Legionary attack

[xzGAB]

Ok, M and P men have more lethality than C because they use gladius. But my point is that comparing P and M soldiers (with each other) we don't see a great upgrade...aren't Marian soldiers professionals? I think they should have a little more lethality or some other upgrade, don't you? I would like to know historicaly too...in real life they were better than pre-marian men?

[Lysimachos]

Ok, M and P men have more lethality than C because they use gladius. But my point is that comparing P and M soldiers (with each other) we don't see a great upgrade...aren't Marian soldiers professionals? I think they should have a little more lethality or some other upgrade, don't you? I would like to know historicaly too...in real life they were better than pre-marian men?

Look at it this way: A polybian princeps may not be a professional soldier, but he is a veteran "out of the box", while a freshly recruited marian legionary is exactly that: a fresh recruit, who will only equal the princeps' experience after years of service (= gaining chevrons).

[SwissBarbar]

Look at it this way: A polybian princeps may not be a professional soldier, but he is a veteran "out of the box", while a freshly recruited marian legionary is exactly that: a fresh recruit, who will only equal the princeps' experience after years of service (= gaining chevrons).

This is a good explanation. I agree!

[xzGAB]

Mass is important to break phalanx formation and force phalangists to fight by swords instead of that long spears, am i right?

[CashMunny]

Mass is important to break phalanx formation and force phalangists to fight by swords instead of that long spears, am i right?

To some extent. A higher mass unit can push through the pikes and the first ranks of pikemen easier when doing a 'run through', while a unit with lower mass will have a harder time pushing through the formation.

[Pedro]

i agree with xzgab i think when you do the legionaries you already know a lot about them so you want to be fair for others but in the spartatia hoplitai we know and still is overrated, historically they werent the best infantry remeber that the register about the greeks is mostly written by greeks that makes them overrated and no acuraccy also ive looking about battles and they spartans lost a lot of battles they propose ceasefires 7!!!!!! times to Athens and the plague of atenas was a hit of luck for them , then in the corintos league they lost 2 of the most famous battles of Mantinea (362 a. C.) and leuctra 371 a. C. especially in leuctra the others cities kick their spartan ass !! so the corintos people werent trained a lifetime to be a soldier and they beat them! then i think if the arverni and the auedui have solduros and great man v man and the roman legionaries conquer them , doesnt that mean that the legionares are better? and iam only sayin this about the evocata and the cohors beacues i think the polybian and others are fair enought ! (except the velites and the leves) but infantry is fair soo i think you maybe reconsider about the cohors just a 2 points more in the cohors and 3 in the evocata doesnt make that the game were more easiest for the romans jus its more realistic ......... dont be angry is just my opinion great work eb team !!!

[xzGAB]

I am comparing Cohors Reformata (the standard) with Evocata; and Evocata with C and P Princeps

I think the professional marian soldiers should have more attack or lethality because I don't see any good reason to train evocata. They shoud tire very fast (cause they dont have the good stamina) and has a litte more defence. I think this defense value will mean nothing because they are going to be tired when still running for a charge, and tired soldiers die very very fast.
I think the only way to get advantage with evocata shoud be at a defensive city battle in the guard mode.

How can I change the attack value?

[athanaric]

i agree with xzgab i think when you do the legionaries you already know a lot about them so you want to be fair for others but in the spartatia hoplitai we know and still is overrated, historically they werent the best infantry remeber that the register about the greeks is mostly written by greeks that makes them overrated and no acuraccy also ive looking about battles and they spartans lost a lot of battles they propose ceasefires 7!!!!!! times to Athens and the plague of atenas was a hit of luck for them , then in the corintos league they lost 2 of the most famous battles of Mantinea (362 a. C.) and leuctra 371 a. C. especially in leuctra the others cities kick their spartan ass !! so the corintos people werent trained a lifetime to be a soldier and they beat them! then i think if the arverni and the auedui have solduros and great man v man and the roman legionaries conquer them , doesnt that mean that the legionares are better? and iam only sayin this about the evocata and the cohors beacues i think the polybian and others are fair enought ! (except the velites and the leves) but infantry is fair soo i think you maybe reconsider about the cohors just a 2 points more in the cohors and 3 in the evocata doesnt make that the game were more easiest for the romans jus its more realistic ......... dont be angry is just my opinion great work eb team !!!

The Spartiates always had the problem of numerical inferiority doe to their extremely hierarchical society. This means they could ill afford losing even a few of their citizen warriors, which in turn means that the easiest way to get a ceasefire or other favourable conditions from them would probably have been to capture a lot of Spartans and hold them hostage in a secure place.
It is not difficult to see that they were very different from the Romans, who favoured a concept of "mass heavy infantry of reasonable quality and tactical versatility" instead of the usual doctrine. Spartan Hoplites, OTOH, would have been more similar to the Gallic Solduroi and other elites than to Roman troops.
Spartan losses do not necessarily say anything about their martial abilities or those of their opponents, but rather tell us a lot about the circumstances around them. Such as: more practical concepts of society, superior strategies, innovative tactics, cleverly wrought alliances, numerical superiority, or simply more money. Remember, wars are not only won on the battlefield or by individual martial prowess. There are many other factors there. Armies of superior quality have been beaten or forced to withdraw by opponents who had other advantages on their sides.