Poll: Should the Augustan Reforms be removed?

[Cbvani]

I would not object to Augustan Legionaires being removed, because their stats are the EXACT SAME as Marian, if the space was needed. (And for goodness sake, can you fix their heads? They are a huge box, not a human head!) I hope that Augustan Auxilliaries are kept in. Maybe once triggering the Augustan reforms the auxilliaries become recruitable. Ultimately, only remove the units if the space is absolutely needed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It really wouldn't make sense to have Augustan auxiliaries but no Augustan cohorts...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

This is a silly argument, because you are ignoring a basic fact: EB is a simulator, and as it has limits, compromises must be reached on achieving historical accuracy. That means that when considering whether a unit should be included or not, historical accuracy is a basic requirement, but it must also be balanced with overall use. Yes, all the units included in EB have some historical basis for their inclusion, but there are only so many slots for units, and some discretion must be exercised when deciding which units get included and which don't. When it comes down to that, the question of utility becomes paramount, and striking the best balance between historicity and utility is important. So, if we have evidence for, say, an Anatolian peltast unit (which is a unit for which there is evidence that could easily be included in the EB roster) that was found throughout all three centuries of the EB timeframe and which is as much "historically accurate" as some Augustan units, the question comes down to what use each will bring to the game. In this case, the Anatolian peltast unit clearly strikes the better balance.

I disagree, there are many units that exist only through reforms and historically came much later than the 3rd century BC. Does that make them irrelevant? If there is merely a question of practicality, you say, then the inclusion of Augustans is actually better than the inclusion of several similar units of spearmen, HA's, riders or some obscure unit with limited AOR's. Being a newcomer to the EB scenario does not by any means translate into a lesser degree of importance or priority into game inclusion, and it is actually better than making another unit of peltasts which will more likely be identical to their Greek or Eastern counterparts. You take away an identical unit with the Marian Cohort, to create another one that will have a limited AOR and most probably only marginal use by players. Many of the Augustan units are still unique on their own right and that is more than enough to warrant their entrance into EB.

As proof to my saying, you must know that even EB is fast paced when compared to real history and you will most likely dominate great areas of land and make reforms much earlier than they were ever done or expected to be achieved in a historical timeline. Just because there was no Marian legion in 170 BC does not mean we should get rid of it to create another unit; the Augustans definetely meet the 14AD deadline, and their historical importance for an expansionist Rome cannot simply be neglected and left away.

[MeinPanzer]

I disagree, there are many units that exist only through reforms and historically came much later than the 3rd century BC. Does that make them irrelevant?

No, and you're missing my point, which is that a balance needs to be struck between practicality and historical necessity. An obscure unit added in the late 2nd century BC, say, would still probably have more use in the last third of the EB timeframe than a group of Augustan units added in the last tenth.

If there is merely a question of practicality, you say, then the inclusion of Augustans is actually better than the inclusion of several similar units of spearmen, HA's, riders or some obscure unit with limited AOR's.

I am saying that it is not merely a question of practicality, but a question of balancing practicality and historical accuracy. What I mean by this is that, taking things practically, very few people will ever reach the Augustan reforms, while a unit introduced in the 2nd c. BC might still have plenty of use.

Being a newcomer to the EB scenario does not by any means translate into a lesser degree of importance or priority into game inclusion, and it is actually better than making another unit of peltasts which will more likely be identical to their Greek or Eastern counterparts.

The unit I used as an example would be no more identical to other Peltast units than Augustan legionaries would be identical to Marian legionaries. But that is beside the point, as there are plenty of units which would be fairly unique which could be included in place of Augustan units.

You take away an identical unit with the Marian Cohort, to create another one that will have a limited AOR and most probably only marginal use by players. Many of the Augustan units are still unique on their own right and that is more than enough to warrant their entrance into EB.

This is what I meant by balancing practicality with historical accuracy. A unit which existed for, say, a third of the EB timeframe but which had a more limited regional presence versus a unit which existed for a tenth of the timeframe and was more prominent. A balance must be struck, and based on the EB team's attitude toward Lorica Segmentata (it appeared in only the last few decades of the timeframe, so it's not worthy of inclusion), I would think that they would place more emphasis on the unit with a larger chronological range of use.

As proof to my saying, you must know that even EB is fast paced when compared to real history and you will most likely dominate great areas of land and make reforms much earlier than they were ever done or expected to be achieved in a historical timeline. Just because there was no Marian legion in 170 BC does not mean we should get rid of it to create another unit; the Augustans definetely meet the 14AD deadline, and their historical importance for an expansionist Rome cannot simply be neglected and left away.

Then one can argue for inclusion of any number of other units which appeared only in the very late first century BC for other factions. Part of the unhappiness over this development is that the Romans seem to be the only faction to receive this very specific luxury in the timeframe.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, and you're missing my point, which is that a balance needs to be struck between practicality and historical necessity. An obscure unit added in the late 2nd century BC, say, would still probably have more use in the last third of the EB timeframe than a group of Augustan units added in the last tenth.

To be honest, I always thought the 500 unit limit would make it impossible to really, accurately depict the militaries of the many EB factions across a span of 300 years. I am kind of thinking the end date should be bumped up to 27 B.C.

[desert]

Imagine what things would be like if there was no limit. *drools*

[a completely inoffensive name]

That would actually be the exact opposite extreme, if every unit ever conceived was able to be put into the game, I can only imagine how long it would take for a 5 year old, minimum requirement computer to load and run EB.