roman legionary and infantry

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

As TheLastDays said:" Then, my friend, you'd be wrong...". Even you, in your previous post, gave several (not so simple but limited) reasons for the rise of the Roman Empire: determination, national security, Gallic collapse, and exploitation of fear.

A single change in battlefield tactics is useless if the whole nation, society and military hasn't reached a stage where it can use the tactic effectively. For example: Hannibal repeatedly conquered the Romans but even so Carthage didn't win the war. So although Hannibal had the correct tactics his nation, as a whole, wasn't able to take advantage of his victories.

General Aetius

Yes, the whole war with Hannibal and the Carthiginians is quite important. I think that the Republic, at this time, was so competitive that an element of 'arrogance' and determination was almost inevitable, compared to the state of Carthage at that time. Carthage seems to have been at the nadir of its republican constitution, such that it had coalesced to two major power centres (The Barcids and Hanno). This wouldn't happen until much later in Rome. At the time of Hannibal's invasion power was balanced between many factions - oligarchical familial (and class based) as well as a strong Plebian mandate. There was just too much competition for power for there to be surrender. One could not risk one's position within the power structure by showing weakness.

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

I've been playing SCII for the last couple of months and have only just recently returned to playing EB (at last!) as the Romans. My 2-cents for this thread would be that I've found the Romans to be remarkably similar to the Zerg, minus the Kerrigan. Legions, on this regard, are very similar to 'lings (not bane, since romans cannot explode). They are numerous, individually expendable, yet extremely effective (A siege tank, would be kinda like a keltoi warrior nob). Pyrrhus of Epirus would indeed be the classic example of (a protoss) being zerged by wave after wave of 'lings (and other zerg horror).

[Julianus]

I have just finished an excellent book about Greek and Roman military, Soldiers and Ghosts - A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity.
The author argues that the Roman legions are by no means really so disciplined as everyone believes it to be, they were reckless, arrogant, self-centered, childish, they threatened to or even did disobey or at least ignore their commanders all the time. Their poor commander almost always had to appease them one way or another to ensure their obedience, no matter if he was named Scipio or Caesar.

[Moros]

Teleological history ftw!

[HFox]

And they all wore segmata......

[Populus Romanus]

And EBII was released in 272 BC but there were no computers so we never get to play it.

[Randal]

I think the Romans in Europa Barbarorum are somewhat underpowered. Not because their stats are wrong or their enemies statted too strong or anything, but because the total war engine is bad at modelling the advantages the Romans had and good at modelling the advantages their enemies had.

The Romans for example were able to operate in more tactically sophisticated formations than tribal enemies, who due to limitations of command essentially had to deploy in a big block. The Romans could keep large portions of their force in reserve, including veterans like the Triarii. Those highly skilled Gallic nobles on the other hand had to be on the front lines or they'd lose the respect of their followers. Same with generals. A Roman general encouraged his troops from behind the lines, watched for weaknesses, send reserves where they were most needed. A Germanic warlord would be on the front lines hacking and stabbing because that's how he proved his courage. Even Hellenistic generals fought like this in imitation of Alexander the Great. There are plentiful accounts of Hellenistic or tribal armies breaking through the first line of a Roman force only to be checked and routed by reserves.
Another thing would be unit structure. The legion was divided in well-organised sub-units led by junior officers who could take the initiative and respond to developments that no general could be aware of due to lack of communication. Many of Rome's enemies had nothing compared to centurios.

Julianus undoubtedly is correct that even the Romans had far from perfect command over their armies and soldiers. They still had more than the vast majority of their opposition, though, and that I think is a large part of what made their armies so effective.

But in the Total War engine everyone has perfect command over all their units, everybody can deploy in multiple lines and execute complicated flanking manoeuvres. That rather erodes the advantages the Romans had.

(Edit re: Recklessness: especially in the mid-early republic, lots of Roman armies were, far more so than armies led by generals trained in the Hellenistic tradition. And I do count Hannibal here. Hannibal taught the Romans what happens if you don't take care to choose your ground. A lot of the advantages I describe above only developed over time.)