it has now, it really makes me doubt why many units have switched to swords in the period, or why many sword-armed infantry won the day against spears, or why many elites had swords instead of spears.

Cohors Evocata seem to have been nerfed. Their stats are almost exactly identical to Cohors Reformata, but with a higher cost. The only difference is they are better with the pilum, and have one man less.

In 0.81 they had a lot more armor than Cohors Reformata, so a reduction was okay; but I think it may have been reduced too much, so that they are now useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

And that doesn't mean it was weak and ineffective before. However, with the strenght it has now, it really makes me doubt why many units have switched to swords in the period, or why many sword-armed infantry won the day against spears, or why many elites had swords instead of spears.

---

Swords were a weapon for the elite -- the few. Only the best and richest warriors of a Celtic clan or tribe had one. They were prestige weapons, and thusly designed for the best of the best, be that in society circles or among warriors.

Meanwhile, spears, because they were far cheaper (took less metal to forge, and involved little to no balancing work while forging, either) and easier to make as well as easier to learn to use (unless we're talking exceptions like Shao Lin spear styles), were the weapon for the masses, the plebs, the common man. In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

So, yeah, the majority of units used spears, and one of the most disctinct military formations of the period functioned as one that did. I haven't had the chance to play EB 1.0 yet, but what I can say is that if spear-wielding infantry is effective, that isn't unrealistic.

Just know that the stats can be missleading. Spear units get an attack penalty against other infantry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

Swords were a weapon for the elite -- the few. Only the best and richest warriors of a Celtic clan or tribe had one. They were prestige weapons, and thusly designed for the best of the best, be that in society circles or among warriors.

Meanwhile, spears, because they were far cheaper (took less metal to forge, and involved little to no balancing work while forging, either) and easier to make as well as easier to learn to use (unless we're talking exceptions like Shao Lin spear styles), were the weapon for the masses, the plebs, the common man. In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

So, yeah, the majority of units used spears, and one of the most disctinct military formations of the period functioned as one that did. I haven't had the chance to play EB 1.0 yet, but what I can say is that if spear-wielding infantry is effective, that isn't unrealistic.

---

That swords were weapon for the few, and the elite, I can't deny. However virtually every Roman carried a gladius with himself, and the Principes even switched to swords in the 3rd Century B.C. We're not talking about Elites, we're talking about a massive citizen army wielding short blades. Shorter blades were also less expensive than their Celtic Longsword counterparts.

Quote:

---

In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

---

Yes, the Roman military was very effective, but then they still carried the short Gladius sword. They stabbed a lot with them, yet it was still a sword... And with the Gladius, they managed to defeat a myriad of enemies who valued Spearmen a lot.

Quote:

---

Just know that the stats can be missleading. Spear units get an attack penalty against other infantry

---

Yet, stats are too high.

I'm not saying spears are weaker than swords. I think EB 0.81 had a fine balance in armour and attack stats; if an increase in the stats of spearmen is ever needed, then it shouldn't be as high as in the present EB version. Massed spears were an effective weapon, but it was much more than just sticking it to the front. A spear has to be maneuvered so that the enemy doesn't cut it in pieces, and a sword can be better maneuvered than a spear.

As said, the Roman maniples and cohorts operated like flexible phalanxes (i.e. able to meet a threat on any side easily), mainly due to the fact that their "spears" were a whole crapload shorter than that of a troop of Foot Companions in Alexander's army. The basic principle of the shield wall that stood at the foundation of the Greek phalanx remained the same with the Roman reformed army from Camillus onwards.

But as said, I haven't played EB 1.0 yet so I can't comment on spears vis-á-vis swords; what I can say is that spears, and the formations that used them (or acted like one of those) were dominant in militaries throughout the ancient Mediterranean world -- for good reasons.

And who says Pezetaroi (sp) were not a profesional, hardcore infantry??? Hey they kicked a** either in a phalanx or out of a phalanx.

Spears are not weaker that swords, maybe in 1-to-1 they are. But when you are facing a group of men with spears then there is no real disadvantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

As said, the Roman maniples and cohorts operated like flexible phalanxes (i.e. able to meet a threat on any side easily), mainly due to the fact that their "spears" were a whole crapload shorter than that of a troop of Foot Companions in Alexander's army. The basic principle of the shield wall that stood at the foundation of the Greek phalanx remained the same with the Roman reformed army from Camillus onwards.

But as said, I haven't played EB 1.0 yet so I can't comment on spears vis-á-vis swords; what I can say is that spears, and the formations that used them (or acted like one of those) were dominant in militaries throughout the ancient Mediterranean world -- for good reasons.

---

The Shieldwall did contribute well to many battles, but I disagree. Were they wielding spears, then using the pilum as a hand-to-hand spear would be mre frequently seen. Yet, the Romans liked their shorter swords better, so in fact it wasn't the use of "spears" properly that led them to victory but the strict discipline required to keep a shieldwall with the massive Scuta.

Quote:

---

[...] so in fact it wasn't the use of "spears" properly that led them to victory but the strict discipline required to keep a shieldwall with the massive Scuta.

---

... which was the exact principle of all kinds of phalanx. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Wrong. Legionary Cohorts had full-time professional, tough training and excellent equipment. Really above even the Pezhetairoi and only inferior to the Elites...

---

Pft... bollocks. When you spend most of your time building your night camp you don't exactly get the training that people think you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

And who says Pezetaroi (sp) were not a profesional, hardcore infantry??? Hey they kicked a** either in a phalanx or out of a phalanx.

Spears are not weaker that swords, maybe in 1-to-1 they are. But when you are facing a group of men with spears then there is no real disadvantage.

---

The Pezhetairoi were only great pikemen. However, when the pike phalanx failed and swords had to be used, any phalangites would be at disadvantage fighting against the heavy legionary infantry.

The game already represented that well. In Custom Battles, I was able to defeat a wave of Roman legions with only a few Phalangitai Deuteiroi in defensive mode. Phalangites were already the most formidable troops on the field without the need for further stat increases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

... which was the exact principle of all kinds of phalanx. ~;)

---

But with swords, not spears :P.

Quote:

---

Pft... bollocks. When you spend most of your time building your night camp you don't exactly get the training that people think you do.

---

Stamina. Oh yes, and last time I read a history book, it much more than building a night camp.

I totally agree with your posts, Basileos ton Ellenon. (In fact I already posted much of the same things earlier myself).

I believe we got the attention of one of the EB guys and they said that the new Romani units are going to be readjusted to match with the rest of them (sorry I don't remember which thread it was in). The old Evocata unit really was awesome, so again I'd really like to see a mod that brings the old one back (many people seem to be requesting this)

It also seems to me that the Romani are now clearly underpowered, but someone said something along the lines of "we have a very complex system that we use to make accurate stats for units based on many different things and the guy doing it is very good." That said, I still believe 0.81 had better balancing. Romani isn't the only faction who has suffered stat-lowering of their elite units, Carthaginian sword-wielding heavy infantry has been downgraded as well.

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them. Just in case, i'll say this: the Romans were NOT super mega fighters 1 on 1. They were inferior to most Celts or Germanics in that matter. Their strength lied in their tactics, not their big muscles. See?

If you take 250 Roman legionaries and pit them against a phalanx of 250 man on even ground then i would put my money on the phalanx...

I agree that the Evocata isn't worth its money. As veterans they should have a higher attack and defense value as if they had a chevron or two. I can't see the point in making their pila stronger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Most Greek and barbarian spearmen weren't even full-time warriors.

---

Now, that's for sure not correct: Most of the Greek and Barbarian warriors were in fact mercenaries and by this professionals.

I also do not agree that the Roman Legionar was superior to his opponents. The Roman military machine was, but not the single soldier.

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.

Luck, an unwillingness to surrender, and good timing.

I dont mind trained spearmen being good, but here is the biggest issue which I think needs balanceing.

A lot of spear armed units have a lethality of 0.123, and many sword units have a lethaity of 0.1


Now the basic spear armed levies are more lethal, than the medium sword infantry. Also in the case of Armenia, the noble infantry uses a spear and a sword. The spear does damage of 14 with lethality of 0.123 and the sword does I think 10-12 with lethality of 0.1 why would the player switch to the sword, when the spear does more damage, and has higher lethality?

The medium sword armed infantry for Armenia has damage of 11, with lethality of 0.1 the peasant spearmen have dammage of 13-14 with lethality of 0.123

THis issue is universal in the mod, and is not only a case with Armenia.

I think, that levied spearmen should be given a lethality of 0.1 with damage of 9-11. and the more trained swordsmen given a lithality of 0.123 with damage of 10-13

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?

---

The Roman tactic was to keep a very close formation and get very close to the enemy, thus they would not have been able to use spears efficiently.

They didn't conquer so much because they were big or tough or because they had uber weapons or because they had shiny helmets. THEY WON because of their TACTICS and DISCIPLINE and also due to the detrimental state of most of their opponents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

But most of the Romani stats are screwed, now. The awesome and professional Roman Legions from EB 0.81 have turned into a bunch of weaklings, and that includes the Cohors Evocata. Their attack wasn't upgraded to reflect the new balance changes, and their defense even got lower. Now I'm having to trouble to defeat a bunch of hoplites with a Cohors Evocata!

---

so why dont u go into the EDU and change them? i did that for .81 with the antesignani...... and a few other units

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them.

---

And I get tired of people saying this kind of thing when all we want is more realistic stats for the Romani faction. I'm not a "Roman fanboy" by the way, I am an "Ancient world fanboy". I love playing as KH, AS, Carthage and Baktria. When I play against Rome I want it to be a challenge to defeat them. When I play as them I want them to have the stats they deserve. I'll say it again: EB 0.81 seems to have been more balanced, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them. Just in case, i'll say this: the Romans were NOT super mega fighters 1 on 1. They were inferior to most Celts or Germanics in that matter. Their strength lied in their tactics, not their big muscles. See?

If you take 250 Roman legionaries and pit them against a phalanx of 250 man on even ground then i would put my money on the phalanx...

---

Asking for balance doesn't make people Roman fanboys. The fanboys would just stay with vanilla RTW and love it.

I for one don't see the reason why Cohors Evocata are almost exactly the same as Cohors Reformata, yet cost substantially more. You'd think veterans would have better morale and perhaps slightly better melee fighting skills.

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.

---

Actually if the Macedonian kings of the time knew how to use the war machine passed down by Phillip the Romans would have failed to conquer Greece and thus remain restrained in the West and away from rich Eastern ports and markets.

Both battles of Pidna and Cynoscephalae are masterpieces of mistakes by the Macedonian side. Plus, the phalangites were consisted of untrained men since wars had reduced the trained and professional phezetairoi.

It was Rome's brilliant organisation skills and political system that allowed it to outlast the Carthaginians and defeat the Greeks. After that, the rest of the opponents were "barbarians" that might be brave but fought without having studied the art of war as every seasoned Roman, Greek, Carthaginian general had.

People seem to mix up a couple of things. I guess I'll be among them. Still:

-The Romans extensively used auxilia; ever though of what they got for equipment?
-The Romans extensively used local peoples to do the job for them
-The Romans had a bit of a Red Army mentality: "if the first 20,000 can't do it; we'll send in another 50,000" ... "and if that doesn't work -ouch- let's call upon anoth 50,000 or so". It's how they defeated Hannibal in the end; it's how they conquered Spain.
-By the time the Romans get going their neighbours have been seriously weakened due to infighting. In fact the only empire to draw upon equal resources they faced was Carthage. It's how they acquired Greece (mind you, the independent city states invited them to), it's how they massacred Gaul.

And when the Romans face a serious opponent: what does history teach us? Oh, yeah they get whipped pretty badly: ask Crassus how his newfound riches tasted. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

People seem to mix up a couple of things. I guess I'll be among them. Still:

-The Romans extensively used auxilia; ever though of what they got for equipment?
-The Romans extensively used local peoples to do the job for them
-The Romans had a bit of a Red Army mentality: "if the first 20,000 can't do it; we'll send in another 50,000" ... "and if that doesn't work -ouch- let's call upon anoth 50,000 or so". It's how they defeated Hannibal in the end; it's how they conquered Spain.
-By the time the Romans get going their neighbours have been seriously weakened due to infighting. In fact the only empire to draw upon equal resources they faced was Carthage. It's how they acquired Greece (mind you, the independent city states invited them to), it's how they massacred Gaul.

And when the Romans face a serious opponent: what does history teach us? Oh, yeah they get whipped pretty badly: ask Crassus how his newfound riches tasted. ~;)

---

I don't know, Pyrrhos was regarded as a magnificent general but was only barely able to defeat camillan Roman legions, at proverbially great cost.

But true, the Roman legions should not really be superior to Hellenic armies. Their stats should just match them; this would simulate how the phalanxes were perhaps slightly better on level ground while the legion was more versatile and suited to rougher ground. (since the RTW engine can't simulate all the effects of terrain properly).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mighty_rome

And I get tired of people saying this kind of thing when all we want is more realistic stats for the Romani faction. I'm not a "Roman fanboy" by the way, I am an "Ancient world fanboy". I love playing as KH, AS, Carthage and Baktria. When I play against Rome I want it to be a challenge to defeat them. When I play as them I want them to have the stats they deserve. I'll say it again: EB 0.81 seems to have been more balanced, in my opinion.

---

And i assume you have fought the new reformed legions extensively in your 1.0 campaigns to come to such decision? :laugh:

Seriously, to those who claim not to be fanboys, why do you keep ignoring the explanations given as to why the Romans shouldn't have so high stats?
And: have you actually tested the units in battle rather than just taking the OP's word for it?

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Yet, stats are too high.

---

I think you misunderstood...spear units get -4 (off of the shown attack number) against sword-armed infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantu

I think you misunderstood...spear units get -4 (off of the shown attack number) against sword-armed infantry.

---

they put that kind of comments on /ignore...

While I don't want my Romans to turn into uber 1337 killing machines, I'm also wondering why the Evocati are barely better than the average dude.
Atm, they are clearly not worth the money (though I still hire them, just for the hell of it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

But true, the Roman legions should not really be superior to Hellenic armies. Their stats should just match them; this would simulate how the phalanxes were perhaps slightly better on level ground while the legion was more versatile and suited to rougher ground. (since the RTW engine can't simulate all the effects of terrain properly).

---

They do, you know. All the pike phalanxes have a jolly -4 penalty in forests, "short spear" phalanxes like Iphicrateans -3; no Roman sword infantry have a worse forest penalty than -2, on top of which even the early Hastati have substantially higher hand-to-hand values than any but elite phalangites.

For some numbers, Pezzies have sword skill 9 with 0.13 lethality (pretty standard for xiphos), armour 10, defense skill 6 and shield value 5. In comparision Camillian Hastati, the very bottom of the Roman heavy infantry ladder, have sword skill 11 (with 0.1 lethality, typical of most shortswords), armour 5, defense skill 9 and shield value 4... plus pila, much freer movement, and something like half the cost. (Smaller units though.) Polybian ones upgrade lethality to 0.13 (ie. gladius hispaniensis), armour to 7 and have 2 point higher morale.

Cohortes reformata for their part have attack skill 12, armour 10 and still 2 points higher base morale than the Polybian Hastati... although their price tag largely matches the Pezzies too.

In conclusion, if the Romans can force battle in woods not only will the trees help screw up the physical cohesion of the phalanx, the Latins with their little pig-stickers will eat the Hellenics alive if and when they can get up close and personal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...

---

In all fairness though, there's a whole lot of consistency issues in some units' armour values (shields are more debatable). And don't get me started on the movement speeds.

Although, as it goes, I don't think too many of the Romani units have such issues. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

And i assume you have fought the new reformed legions extensively in your 1.0 campaigns to come to such decision? :laugh:

Seriously, to those who claim not to be fanboys, why do you keep ignoring the explanations given as to why the Romans shouldn't have so high stats?
And: have you actually tested the units in battle rather than just taking the OP's word for it?

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...

---

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. You're wrong, and I also have to say that I don't appreciate your attitude. I haven't seen any satisfactory explanations yet, probably because there aren't any; the late Romani units are underpowered whether you want to admit it or not. You certainly don't.

You're obviously "anti-Romani" so I'll consider any further comments you make to this thread irrelevant.

romani in 0.81 were way too powerful. almost every core infantry unit was an elite, yet costed as much as a regular unit. there was no incentive for the player to use regional troops, especially once the marian era expanded the recruitment range of legionaires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mighty_rome

I haven't seen any satisfactory explanations yet, probably because there aren't any; the late Romani units are underpowered whether you want to admit it or not.

---

Underpowered ? Where ? If you ask me they're pretty much exactly what they were historically: disciplined professional grunts, well trained to fight in a certain (quite flexible) tactical system, solidly but not exceptionally equipped.

They were never all-around supersoldiers; the Roman commanders worth their salt knew it, and plugged the various gaps in their expertise with auxiliary specialists as well as padding out the by economic necessity somewhat low numbers with allies and auxiliaries. Properly deployed and commanded by a leader up to the task they certainly won wars often enough, but also often enough entire sections of a line might collapse in a rout and/or the Roman armies have to conduct bitter fighting retreats back to friendly territory. Green, inexperienced troops weren't ultimately that much better than anyone elses' (what now often noticeably better equipped than the rank-and-file of most other armies), and tended to need the example of grizzled veterans or the personal attentions of a respected commander to not turn tail in a tight spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

They do, you know. All the pike phalanxes have a jolly -4 penalty in forests, "short spear" phalanxes like Iphicrateans -3; no Roman sword infantry have a worse forest penalty than -2, on top of which even the early Hastati have substantially higher hand-to-hand values than any but elite phalangites.

For some numbers, Pezzies have sword skill 9 with 0.13 lethality (pretty standard for xiphos), armour 10, defense skill 6 and shield value 5. In comparision Camillian Hastati, the very bottom of the Roman heavy infantry ladder, have sword skill 11 (with 0.1 lethality, typical of most shortswords), armour 5, defense skill 9 and shield value 4... plus pila, much freer movement, and something like half the cost. (Smaller units though.) Polybian ones upgrade lethality to 0.13 (ie. gladius hispaniensis), armour to 7 and have 2 point higher morale.

Cohortes reformata for their part have attack skill 12, armour 10 and still 2 points higher base morale than the Polybian Hastati... although their price tag largely matches the Pezzies too.

In conclusion, if the Romans can force battle in woods not only will the trees help screw up the physical cohesion of the phalanx, the Latins with their little pig-stickers will eat the Hellenics alive if and when they can get up close and personal.

---

Yeah, I haven't said anything definite about the basic cohorts either, basically because it would take some more extensive playtesting than I have to figure out if the cohorts are balanced right or not.

But I can still look at the regular cohorts and the evocati and plainly see that evocati need higher stats, since they cost a lot more than regular cohorts; right now all you get for the price hike is a better missile attack - every other stat is exactly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...

---

Well then explain to me why evocati, reenlisted veterans, have the same stats as regular cohorts on every point except missile attack. It would make more sense to me if they got perhaps a point in either defense skill or melee attack, and some higher morale.

Granted, I'd at least amp the skills and morale of the Evocati a bit. Whatever else they may be, they're also veterans who have served a full stint and voluntarily re-enlisted. Fighting is a motor skill; once learned such are never actually forgotten, and as Legionary vets AFAIK normally became farmers after honorary discharge it could be argued the fellows cannot be claimed to have gone wholly without exercise in the meantime.

And, of course, grizzled veteran volunteers who have more likely than not "seen the elephant", as it were sometimes quite literally, should of course be noticeably more confident about combat than fresh newbies.

Of course, age and any injuries suffered over the years count too...

~:mad . another thread about "weakling" romans and "conan" barbarians with "achilles" greeks.:wall:
How the hell romans won battles being outnumbered 1:4 or more and being such a weaklings, while UBER-SUPER-MEGA greeks and gauls with UBER-SUPER-MEGA spears always was in loosers???
(perhaps they were led by AI-captains:thinking: )

Just as always in such discussions, anti-roman guys (eb team) curve their line about this ^^crap, and even if here, right now roman veteran show them how he can easily beat almost every barbarian, they will say that barbarian won.:whip:

Anyway if I had a time, I would completely redone all stats.
:gah:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

I don't know, Pyrrhos was regarded as a magnificent general but was only barely able to defeat camillan Roman legions, at proverbially great cost.

But true, the Roman legions should not really be superior to Hellenic armies. Their stats should just match them; this would simulate how the phalanxes were perhaps slightly better on level ground while the legion was more versatile and suited to rougher ground. (since the RTW engine can't simulate all the effects of terrain properly).

---

All the points I was going to make have been made. But I think we're getting off-topic. I want to see a explanation of the gameplay in .8 and why the changes in the gameplay were necessary in 1.0. All we're doing mostly is measuring our phalluses here, comparing stats and historical knowledge. How does what happened in history related to gameplay and having fun?

Regarding my quote, with Pyrrhus, he lost because the terrain(woods, hills) he fought his pitched battles in were not suited to his heavy infantry and more numerous calvary. Also his elephants were used against him being scared by flaming spiked carts and velites.

Really in the battles with Pyrrhus, the Hellenistic army lost because the Romans had started using tactics rather than the individual strengths of its soldiers. Originally, the Romans had tried to defeat the phalanx by charging right at it in a bloody attempt to close the distance and chop off the spear points. Instead they made use of the ground to disrupt the line, flanked vulnerable units, and disrupted the line with pila.

Well, other than the evocata/reformata discussion, this thread has not shown any evidence for the positions of those fans who find the romans to be underpowered.

I will state again, we have a stat system which applies bonuses across the board. We feel that this allows for the best balancing. For those who disagree, unless you can throw up some evidence that shows that roman soldiers were superior swordsmen, brave as a bear or that their armour was made out of some incredible alloy, your complaints will bear no fruit and will only frustrate the EB team.

If anyone ever starts making ad hominen attacks against our team (Charge I am looking at you) I will start deleting posts. It is neither fair nor true that we have an anti-roman bias. That you feel that the romans are underpowered is serves just as much as proof of your pro-roman bias. Unless evidence starts coming quick and fast I will start thinking about locking this thread as I have no doubt that it will develop into a name-calling match.

I realise that Blank's comment was out of line and I will speak to him about it, but if you feel that a good response to his accusation of fanboy-ism is to accuse the exact opposite of him or any other EB member is to find oneself in a hypercritical position.

Start being civil and developing arguments, and I and the rest of the team would prefer it if you could show a bit more appreciation to EB for their efforts. We don't mind criticism, but I've been noticing a rather disrespectful attitude in how complaints have been raised. We write on a forum, but exist in the real world, so please be careful what you write as it can be misconstrued and feelings can be hurt.

Thank you,

Foot

To hard to win now with the Romans?

Sweboz stats suck compared to the Romans due to less armor and decent weaponry being availablie to them. But I love that! Because now I have to stay on my toes and find new tactics to defeat the Romans with skins of metal.

Anyways, even with this less equipment they did seem to give the Romans a run for their money in Teutoburg Wald.

The Roman stats seem fine to me as they are now. They were not super heroes. They were good fighters, all of 'em but not more so then any other (semi)proffesional troops. They won outnumbered battles because of their tactics and great generals. So if with this new stats you find yourself on the loosing end it's not because of the stats of your Cohorts but because of your skill (or lack thereof.)

I find an absurd when they say the average Roman legionary was just another ordinary soldier. Then I quote the battles Romani had with several barbarians that ended up in heroic victories against Buddica, the Parthians, and practically everyone who dared to raise their hands against the Post-Marian and Imperial legions. They keep telling: "Teutoburger Wald, Carrhae" but they ignore that Germany was just ignored later, and the victories over the Germans and their shiny barbarian infantry were just as crushing as the one against the Britons and the Parthians. Wasn't for Adrian's unwilligness to keep Parthia, and the general sense that Rome was too big, then Parthia would become a Roman province.

But no, they couldn't defeat the mighty Greeks in their shiny armour and invincible Phalanxes!

Pydna, Magnesia, etc... Just on a conquering party :P. Oh, but they didn't have a cavalry wing! Bollocks, the Romani didn't even need their cavalry wing. If a breach was ever spotted in the phalanx line, they would flood it 'till the whole line routed. The shiny Pezhetairoi wouldn't stand a chance against the 1000% more flexible Roman legion.

This case, against vastly superior barbarians, even "Naked" uber-soldiers, is the most impressive case of Rome being the master of infantry warfare. Do you think we could simulate such victory if EB was reality? No. The legionaries would probably rout, afterall they "have only be trained to raise night camps". Oh yes, and they'll give the excuse that IX Hispanica routed earlier, so watching this, we could conclude that the whole Roman army sucked and only the mass of bodies gave them victory. A mass of bodies rarely gave an effective victory... Remembers me of the Colonial armies of hundreds of men with machine guns defeating several thousand native warriors.

I do recognise that prior to the Marian Reforms, the army relied on numbers heavily. But after the Marian Reforms the legions became a professional force too expensive to be just used in superior numbers as route to victory. And then, the Roman victories on the field even prior to the Marian Reforms show a highly disciplined and effective force that was quite the opposite of today's EB legionaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charge

. another thread about "weakling" romans and "conan" barbarians with "achilles" greeks.
How the hell romans won battles being outnumbered 1:4 or more and being such a weaklings, while UBER-SUPER-MEGA greeks and gauls with UBER-SUPER-MEGA spears always was in loosers???
(perhaps they were led by AI-captains )

Just as always in such discussions, anti-roman guys (eb team) curve their line about this ^^crap, and even if here, right now roman veteran show them how he can easily beat almost every barbarian, they will say that barbarian won.

Anyway if I had a time, I would completely redone all stats.

---

It's imo very unfair to call the EB-team anti-roman. Some of the most knowledgeable men on ancient Rome that I know reside here. -Zaknafien comes to mind but there are others as well- and I'm sure they aren't biased against Rome. As a matter of fact it's one of the most complete factions of the game -though they're all complete now.
It's just nonsense to state that the Roman soldier would in any way be better than his Greek or Gallic counterpart. Mostly it was reverse. The Gallic society was based largely on warriors and individual honor. It can't be a great suprise then that their soldiers were individually beter than Romans. They were larger, trained with better melee-equipment, some might be called champions...
Whilst the strength of Rome lied in its legions, its organisation. Arguably it was the best the world knew at that time. Capable as a force to withstand the falanx -when they had learned its weaknesses and to withstand the charge of gallic warriors who mostly didn't use any tactics.
If the Romans won against greater numbers it was mostly due to their tactics and organisation, but when the enemy had organised itself, Rome's victories were less obvious...

Quote:

---

Really in the battles with Pyrrhus, the Hellenistic army lost because the Romans had started using tactics rather than the individual strengths of its soldiers. Originally, the Romans had tried to defeat the phalanx by charging right at it in a bloody attempt to close the distance and chop off the spear points. Instead they made use of the ground to disrupt the line, flanked vulnerable units, and disrupted the line with pila.

---

The funny thing is that I didn't need more powerful Phalanxes to use tactics. Phalangitai always beat superior foes from the front, in EB 0.81. I find it a fallacy to say that we didn't need tactics as the Romani earlier: on the contrary, they had the balance to be competent, not uber, soldiers, and they wouldn't defeat a phalanx from the front. It was all great back in EB 0.8, regardless if you were Makedonian, Romani, or whatever. Now, however, Spearmen have been getting too many bonuses.

Looks like the thread is degenerating into a shouting match :no:

Anyway, I have confidence that the EB team is working to present as historical units as possible, including the combat performance. Especially now that members have agreed that the evocati may need to be looked at. Keep up the good work :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Now, however, Spearmen have been getting too many bonuses.

---

You mean like the -4 or so the "spear" attributes give when fighting infantry ? And IIRC my reading on the topic, the "light_spear" one - which each and every spearman in EB now has - penalized defense... :inquisitive:

I feel very sorry for the hassle of the 1.0 release. But I think I have understood the lesson? in order to not cause so much problems to people when you release a mediocre mod like EB we will surely stop to make public release on RTW and keep all the EB2 work for ourselves.
It's a good idea I think, because people won't have to suffer for our ugly skins anti roman bias and stupid stats.

Again I apologize for the release of 1.0 I sincerely hope that un-installing such a botched work won't take people to much of their time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

And when the Romans face a serious opponent: what does history teach us? Oh, yeah they get whipped pretty badly: ask Crassus how his newfound riches tasted. ~;)

---

Crassus failed to get archers and skirmisher cavalry from the area. It wasn't the fact that they were facing a serious opponent it's the fact that he failed to plan properly.

The armies may not of been elites like the other factions had BUT they still generally had better training than other militia of the day. Although it did generally take them a while to get properly effective as a fighting force, the almost continuous fighting Rome took part in allowed a lot of men to see active service and a good portion of them that service lasted a good while, especially when they started to lessen the requirements for service in the army and many men started to see it as a career.

We know that the Romans were not supermen but even when they faced spear armed opponents they almost always came out on top. In a phalanx formation the spear is a lot more difficult to wield than a short sword, it has been shown that when you are in a phalanx, you don't aim for the man in front of you, you aim for the man to the left and depending on the length of the spear you're wielding, to the man the left and one behind, which gave the Romans an advantage.

Personally the balance in 0.81 was fantastic, granted the legions were a challenge but were by no means invisible, especially against cavalry. As a Roman player, if i were playing an MP battle i'd damn near wet myself if i failed the defeat their cavalry because i knew how fast my guys would rout from a cavalry blow, now i have to worry about some average hoplite turning one of my flanks before the cavalry even get involved. This has nothing to do with being a bad player, anyone who has faced me before will attest to me being good, this generally has to do with the balance being thrown out the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charge

~:mad . another thread about "weakling" romans and "conan" barbarians with "achilles" greeks.:wall:
How the hell romans won battles being outnumbered 1:4 or more and being such a weaklings, while UBER-SUPER-MEGA greeks and gauls with UBER-SUPER-MEGA spears always was in loosers???
(perhaps they were led by AI-captains:thinking: )

Just as always in such discussions, anti-roman guys (eb team) curve their line about this ^^crap, and even if here, right now roman veteran show them how he can easily beat almost every barbarian, they will say that barbarian won.:whip:

Anyway if I had a time, I would completely redone all stats.
:gah:

---

eh....first of all chill out.

Some battle statistics.

Roman-Hellenic battles:

a)Battle of Thermopylae (191 BC)

Romans: 20,000 infantry, 2000 horse, unknown but small number of elephants
Seleucids: 10,000 infantry, 500 horse, some allies (unknown number)

b)Battle of Magnesia

Romans:43,000 Romans + 6,000 Greeks, 5,000 horse, 16 elephants
Seleucids: 26,000 infantry (16,000 semi professionals) + 3,000 Galatians, 12,000 horse, 56 elephants

c)Battle of Heraclea

Romans: 30,000 plus unknown auxilia
Epirots: estimated 30,000-35,000

d)Battle of Asculum (279 BC)

Romans:20,000 +Dauni allies
Epirots:Not exact numbers, but considered equally numbered

e)Battle of Cynoscephalae

Romans: 32,500-33,400
Macedonians: 25,500

f)Battle of Pydna

Romans: 33,400 infantry, around 4,000 horse, 22 elephants
Macedonians: 44,000 infantry (21,000 phalangites), around 4,000 cavalry

This is for the 4:1 you mentioned against the "achilles" Greeks

Roman-Gallic

I couldn't find accurate numbers with a quick search so, I won't post them. Caesar tended to exaggerate the enemy forces so they are debatable. However, apart from Alesia, I have not found 4:1 overwhelming odds.

Punic Wars

First

a)Battle of Tunis (defeat)

Romans:15,000 Infantry, 500 Cavalry
Carthaginians: 12,000 Infantry, 4,000 Cavalry, 100 Elephants

b)Battle of Agrigentum
Romans: 40,000
Carthaginians: 50,000

c)Battle of Adys

Romans:15,000 Infantry, 500 Cavalry
Carth: 5,000+ Infantry, 500 Cavalry and unknown number of elephants

Second

a)Battle of Cannae (deafeat)

Romans:86,400–87,000 men
Carths: 40,000 heavy infantry, 6,000 light infantry, 8,000 cavalry

b)Battle of Capua (212 BC) (defeat)

Romans:8 Legions, approximately 40,000
Carths:approximately 2000 Numidians plus Capuan allies

c)Battle of Cissa

Romans:20,000 infantry, 2,200 cavalry
Carthies: 10,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry

d)Battle of Geronium (draw)

Romans:4 legions + 4 in reserve
Carthies: 36,000

e)Battle of Cornus

Romans:20,000 infantry (2 Roman and 2 Allied Legions), 1,200 cavalry
Carthies:15,000 infantry,1,500 cavalry +Sardinians (?) + Elephants (?)

f)Battle of Dertosa

Romans:30,000 infantry, 3,000 cavalry
Carthies:25,000 infantry,4,000 cavalry, 20 Elephants

g)Battle of Herdonia (210 BC) (defeat)

Romans: 20,000
Carthies: 30,000


etc, etc

You get the point. I don't know about imperial Rome but in the times of the Republic, I find only its stubbornness and diplomacy impressive. The military is average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spendios

I feel very sorry for the hassle of the 1.0 release. But I think I have understood the lesson? in order to not cause so much problems to people when you release a mediocre mod like EB we will surely stop to make public release on RTW and keep all the EB2 work for ourselves.
It's a good idea I think, because people won't have to suffer for our ugly skins anti roman bias and stupid stats.

Again I apologize for the release of 1.0 I sincerely hope that un-installing such a botched work won't take people to much of their time.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decimus Attius Arbiter

All the points I was going to make have been made. But I think we're getting off-topic. I want to see a explanation of the gameplay in .8 and why the changes in the gameplay were necessary in 1.0. All we're doing mostly is measuring our phalluses here, comparing stats and historical knowledge. How does what happened in history related to gameplay and having fun?

Regarding my quote, with Pyrrhus, he lost because the terrain(woods, hills) he fought his pitched battles in were not suited to his heavy infantry and more numerous calvary. Also his elephants were used against him being scared by flaming spiked carts and velites.

Really in the battles with Pyrrhus, the Hellenistic army lost because the Romans had started using tactics rather than the individual strengths of its soldiers. Originally, the Romans had tried to defeat the phalanx by charging right at it in a bloody attempt to close the distance and chop off the spear points. Instead they made use of the ground to disrupt the line, flanked vulnerable units, and disrupted the line with pila.

---

Well, the discussion centers around the post-Marian and Augustan soldiers.
I don't think the complaint is that Camaillian and Polybian troops are underpowered.

But it really sucks if the Roman Veteran Elites are significantly weakened to a point where they are no match for an enemy unit of levy phalangites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

It's imo very unfair to call the EB-team anti-roman. Some of the most knowledgeable men on ancient Rome that I know reside here. -Zaknafien comes to mind but there are others as well- and I'm sure they aren't biased against Rome. As a matter of fact it's one of the most complete factions of the game -though they're all complete now.
It's just nonsense to state that the Roman soldier would in any way be better than his Greek or Gallic counterpart. Mostly it was reverse. The Gallic society was based largely on warriors and individual honor. It can't be a great suprise then that their soldiers were individually beter than Romans..

---

So how does this justify the dumbing down of post-Marian Roman veteran elite units to a point where they have the same stats as some medium-tier infantry?

And the Romans fought in a coherent formation, shouldn't they at least get more morale bonuses and more armor than their Gallic counterparts? As for the Greeks, unless they were fighting elite hoplites/phalangites, most of the Greeks hoplites were still essentially farmers called out to fight.

(as for Greek mercs, the AI has a habit of spamming full stack merc armies anyways)

@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.

--------------------------------------------------------------

@mighty_rome:

Yes: the Hellenes & Carthaginians get some really powerful units. At a cost. Litteraly: the use of Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou is prohibitively expensive. And do they beat Romani Legions? No, not really. Unit by unit yes, but not mina for mina. Why? Well, they're not even half the size!

Again and again: the Romani get some of the largest units of such strength compared to any other faction. The only ones close to that are Argyraspidai; and a couple of Carthiginian units.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now let us get back on topic: spear units have been given better melee abilities; because we felt (and that has been an old, very old, very often told) complaint about previous version of EB... the spear units performed decently against cavalry; but were just horrible in melee compared to swordsmen. Which was neither "fair" (balanced) or accurate. Really I'd like people to reconsider this: spearmen fighting in formation, sticking to formation, making good use of their shields & spears are the ancient equivalent of this: http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgur...%3Dnl%26sa%3DN

With humans instead of plants going in; but the end result was pretty much the same regardless. Very crude I know; still that's what they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

Well, the discussion centers around the post-Marian and Augustan soldiers.
I don't think the complaint is that Camaillian and Polybian troops are underpowered.

But it really sucks if the Roman Veteran Elites are significantly weakened to a point where they are no match for an enemy unit of levy phalangites.

---

Waitaminnit... Elite? No, not really. Veterans, yes. Let's separate those words and then reconsider what you say... What on earth do you do with those veterans that makes them run from the first unit of levy phalangitai? Really that must be some horrible tactics: what you mean you simply charge right at the pointy sticks?

Seriously though: you do see that what you've written isn't exactly true, nor fair?

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

@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?

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.

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.

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)

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:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

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:

---

p.s No I didn't do it... but I'll be doing something like it soon though. i am now INSPIRED!

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 :).