Historic Battles for EB?

[QuintusSertorius]

I've got a minor criticism on the historical battles: namely the composition of the Roman forces for Telamon, Metaurus, Cynocephalae and others. They're all-Roman, or only featuring a token allied component. Historically (and presumably at the battle in question, too) half of a Roman army was composed of allies, and not just cavalry and skirmishers.

Especially given the rich variety of allied troops available in the Romani campaign, I would have expected to see them represented amongst those armies.

[abou]

By this point in time the Italian allies would be equipped just as the Romans would have except for the Extraordinarii.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As well as the fact there's only so much you can do with 20 unit slots -> i.e. units which are too small to pass the 'rounding error' will hardly make it in (unless they were a key feature in the battle of course, such as the Elephants or Chariots...)

[QuintusSertorius]

By this point in time the Italian allies would be equipped just as the Romans would have except for the Extraordinarii.

There are several problems with that approach.

First and foremost, the sources aren't brilliantly clear on how (or if) the Italian allies were identically equipped, or to what level of homogeneity there was in arms and armour. If that were the case, it begs the question why there are Italian troops differing from Roman ones in the game at all, or at least why they don't all vanish with the Polybian "reform". I believe the EB team has done it's homework in that regard, thus you don't simply have Roman troops throughout Italy.

Secondly, there was never anything like the picture-perfect matching gear we see in the RTW engine, not with most panoplies being heirlooms passed down through the generations and repaired, cannibalised and customised by each wearer. While there isn't a lot that can be done about that within the confines of the engine itself, the variation within units nominally recruited in the same place can only highlight the likelihood of variety between units from different places.

Thirdly, have you looked at the Italian troop roster? It's not exactly wildly different to the Romans at all. Samnite Allied Medium Spearmen are very similar to Camillian Principes, and differ only in their main weapon to Polybian Hastati. Bruttian Infantry are pretty similar to Polybian Hastati and vary only in their main weapon to Camillian Principes. Samnite Heavy Infantry are a poor man's pedites extraordinarii. Campanian Cavalry were used extensively by Roman armies.

Lastly on the "numbers" issue, it really wouldn't be hard to reduce the number of hastati, principes and triarii and replace them with Italians. One battle had four each of the two former - easy switch right there.

[Eduorius]

Thirdly, have you looked at the Italian troop roster? It's not exactly wildly different to the Romans at all. Samnite Allied Medium Spearmen are very similar to Camillian Principes, and differ only in their main weapon to Polybian Hastati. Bruttian Infantry are pretty similar to Polybian Hastati and vary only in their main weapon to Camillian Principes. Samnite Heavy Infantry are a poor man's pedites extraordinarii. Campanian Cavalry were used extensively by Roman armies.

Lastly on the "numbers" issue, it really wouldn't be hard to reduce the number of hastati, principes and triarii and replace them with Italians. One battle had four each of the two former - easy switch right there.

In Ausculum, many of the Italics were allied to Epirus so NO. I am not going to have armies that have Samnites with the Romans, if the Samnites, Bruttians, Lucanians, Tarentines, etc were allied to other guy. I apply the same rule to Metaurus.

I dont like to use armies that use hoplite shields for the allies. The Bruttians was one of our last units so they were not there when I made the battles, beside they were not used after the Second Punic War in Roman armies because they sided with Hannibal and even left Italy to fight in Zama.

I use plenty of Italic cavalry.

[QuintusSertorius]

So we get homogenous, Roman-only armies? Aren't there any other non-Roman units that could have been mixed in to vary it? Or done some battles with more variety, like Scipio's in Spain?

And what about Telamon? Or Cynocephalae (assuming it's the Roman battle, not the other one)?

[Eduorius]

So we get homogenous, Roman-only armies? Aren't there any other non-Roman units that could have been mixed in to vary it? Or done some battles with more variety, like Scipio's in Spain?

And what about Telamon? Or Cynocephalae (assuming it's the Roman battle, not the other one)?

After the Second Punic War, the allies looked more like the Romans. I really think that the allies you want are better for the Camillan period. Maybe for something of the First Punic War.

Celtiberians were also one of the last units to arrive to the game. Me and tk wanted to do Ilipa, but decided it was better to wait for that unit. Right now, I cant promise nothing because I am busy.

By the way. I think I have great variety with the battles. Almost one for every faction in EB.

[QuintusSertorius]

I don't mean to come across all negative, I was just disappointed seeing the battles featuring the Romans, and they were all pretty uniformly mostly-Roman (since we don't have any differentiated "Italian" hastati/principes/triarii, and no space in the unit roster either). I'm not disputing that there's a variety of battles, or that there's even treatment of all factions, just wasn't impressed with the Roman rosters. Which admittedly is a result of the choice of battles.

Some battles from the First Punic War - like those in Africa, for example (even if Regulus was defeated), or some later like Magnesia (which surely would have had some Greek troops alongside Roman) might have given that. Or indeed the earlier battles like Trebia, Lake Trasimene and Cannae (although I recognise the latter is hard to do with the RTW engine), before the defection of the socii.

Shouldn't Telamon (immediately before the Second Punic War) have some Italics at least?

Ilipa would have been nice, but if the units aren't ready, then I guess it would have been missing out on something. Tis a shame.

[abou]

There are several problems with that approach.

First and foremost, the sources aren't brilliantly clear on how (or if) the Italian allies were identically equipped, or to what level of homogeneity there was in arms and armour. If that were the case, it begs the question why there are Italian troops differing from Roman ones in the game at all, or at least why they don't all vanish with the Polybian "reform". I believe the EB team has done it's homework in that regard, thus you don't simply have Roman troops throughout Italy.

You're right with your first comment, but I'm not entirely sure how you're trying to close your argument. Although, considering that they would be organized in the same manner as Roman troops it gives on the impression that they would be equipped similarly. Also, Rome's dominance over the peninsula by the Polybian period probably has a little to do with it too. Hence the reductionism you see.

Secondly, there was never anything like the picture-perfect matching gear we see in the RTW engine, not with most panoplies being heirlooms passed down through the generations and repaired, cannibalised and customised by each wearer. While there isn't a lot that can be done about that within the confines of the engine itself, the variation within units nominally recruited in the same place can only highlight the likelihood of variety between units from different places.

Okay, but again I don't see how this actually furthers what you're trying to get across. It's a limitation we need to deal with and so we compromise by using what would be the most probable equipment.

Thirdly, have you looked at the Italian troop roster? It's not exactly wildly different to the Romans at all. Samnite Allied Medium Spearmen are very similar to Camillian Principes, and differ only in their main weapon to Polybian Hastati. Bruttian Infantry are pretty similar to Polybian Hastati and vary only in their main weapon to Camillian Principes. Samnite Heavy Infantry are a poor man's pedites extraordinarii. Campanian Cavalry were used extensively by Roman armies.

Okay, but not every allied troop would be drawn from just the Samnites or just the Bruttians. There would be allies from the north and the south. Again, limitations and we simply cannot justify giving another unit slot for allied hastati, principes, or triarii.

Lastly on the "numbers" issue, it really wouldn't be hard to reduce the number of hastati, principes and triarii and replace them with Italians. One battle had four each of the two former - easy switch right there.

How we do numbers in battles depends on the battle itself, but if our impression is that the Italians would have fought as Roman units and that they would be drawn from all over Italy, what would be the point of including those very specific Italian tribe units?

[QuintusSertorius]

The point? The beauty of variety and being able to make distinct the legion from the ala. The Italian peoples themselves certainly thought their heritage worthy of note, even when they were recruited, equipped and trained in the Roman manner. Such as Samnite legionaries painting their icons on their shields.

Furthermore, where are the pedites extraordinarii in any of those battle rosters?

[abou]

The point? The beauty of variety and being able to make distinct the legion from the ala. The Italian peoples themselves certainly thought their heritage worthy of note, even when they were recruited, equipped and trained in the Roman manner. Such as Samnite legionaries painting their icons on their shields.

I agree in principle, but that isn't enough justification to include three extra units that are redundant.

Furthermore, where are the pedites extraordinarii in any of those battle rosters?

I haven't looked at the new battles closely. You would have to ask the guys who did the research.

The extraordinarii will be in the version of Magnesia I am working on. We don't know much about how they were deployed in the battle, but considering their march order I'm assuming they would be place at the far ends of the infantry in the first row between the hastati and equites.

[QuintusSertorius]

I agree in principle, but that isn't enough justification to include three extra units that are redundant.

I'll admit you've got me there. While it would be nice in a way to get "Italic hastati" et al, it is pretty redundant to have three extra units in the roster who differ only in having slightly different skins, since there's no evidence they were any better or worse than Romans were.

My own inelegant solution is to continue using the Bruttians as "Italic hastati" (even if the real Bruttians were no longer recruited as such, there's little to separate them from Polybian hastati), then use pedites extraordinarii in place of "Italic principes", and forget about the "Italici triarii" because I never double them up with allied spearmen anyway. Stack is already too big without adding still more units to it.

I haven't looked at the new battles closely. You would have to ask the guys who did the research.

The extraordinarii will be in the version of Magnesia I am working on. We don't know much about how they were deployed in the battle, but considering their march order I'm assuming they would be place at the far ends of the infantry in the first row between the hastati and equites.

Cool, look forward to seeing it.

[keravnos]

By this point in time the Italian allies would be equipped just as the Romans would have except for the Extraordinarii.

And this here fellow is equally responsible for the splendor of what you see in Historical battles. EUGE Abou!

[Sarkiss]

awesome battles! and very informative descriptions.
just read (and played) about battle of Carrhae and learned a few things. very good account of events surrounding battle.
thanks a lot!