Roman Legion composition?

[The General]

In my very first post I stated:

I use quinqux like formations when I deploy my units, except that I use my Triariis to back up both my Roman Legionaries and my non-Roman units. That is the main reason I end up having so many triariis. Again, in my fist post I said:

From the very start I pointed out I was using more than the historical share of trariis. And, I pointed out the reason for it. You all want to share your thoughts on my choice. Thank you.

I'm not saying you did not acknowledge this at any point, however, since anubis88's comment on your army composition you posted twice defending your choice and on both occasions you said nothing about Triarii/Pedites but explained your use of local skirmishers, on which, I think, no one commented.

I doubt anyone's challenging Romans used local troops on their campaigns, but this is what you defended in your posts following your description of our army composition.

In my first post I explained I use different stacks for different terrains (Woods, Open Country, Cities with Stone Walls, Cities W/out Stone Walls). Do you use the same unit composition to fight in each different type of terrain?

In my opinion it would make sense that the core of the army would remain the same, imho. Roman army was quite flexible as the legions would/could be complimented with auxiliaries and with these auxiliary units you can support the heavy infantry core according to its needs. Crassus failed to do this, and we all know how he managed at Carrhae.

However, I would think it to be rather ahistorical to fundamentally change the legionary core of the armies to better suit the opponents, especially in Camillan/Polybian times. It's a game, though, and it may be played as one wishes.

[anubis88]

I completly agree with the General.
The main reason why the roman legions was so succesfull, was that it could be used in practicaly any enviroment... This was always Rome's strongpoint. No other nation had such an army, that could be used effectivly agains any opponent, and that's one of the reasons why rome achived what she did

[Lanceari]

...I doubt anyone's challenging Romans used local troops on their campaigns, but this is what you defended in your posts following your description of our army composition....

In my opinion it would make sense that the core of the army would remain the same, imho...I would think it to be rather ahistorical to fundamentally change the legionary core of the armies to better suit the opponents...

Since I had already acknowledged from the start I use more triariis than the historical proportion, I thought your concerns regarded my choice of other units...

On the second point, I agree. However, what I consider to be the "core" of my army may be smaller than what others consider to be the core of their army. In stack of 20 units, I think of my general plus my 8 most experienced triariis and legionaries as the core of my stack (roughly 45% of my stack). Everything else is non-core...and I will rebalance according to terrain and my opponent's army.

[The General]

Since I had already acknowledged from the start I use more triariis than the historical proportion, I thought your comments regarded my choice of other units. Furthermore, I should note many of the stacks cited in this thread are 100% roman... In fact, in this thread I seem to be an odd minority in openly acknowledging I use local troops heavily.

On the second point, I agree. However, it seems what I consider the "core" is smaller than what most of you would call your core. My core is 40%, not 80% of my army. In the campaign map, long before the Marian Reforms, too much of my fighting was taking place very very far away from Rome...

Before you get the Marian Reforms, EB leads you to rely on local troops to expand far away from Rome. That is one of the things I like so much of EB (over RTW).

History is written by the victor. Romans relied on local allies for their conquests. Romans acknowledged this fact to some extent. But, my guess is that Roman historians may not have given full credit to the contributions of their allies. They may have, perhaps unconsciously, overplayed the role of the Roman troops and downplayed the role of their allies. Such is human nature...

Firstly, I did not criticize your unit selection before I pointed out that it was your overuse of Pedites/Triarii that was under 'scrutiny', at which point I voiced my own support for the criticism. To expand on that, I might add, that I do not criticize the decision to use a large amount Triarii/Pedites, in itself, but the pretense of having 'historical' armies while using them to such a great extent (especially, apparently, in a Marian army) is on rather shaky grounds.

Secondly, I did not give a number or percentage to describe the minimum amount of factional units to be used. I think Rome, in particular, should gain victory through Roman arms though, as the national honor of Rome required this. Auxiliaries and allies complement the legions, but they shouldn't replace them.

Thirdly, I do not agree that EB tries to make player as Rome use local units over Roman heavy infantry. I think the legionaries should be raised in and shipped from Italy to conflict zones. While skirmishers could be replaced by locals as campaigns progress, I think heavy infantry should simply be reinforced with additional units raised in Italy. This simply player forces to realize the importance of logistics and limits (attempts to, at least) blitzing.


Also, just as a reminder for everyone, we're discussing a game, and specifically, we're discussing a game on an internet forum. So, no offence meant by all this.

[Lanceari]

...I do not criticize the decision to use a large amount Triarii/Pedites, in itself, but the pretense of having 'historical' armies while using them to such a great extent (especially, apparently, in a Marian army) is on rather shaky grounds.

...I think the legionaries should be raised in and shipped from Italy to conflict zones...

I made clear from the begining I was using more Triariis than the historical proportions call for. There was no "pretense" of this proportion being "historical".

As for Pedites, I should also make clear I recruit very few pedites. I find them too expensive. However, I find Pedites are the best wall fighters Romans can recruit. So I spare them for that one function. Pedites make less than 1% of my entire army. If you look back at my initial post, I describe 4 different stacks for 4 different types of terrain. Pedites only appear in my stack for assaulting cities with walls.

Moving on to your next point you speak of an "apparently" Marian army. The armies I was describing are Camillian/Polybian. Once I get the Marian Reforms I build Roman Barracks and recruit Marian legionaries away from Rome.

Finally, on the shipping of legionaries, I do quite a bit of that. The problem is that it takes too long to recruit them. Historically, legions were not recruited one maniple or cohort at a time. A legion was drafted all at once. Unfortunately, this is a far cry from the EB/RTW recruitment process where you have to slowly draft one unit at a time. And, particularly during the Polybian era, this affects your game too much (during the Camillian era you don't need so many troops, and during the Marian Era you have plenty places to recruit).

If I had it my way, I would allow a city like Rome to recruit in one single turn: 1 velite, 2 hastati, 2 principe, and 1 triarii (during the Polybian Era only).

Does any one know how long it took Rome to raise the legions that were slaughtered at Cannae? How long did Hannibal's campaign in Italy last? ...and, how many Legions Romans drafted (and Hanibal slaughered) during that period? And, just as important, how many cities were providing men for those legions? Can we model that rate of recruitment in EB/RTW?

[The General]

I made clear from...

Reading your posts, seems you indeed did initially acquiesce to your armies being ahistorical, but only to go on to lengths to defend your army composition, which in turn lead to confusion on my part (hasty reading at some point, probably).

As for Pedites...

The "Pedites/Triarii" stuck from anubis88's post to my subconscious it seems, Triarii are the oh-so-huge "issue" here.

Moving on to your next point you speak of an "apparently" Marian army...

This confusion was brought about by your use of term "legionaries" this post.

Finally, on the shipping ...

It would simply ahistorical for Rome to be recruiting legionaries from noncitizen cities from faraway provinces in pre-Marian times, and R:TW mechanics limit the recruitment to one per turn, one over several turns (like ships) or as-many-you-can-get-to-the-queue per turn.

If I had it my way, I would allow a city like Rome to recruit in one single turn: 1 velite, 2 hastati, 2 principe, and 1 triarii (during the Polybian Era only).

It will be possible in EBII, thankfully, with M2TW mechanics you can recruit several turns each turn, just as it will be possible to control the amount of elite units available.

Finally, I think we've reached a point where we can recognize the futility of this "debate". There were a lot of misconceptions on both sides, and in the end, neither had or have much quarrel with the other. So, eh, truce?

[Lanceari]

...truce?

Truce.

I would like the opportunity to make some further comments on recruitment mechanics.

If it takes too long to recruit units, players will have to recruit fewer units... this in turn will lead players to overuse of elite units. It is not only a choice about the cost of the unit, but about the best use of a very scarce resource: the one and only production slot you available this turn in this city.

One solution maybe to allow Hastatiis and Principes to have twice as many men per unit than Triariis. My recollection is that, historically, Triarii maniples had twice as many men as Hastatii's and Principe's. For huge size settings, I would like to see Hastatiis and Principes units of 240 men while Triariis have only 120 men).

In my previous posts I never mentioned I recruit huge numbers of rorariis. I recruit more rorariis than the combined total of triariis, principes, and hastatiis. Besides being cheap, I like rorariis for two important reason: (1) they have 240 men per unit, and, (2) you do not need an advanced barrack for recruitment.

This brings me to my next point, perhaps we should make Hastatiis available in very low level barracks.

Finally, maybe EB should double the training period for Triariis and Principes. In short:

Hastatiis should have 240 men and take one turn to recruit. (Huge settings)
Principes should have 240 men and take two turns to recruit. (Huge settings)
Triariis should have 120 men and take two turns to recruit. (Huge settings)

If you adopt my recommendations, in the span of two turns you could recruit 480 Hastatiis, but only 240 Principes or 120 Triariis.