Polybian Reform

Sorry for all the reform questions, but why is it that the majority of the time the roman units get weaker with this reform?

I saw that the defensive stat went up for the hastati but it lost points on its missile attack and melee attack. Principes lose 4 points in attack and a point in missile but go up in defense and are expensive than their camilian counterparts, triarii go down in everything including price, and the skirmishers go down 1 in melee and up in defense.
Can you explain the overly drop in stats? I understand that the defense is going up as they learn how to combat the enemy better but why lose so much offensively?

For the Principes, they go from using spears to using a sword. The EB team has raised the attack of spears +4 to negate the -4 penalty that spear units get vs infantry

Are you drunk? (it is friday after all)
The polybian principes are far better than the camillan principes. They get 11 sword attack instead of 14 spear attack, with the same lethality. Better against infantry, worse against cavalry - pretty much the same overall IMO.
Then they get 3 more armor, and a bit higher mass. Their morale is boosted from 12 to 14, and finally they cost 22 mnai less in upkeep.

The hastati get 2 more armor, a serious increase in lethality (0.1 to 0.13) and some morale, in return for a modest increase in cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Are you drunk? (it is friday after all)
The polybian principes are far better than the camillan principes. They get 11 sword attack instead of 14 spear attack, with the same lethality. Better against infantry, worse against cavalry - pretty much the same overall IMO.
Then they get 3 more armor, and a bit higher mass. Their morale is boosted from 12 to 14, and finally they cost 22 mnai less in upkeep.

The hastati get 2 more armor, a serious increase in lethality (0.1 to 0.13) and some morale, in return for a modest increase in cost.

---

Not everyone is as smart as you. Think about it, to most people, Camilan principes get 3 higher attack, same morale, are better against cavalry, and cost less at a glance. His question is completely legitimate.

Sakkura is right. However, you might want to study the export_descr_unit file more before asking questions such, soibean, lest you wish to face the taunts of those who enjoy being cruel to newbies.

well I didnt check the lethality and was curious about the difference, just thought Id throw it out there without being pounded for wondering

i noticed only the EQUITES get weaker, cmon man their armour looks cooler but their stats are worse by 2 armour!

Is there a thread or article that explains all this hidden stats stuff?

I enjoy winging it with just a decent idea of what each troop type does rather than studying stats but it would be good if there was somewhere that explained what all the numbers mean.

I didn't mean to sound that hostile. I just assumed he had checked the unit cards and noticed the difference there; and it should show the Polybian hastati and principes as good upgrades over their Camillan counterparts, even if you don't know about the spear penalty. I guess I was wrong, so I'm sorry about that. :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

I didn't mean to sound that hostile. I just assumed he had checked the unit cards and noticed the difference there; and it should show the Polybian hastati and principes as good upgrades over their Camillan counterparts, even if you don't know about the spear penalty. I guess I was wrong, so I'm sorry about that. :oops:

---

I was a probably a little harsh too due to some bad expieriences I've had in the past...sorry about that.

Quote:

---

Is there a thread or article that explains all this hidden stats stuff?

---

I checked the FAQ, it wasn't in there. I agree that there should be something tho.

Export_descr_unit has a description of all its elements in the top of the file.

You're probably comparing a unit of Camillian hastati with experience chevrons to a freshly recruited unit of Polybian hastati with no chevrons...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

You're probably comparing a unit of Camillian hastati with experience chevrons to a freshly recruited unit of Polybian hastati with no chevrons...

---

No, he is not (I'm pretty sure at least:laugh4:) because first thing I did when I installed EB 1.0 was to check Roman Hastati, Principes and Triarii, Romans being my favorites.

I once asked a question about Camillan\Polybian in 0.81aV2 because it seemed to me back then that we were paying more for not much more with the Reform and I was answered that Romans Camillan\Polybian infantry's stats were to be redone.

The results are really really good in my IMHO. The team used very well those "hidden" attributes such as moral, lethality and mass to represented increased in units cohesion and efficiency and not just increase in the skills of each individual warriors.

Well done guys :2thumbsup:

I think the reforms are a mixed blessing.

Spear armed principes are rather useful against cav and probably are not much worse against infantry; I guess you still have the triari, but I tend to keep them in reserve.

And I'd rather keep the levees than take velites. Again, the spears are useful against cav in a pinch, plus the velite's puny dagger lethality makes them less useful for flank charges when they are out of ammo.

I have a vague recollection that the triari get less armoured, as do the equites (both exchanging breastplates for chain IIRC).

While I am at, the Marian and Imperial reforms are also underwhelming - the legions are almost identical to Polybian principes IIRC. This may be an accurate reflection on their equipment but I would have thought there was a difference in the "soft factors". At some point (opinion seems divided on whether it was the Marian or Imperial reform), the Roman infantry moved more from being a militia type organisation to something effectively professional. I guess experience chevrons might catch that, but I would have expected a bit more of it to show up in the stats.

in my experience the polybian reforms are better than the soldiers available during the camillian reforms. i have to admit ive never actually played past polybian, but as far as i can remember the polybian troops have more morale, and were my personal favourites in comparison to the camillan soldiers.

I have to admit I find the velites a little underwhelming, the levees have always seemed some of the best skirmishers to me, for the simple reason that they can at least put up a fight against their worst enemies, whereas Velites fold in seconds against light cav.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I think the reforms are a mixed blessing.

While I am at, the Marian and Imperial reforms are also underwhelming - the legions are almost identical to Polybian principes IIRC. This may be an accurate reflection on their equipment but I would have thought there was a difference in the "soft factors". At some point (opinion seems divided on whether it was the Marian or Imperial reform), the Roman infantry moved more from being a militia type organisation to something effectively professional. I guess experience chevrons might catch that, but I would have expected a bit more of it to show up in the stats.

---

Post Marian legionnaries have +1 to defence, attack and morale, compared to Polybian principes. They also can form testudo formation, have good stamina and they come in units of 100+2 men, compared to 80+2 principes. They are definitely better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

I guess I was wrong, so I'm sorry about that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWFanatic

I was a probably a little harsh too due to some bad expieriences I've had in the past...sorry about that.

---

Aw, they made up... lol!
Sorry, couldn't help saying that...
:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revenant

Post Marian legionnaries have +1 to defence, attack and morale, compared to Polybian principes. They also can form testudo formation, have good stamina and they come in units of 100+2 men, compared to 80+2 principes. They are definitely better.

---

True, but you have to count in the price as well.

Cohors Reformata cost 543 upkeep, which is 5.32 per man.
Polybian Principes cost 342 upkeep, which is 4.17 per man.

So you get something better at a noticeably higher price. It's a decent upgrade, but not a huge difference. In contrast, the upgrade from Camillan to Polybian is a major improvement for both hastati and (especially) principes, IMHO.

not on Huge. :laugh4:

Why not?

The main problem with EB .82's Roman reforms is that they made the Polybian Triari much weaker than the Camillan Triari, while still costing more to recruit and upkeep. Glad they fixed this problem.

The Polybian Reforms give a very large boost to Principes, Hastati, and Skirmishers, but leave Triarii about the same and turn Equites into a laughing stock (more so than before).

THe Marian Reforms, though, are really more of a joke than anything else.
Cohors Reformata and Polybian Principes are pretty much identical, except Principes look cooler. For the upkeep of three Cohors Reformata you could maintain 5 Principes, which I would say would be far more useful, despite the "bonuses" that they recieve.
The other incentives for these reforms were the Antesignani and Cohors Evocata, Evocata are pathetic now. Their stats are identical to Cohors Reformata, and they are more expensive. Antesignani are good, but are so few their stats just cannot compete. Seriously, their armor is 26, but all the other factions micro-elites have either huge armor (like Sacred Band, Hypaspitai, etc.), huge lethality (Thraikoi Rhomphaiaora, Kluddargos, etc.), or great bonuses to your troops (Druids, Pictone Neitos, etc.).

Who wants to bet that a unit of Antesignani would lose to any one of those?
The Augustan Reforms are the same. The only difference is that you can recruit Praetorians in the one place that will never be attacked, and have three mediocre auxiliaries to fight for you.

Frankly I think that the Marian Augustan stats should have been left the same, rather than have them hit with a nerf hammer.

The Cohors Reformata aren't worse than Polybian Principes. They cost 28% more per man, but you get 1 more defense, 1 more attack, 1 more morale plus good stamina and the testudo formation for that money. Plus, you get to recruit them all over the place instead of only in Italy, which I would say is a pretty damn big improvement.
Remember, the Romans didn't all of a sudden become UBAR-1337 when the Marian reforms happened. A big part of their conquests happened before then.

This topic has already been beaten to death. Yes, the Roman's stats have been lowered compared to EB 0.82, but after all the discussions we've had it seems the team has made the right choice.

The average Roman soldier wasn't an 'elite' by any means, so these stats are probably more realistic. We have to remember that the Romans of this era were defeated on the field of battle many times, and it was only their stubbornness as a people that kept them afloat. They are given good but not great stats, and that is ok with me. (and just by looking at my name, I think you can see what my favorite faction is)

As I recall, the only changes that may need to be made would be to the Cohors Evocata, who do indeed seem just a tad too weak now. Maybe they could get 1 more point to defense skill and morale.

alright well that was good to find out about all the other reforms, thanks for the help guys and dont worry about interpreted hostilities.
thanks again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran_guitarra

THe Marian Reforms, though, are really more of a joke than anything else. Cohors Reformata and Polybian Principes are pretty much identical, except Principes look cooler.

---

Basically they had been Principes by equipement. The hughe difference from Polybian to Marian times is that you now get your Legions all over the world, even in places where no one else is able to recruit anything. That makes campaigning outside Italy much more easyer.

Okay, so if they are practically identical to Polybian Principes why the uber bump in ukpeep? The upgrade comes with over 40% increase in upkeep, but you only gain +20% soldiers, so what gives? It can't be because of recruitment area, because the team already said that they do not take that into account with stats and costs.

My problem with the Marian Reforms is NOT with the Cohors Reformata. My problem with them is the Cohors Evocata and Antesignani. Those are supposed to be super good and rare units, yet their stats are barely mediocre. Antesignani probably lose out to Cohors Reformata because of numbers, and Cohors Evocata get the equivalent of ONE, yes, ONE extra volley of pila from their attack bonus.
So basically your "elites" stink compared to other elites, despite supposedly being the product of over a decade of experience and training with the best military machine of the ancient world.

Oh, and Augustan Legionnaires really were elites. They were used only in the most dire situations and only consistently lost in the Civil Wars of Rome. They were capable of besting nearly any enemy who came their way, and should be shown for the badasses they were in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

Why not?

---

because instead of 80 men per unit its 160.

reducing the upkeep per man by half.

I still haven't got the Polybian reforms yet. I own all of Sicily and and am in 242BC. I'm pretty sure that the reforms should have come in by now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horst nordfink

I still haven't got the Polybian reforms yet. I own all of Sicily and and am in 242BC. I'm pretty sure that the reforms should have come in by now?

---

You have to conquer at least two of the cities in Northern Italy as well.

Yes all those things are great n' all.

But what about Polybian Triarri and Equites?

:)



The Triarii nerf makes sense, now they're just "heavy spearmen" rather than elites, and they ARE lower in price, still, it feels like you're missing something.\

Take note that just because they're "reformed" doesn't mean they're supposed to be better than their older counterparts

The only city in north Italy I don't own is Mediolanum.

But you need mediolanum :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran_guitarra

Okay, so if they are practically identical to Polybian Principes why the uber bump in ukpeep?

---

If I had made the units costs in EB, what I didn't, I had decided for higher upkeep for them too. They are mercenaries that have to be hired and garrisoned, while the Principes are a militia unit that have just to be called to arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

If I had made the units costs in EB, what I didn't, I had decided for higher upkeep for them too. They are mercenaries that have to be hired and garrisoned, while the Principes are a militia unit that have just to be called to arms.

---

They were not mercenaries. The legionaries were Roman citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

They were not mercenaries. The legionaries were Roman citizens.

---

And Roman citizens cannot be Roman mercenaries (or if you like, payed professional soldiers of the Roman army)? BTW, I didn't know that only citizens were allowed to serve in the professional Legions in our time frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

And Roman citizens cannot be Roman mercenaries (or if you like, payed professional soldiers of the Roman army)? BTW, I didn't know that only citizens were allowed to serve in the professional Legions in our time frame.

---

AFAIK the general rule was that the legions were for Roman citizens only; others could join the auxilia and gain citizenship that way.

And the definition of a mercenary is someone who goes to war in the armed forces of another nation, for profit. I suppose you might also regard someone who fights for his own nation but outside the regular army (and with profit as the main motive) as a mercenary. But that isn't the case with the Roman legion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

AFAIK the general rule was that the legions were for Roman citizens only; others could join the auxilia and gain citizenship that way.

---

Yes, your are absolutly right for our time frame. Hireing foreigners for the Legions and giving them citizenship in reward did not become a habit before the 2nd Century.

Quote:

---

And the definition of a mercenary is someone who goes to war in the armed forces of another nation, for profit.

---

That is a very modern definition of mercenary, what does not fit our time frame.

---------------------------
On the other hand, I think you had missed my point, why later Legionars should be more expensive in upkeep than Republican Legionars:

They are mercenaries that have to be hired and garrisoned, while the Principes are a militia unit that have just to be called to arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

Yes, your are absolutly right for our time frame. Hireing foreigners for the Legions and giving them citizenship in reward did not become a habit before the 2nd Century.



That is a very modern definition of mercenary, what does not fit our time frame.

---------------------------
On the other hand, I think you had missed my point, why later Legionars should be more expensive in upkeep than Republican Legionars:

They are mercenaries that have to be hired and garrisoned, while the Principes are a militia unit that have just to be called to arms.

---

If I wanted to use a historical word I would use mistophoroi or something like that. The word mercenary has a quite clear meaning in current English.

I never disagreed that Cohors Reformata should be more expensive than Principes. It was just the (IMHO unnecessary) mercenary remark that set me off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

If I wanted to use a historical word I would use mistophoroi or something like that. The word mercenary has a quite clear meaning in current English. (...) It was just the (IMHO unnecessary) mercenary remark that set me off.

---

I thought Mistophoroi is just the Greek translation of "mercenary"?


For the modern definition of mercenary, as some one fighting for a foreign land for his own benefits, we need national armies in advance. And these had not exist until the 19th Century. The overall bad image of the mercenary is a little older and comes from the 18th Century when the new standing armies tried to differentiate themselves from the previous mercenary armies. In fact the standing armies were - at least in peace times - made of the same persons that formed the back bone of their forerunners (including lots of foreigners).

Before that a mercenary was someone who joins the (any) army not because he must but because he was going for personal benifits, be it payment, plunder or imaterial things like citizenship. Which one he finally entered was very much a matter of random.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran_guitarra

The Polybian Reforms give a very large boost to Principes, Hastati, and Skirmishers, but leave Triarii about the same and turn Equites into a laughing stock (more so than before).

THe Marian Reforms, though, are really more of a joke than anything else.
Cohors Reformata and Polybian Principes are pretty much identical, except Principes look cooler. For the upkeep of three Cohors Reformata you could maintain 5 Principes, which I would say would be far more useful, despite the "bonuses" that they recieve.
The other incentives for these reforms were the Antesignani and Cohors Evocata, Evocata are pathetic now. Their stats are identical to Cohors Reformata, and they are more expensive. Antesignani are good, but are so few their stats just cannot compete. Seriously, their armor is 26, but all the other factions micro-elites have either huge armor (like Sacred Band, Hypaspitai, etc.), huge lethality (Thraikoi Rhomphaiaora, Kluddargos, etc.), or great bonuses to your troops (Druids, Pictone Neitos, etc.).

Who wants to bet that a unit of Antesignani would lose to any one of those?
The Augustan Reforms are the same. The only difference is that you can recruit Praetorians in the one place that will never be attacked, and have three mediocre auxiliaries to fight for you.

Frankly I think that the Marian Augustan stats should have been left the same, rather than have them hit with a nerf hammer.

---

They use "stuborness" as an excuse for "individual weakness".

"Oh so the Romans were so weak, they lost in Teutoburger Wald, they didn't train very much, it's all propaganda. It's because they're stubborn, not because of their amazing discipline and heavy training. It's all a lie."

Give me a break. They use even petty excuses to weaken the Romans, including the infantry elites; one unit many never heard of gets lots of bonuses, oh yes, they were uber, perfect, while the Romani with all their feats of discipline and force in the battlefield get nothing. They just don't stop quoting Roman losses, yet their military achievements far overshadowed these losses, and that's why they built a big Empire. I remember when I discussed about this, and all I got were "Alexander's superior to Caesar" to read. When you're fighting against a decadent Empire with an army made of fresh, light levies and only small elites, that's what you get. And a more favourable political situation, where you don't have a Senate to keep plotting against you when you're away, too.

Stubborness was never an excuse for weak troops. Weak troops never win a war.

Oh yes, the Greeks, who lost several battles against the Romans repeatedly, they were "stronger". It was all due to stupidity and tactical mistakes, but they were stronger; they keep yelling Arausio, and forget about Magnesia. If we analize, both were tactical mistakes, but of course when a Greek loses a battle, then it's nothing. But when a Roman loses a battle, it's always an excuse to tell they were weak.

I could keep complaining about how pikes are overpowered and killing too fast, and how a few Successor units manage to kill a lot of foes, how the Successor armies are overpowered, but of course it's all a part of the game. "They were strong", "don't question our godly words". I even tried to reach a compromise, but...

But wait, RTR 7 is coming. EB is great, but RTR has improved gameplay combined with impartial realism, not an anti-whatever bias and mostly cosmetic improvements. EB is great for that bookish feeling, but when I want to play Rome Total War I go for other mods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

I thought Mistophoroi is just the Greek translation of "mercenary"?


For the modern definition of mercenary, as some one fighting for a foreign land for his own benefits, we need national armies in advance. And these had not exist until the 19th Century. The overall bad image of the mercenary is a little older and comes from the 18th Century when the new standing armies tried to differentiate themselves from the previous mercenary armies. In fact the standing armies were - at least in peace times - made of the same persons that formed the back bone of their forerunners (including lots of foreigners).

Before that a mercenary was someone who joins the (any) army not because he must but because he was going for personal benifits, be it payment, plunder or imaterial things like citizenship. Which one he finally entered was very much a matter of random.

---

Yeah, just like Viking is Norse for raider/trader. Point is to use a different term when you mean something different than the usual. You could say something like "mercenary in the classical sense" instead if you prefer.
When you just say mercenary without any qualification, one must assume you mean mercenary according to the regular definition.

Why does everyone keep unstinting that units are weak or strong without using them? The Cohors Reformata are pretty damn tough. They have good armor, well above average attack and defense skill, and come in a big unit. The Cohors Evocata got overnerfed in 1.0, they're getting fixed in 1.1. The Antesignani are a lighter infantry than regular legionaries, they serve a different battlefield role.

Quote:

---

Oh, and Augustan Legionnaires really were elites. They were used only in the most dire situations and only consistently lost in the Civil Wars of Rome. They were capable of besting nearly any enemy who came their way, and should be shown for the badasses they were in the game.

---

This one is just pretty crazy. A) They're damn tough and come in a big unit. B) They're not a small group of crack elite troops, that's just not in line with the actual history. For the backbone unit of an army there's nothing better in EB though (the only thing that comes close in the Cohors Reformata in fact), which is accurate I think. The strength of the Romans in EB (especially Marian and later), and I would argue that this mirrors the history, is not their small units of crack elites, but their large number of very good core troops.

Which is exactly why there were only 28 Legions and the 2 Praetorian Legions during the high period.

The Legions were only called out to deal with massive threats and nearly always acquited themselves well. Their discipline, training, and psychological advantages were massive, and they were truly the envy of the world.


I mentioned that Cohors Reformata were just fine by me. My problem was twofold:

Cohors Evocata were over-nerfed, but I know that is being fixed.

Antesignani. They may have been lightly armored, but they were the consequence of over a decade of experience serving under a constant state of readiness in the finest military machine of the ancient world. Frankly they do not match up to their counterparts, despite the fact that they were among the best troops of the classical world.

Frankly the stats for the Marian and Augustan Legions were just fine the way they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

They use "stuborness" as an excuse for "individual weakness".

"Oh so the Romans were so weak, they lost in Teutoburger Wald, they didn't train very much, it's all propaganda. It's because they're stubborn, not because of their amazing discipline and heavy training. It's all a lie."

Give me a break. They use even petty excuses to weaken the Romans, including the infantry elites; one unit many never heard of gets lots of bonuses, oh yes, they were uber, perfect, while the Romani with all their feats of discipline and force in the battlefield get nothing. They just don't stop quoting Roman losses, yet their military achievements far overshadowed these losses, and that's why they built a big Empire. I remember when I discussed about this, and all I got were "Alexander's superior to Caesar" to read. When you're fighting against a decadent Empire with an army made of fresh, light levies and only small elites, that's what you get. And a more favourable political situation, where you don't have a Senate to keep plotting against you when you're away, too.

Stubborness was never an excuse for weak troops. Weak troops never win a war.

Oh yes, the Greeks, who lost several battles against the Romans repeatedly, they were "stronger". It was all due to stupidity and tactical mistakes, but they were stronger; they keep yelling Arausio, and forget about Magnesia. If we analize, both were tactical mistakes, but of course when a Greek loses a battle, then it's nothing. But when a Roman loses a battle, it's always an excuse to tell they were weak.

I could keep complaining about how pikes are overpowered and killing too fast, and how a few Successor units manage to kill a lot of foes, how the Successor armies are overpowered, but of course it's all a part of the game. "They were strong", "don't question our godly words". I even tried to reach a compromise, but...

But wait, RTR 7 is coming. EB is great, but RTR has improved gameplay combined with impartial realism, not an anti-whatever bias and mostly cosmetic improvements. EB is great for that bookish feeling, but when I want to play Rome Total War I go for other mods.

---

This is really uncalled for. You have repeatedly made these accusations with increasing levels of stridency and vitriol. You assert that the entire EB team is deliberately portraying the Romani in bad faith. While the idea of a "pro-Barbaro/Hellenic agenda" is amusing to consider, I have not seen it in nearly two years on the team.

On a more direct note, you seem to have taken it personally that not everybody agrees with every post you make here, and you seem quite bitter about it. I do not comprehend the level of anger I repeatedly see in your posts on an Internet message board about a computer game. If EB causes you such feelings of anger, I highly encourage you to find another, more positive outlet. I can certainly recommend RTR 7, the RTR team does excellent work and if it brings you enjoyment rather than frustration, I hope RTR 7 is the game for you. Your sources of fun should not cause you the level of anger I frequently see in your posts. It's just not healthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran_guitarra

Which is exactly why there were only 28 Legions and the 2 Praetorian Legions during the high period.

The Legions were only called out to deal with massive threats and nearly always acquited themselves well. Their discipline, training, and psychological advantages were massive, and they were truly the envy of the world.


I mentioned that Cohors Reformata were just fine by me. My problem was twofold:

Cohors Evocata were over-nerfed, but I know that is being fixed.

Antesignani. They may have been lightly armored, but they were the consequence of over a decade of experience serving under a constant state of readiness in the finest military machine of the ancient world. Frankly they do not match up to their counterparts, despite the fact that they were among the best troops of the classical world.

Frankly the stats for the Marian and Augustan Legions were just fine the way they were.

---

So your only standing complaint is with the Antesignani then? I'm happy to play test them and see how they perform the next chance I get. If they're not capable of kicking ass and taking names on a level similar to other elites then I will do my best to fix them. I will say though that I doubt the Roman team will want them to be stated in such a way that they end being used as troops of the line rather than quick and flexible skirmishers and assault troops.

Thank you very much. I doubt that Antesignani would be used as line troops because of their low numbers.
The real problem comes into play because they are suppossed to be beefed up assault troops and super skirmishers, but their stats do not compare with other factions.

Compare them with Thraikoi Peltastai (or a similarly elite skirmisher unit), or with Hypaspitai (or some such unit), and you will find that they look nowhere near as good.


If your results argue otherwise I will accept them in good faith. If you find that they reflect poorly on the Antesignani then I will ask the EB team (hopefully with your support) to alter their stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran_guitarra

Thank you very much. I doubt that Antesignani would be used as line troops because of their low numbers.

---

You'd be surprised what the AI will spam if there is too much of a disparity in stats. Or maybe not, if you've played 0.80. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran_guitarra

Thank you very much. I doubt that Antesignani would be used as line troops because of their low numbers.
The real problem comes into play because they are suppossed to be beefed up assault troops and super skirmishers, but their stats do not compare with other factions.

Compare them with Thraikoi Peltastai (or a similarly elite skirmisher unit), or with Hypaspitai (or some such unit), and you will find that they look nowhere near as good.


If your results argue otherwise I will accept them in good faith. If you find that they reflect poorly on the Antesignani then I will ask the EB team (hopefully with your support) to alter their stats.

---

Hmm, their stats seem to be fairly evenly matched with a unit like the Pheraspidai. Slightly more pricey, gain some armor but lose a tad attack and lethality. Also gain all that stamina and the hiding ability.

But compared against the hypaspistai I guess they do seem a bit less worth their expense. Hypaspistai are only marginally more expensive, but get 2 armor and 1 shield, plus a better spear and the sword attack which antesignani don't have. Of course, the hypaspistai on the other hand don't have the javelins, so that might make up much of the loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

You'd be surprised what the AI will spam if there is too much of a disparity in stats. Or maybe not, if you've played 0.80. ~:)

---

Hi2u 15 Lusotannan stormtrooper armies of death :skull:

(dosidataskeli)

Or their AS equivalent I guess, when the AS doesn't get eaten by the Ptolies and Baktria (which happened in most of my 0.81 games, hence my aversion to Lusotannan elites instead).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Plus, you get to recruit them all over the place instead of only in Italy, which I would say is a pretty damn big improvement.

---

Yep. Not much difference in one battle, but a huge difference when it comes to building an empire.