Results 1 to 30 of 66

Thread: [EB] Thoughts on balancing Rome in a historical way

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default [EB] Thoughts on balancing Rome in a historical way

    Hello All

    I am not sure if this starting a thread is appropriate or not. I think it might be an interesting idea to alter the Roman Army composition rules for the post Marian and Imperial period. This is mainly for historical reasons; however it might also be an interesting gameplay change. I have to start off by saying I do not have much experience in modding, and some of these suggestions may not be possible to implement. Alternatively, it may be too cumbersome.

    The following applies to postmarian and imperial compositions only (and not earlier eras):

    As has been pointed out before mercs/allies for Rome should be bumped up to 10 to reflect the fact that roman armies in the post marian erawere composed of approximately 50% auxiliaries/mercenaries; even more so in the Imperial era. This is a very good idea. Unfortunately, the current unit roster in no way represents the diversity of the infantry auxilia (cohors pedita), who were chosen primarily to either fight on the flanks (cohortes), or as specialist units (javelin skirmishers, slingers, archers, horse archers etc). Therefore, the vareity of mercs should in effect count as “auxilia”.

    So here are the other (more drastic) changed

    1) Bump legion stats as well as cost. Currently, EBO does not give a significant statistical boost to the postmarian or imperial roman cohorts, which it arguably deserves. Particularly, I have heard complaints of low morale. Statistically, it appears the morale is not significantly higher than other similar troops. I think these cohorts deserve a bump; however, I also think that the cost should be quite significantly increased to reflect how expensive a fully trained Roman Cohort would have been. First there is the equipment cost. Equipment was provided to the legionary (though admittedly deducted from his pay). A legionaries pay/benefits-package would be comparatively high for a soldier in those times. Legionaries they also got a stipend of land at the end of their service. In EBO, the unit numbers per Cohort is also quite high (100 in large scale iirc) to reflect the size and organisation of a legion. There is also the matter of training, as well as other tertiary services provided by the state to the army (eg medical, etc). Throughout Roman History, generals/emperors based significant part of their strategy and policy in ensuring that they were able to pay their professional legions. An individual legionary may not be terribly expensive compared to any other high quality heavy infantry unit, but there are a lot more soldiers per unit/cohort compared to other factions. This high cost of legionaries was part of the reason why generals/emperors relied heavily on auxiliary troops who received a lower wage, no land, and merely citizenship for his and his family upon retirement.

    The legion was the core of the Roman army (but it very, very rarely was over 60-65% in composition of the entire army, and usually closer to 50%), and legionaries were a devastating war machine (when used properly).

    I do not argue for unreasonably high stats though. Nor unreasonably high cost. Just something to show them as pricey, highly disciplined, and if well supported, worth it.


    2) To reflect the lower wage received by the infantry auxiliaries (therefore lower cost) and much higher availability (more than half of population of Post-Marian-Republican/Imperial era Rome were non citizens, many were forced into military service, and many of these conquered peoples had troops already trained) prices for these aux troops/mercinaries should be lowered significantly (esp compared to mercanry prices for other factions). I’m not sure if it is possible to lower cost of units for 1 specific faction, but keep the same for another. the morale of these units may be very slightly nerfed as well to represent lower morale and ”rebelliousness” that the auxilia sometimes showed (though it should be noted some aux units were noted to have been tremendously brave). Therefore, the "mercs" would be the same quality as available to other factions except that morale is slightly lower and cost is significantly lower.

    3) For reasons of balance, the following could be implemented:

    a. Max 8-10 cohorts (inclusive of 2 first cohorts to reflect that first cohort was very nearly double-strength of normal cohort). There is already limit on phalanxes, so I don’t see reason for problems.
    b. Continue counting the cavalry aux troops as factional, and not in the allies/mercs list. Keep same prices/stats. This is purely for balance reasons. Decreasing cav cost too much might favour Rome significantly (though currently, rome cav is kind of uninspired).


    This in my opinion would more accurately represent the Post Marian and Imperial Roman Army. A populous core of relatively high morale and tough troops, supported by aux troops who should be cheaper for Rome to obtain for reasons stated above. It may make Rome less flexbile as a faction for some players (cough, cohort spammers). It might be too much work to implement as well. But as historical accuracy was cited as most important, I think this is a good way to go.

    This will add the dimension of having a core of legions, and having many aux to choose from which are cheap, effective, but rout relatively quickly if spammed. It adds a dimension of wonderful flexibility as one can now choose from a whole host of cheaper aux (though balanced by the cost of the legions).

    PS- It is important that the above NOT be extended to earlier era armies for historical reasons. The socii contributed many troops to the army, but this has already been recognised (pedites extraordinarii, samnites).
    Last edited by TheShakAttack; 08-31-2011 at 17:44.
    "Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

  2. #2
    EB:NOM Triumvir Member gamegeek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hanover, NH
    Posts
    3,569

    Default Re: [EB] Thoughts on balancing Rome in a historical way

    But see, the reason Vega complains is because legionaries ARE high cost, especially the first cohort unit (should we make it 120 men and limit the numbers of it you can bring?). A typical line unit will cost 1400 to 1700, but a Legionary costs 1800 and in turn has better morale, discipline, defense, and an AP javelin attack. Auxiliary units are plenty cheap, but I may yet lower their cost if their morale gets to take a hit as well. I gave them a 5% cost reduction just now (this is not in the update) but this may be further decreased.
    Europa Barbarorum: Novus Ordo Mundi - Mod Leader Europa Barbarorum - Team Member

    Quote Originally Posted by skullheadhq
    Run Hax! For slave master gamegeek has arrived
    "To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace." -Calgacus

  3. #3
    Unbowed Unbent Unbroken Member Lazy O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,046

    Default Re: [EB] Thoughts on balancing Rome in a historical way

    For shak, this just outlines how the stats (morale,training really works).

    type roman infantry legionary cohort ii
    dictionary roman_infantry_legionary_cohort_ii ; Cohortes Imperatoria
    category infantry
    class heavy
    voice_type General_1
    soldier roman_infantry_cohorsimperatoria_evocata, 50, 0, 1.2
    officer ebofficer_roman_centurion
    officer ebofficer_roman_standard
    attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, hardy
    formation 1, 1.6, 2, 3.2, 4, square, testudo
    stat_health 1, 1
    stat_pri 6, 4, pilum_m, 36.8, 2, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
    stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
    stat_sec 11, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 0 ,0.15
    stat_sec_attr no
    stat_pri_armour 10, 7, 5, metal
    stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
    stat_heat 4
    stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -2
    stat_mental 13, disciplined, highly_trained (13 morale, high dicipline, high training)
    stat_charge_dist 30
    stat_fire_delay 0
    stat_food 60, 300
    stat_cost 1, 1805, 448, 100, 160, 1805
    ownership seleucid, slave

    For what all the stats really do, check out this guide.

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111344

    As a comparison, Legionaries have no more morale than the semi elite or veteran units of most other nations. But are cheaper.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    [21:16:17] [Gaius - 5.115.253.115]
    i m not camping , its elegant strategy of waiting

  4. #4

    Default Re: [EB] Thoughts on balancing Rome in a historical way

    @Lazyo, i understand how stats work now, although thank you for pointing that out. I was talking about increasing it further to reflect how effective it was at its purpose (almost at "elite" status), but to increase cost as well for reasons discussed earlier and to make it balance. The legion has repeatedly proved its potency through multitudes of victories through the centuries it existed. Especially the period of EB under Marius (v Cimbri, Numidians iirc), Sulla, Pompey (v Pontus), Caesar (v Gauls) etc. It had disastrous defeats as well, dont get me wrong, they werent an uber-elite unit. However, because they standardised SO completly, there are really very few other "elite" types one can use (no pedites extr. etc.). So in recognition of both history and that standardisation, they should at the very least be almost at par with elites of other factions. And to be perfectly frank, the Praetorians, though composed of veterans, were more of a secret police than real soldiers who did regular duty. Especially during the time period in EB. So I would not count the Praetorians as an elite (and realistically speaking, who takes them in battles anyway?).

    @gg2, under the system i outlined, legions would be more expensive, but equally, have their stats bumped (to account for how many troops they would have per unit, and to account for improved "quality"). I also want to make it clear, that this is NOT sanctioned by Vega or anyone else. It is just how I would think it would/should work.
    "Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

  5. #5
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: [EB] Thoughts on balancing Rome in a historical way

    Can you make the Imperial Roman Auxillary units and Marian Mercs more cost effective?
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  6. #6

    Default Re: [EB] Thoughts on balancing Rome in a historical way

    Quote Originally Posted by antisocialmunky View Post
    Can you make the Imperial Roman Auxillary units and Marian Mercs more cost effective?
    It would mean that cohorts should also become more expensive (and better quality) though. Just decreasing cost of aux would make it unbalanced and give rome compared to current system.
    "Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

  7. #7
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: [EB] Thoughts on balancing Rome in a historical way

    They are more expensive, like 1800. The problem is you can't get cohorts and all their supporting units and still have money for a cavalry unit or 2. That is unless you take less units and taking less units is actually a serious weakness.

    The average line infantry cost for a semi-balanced army is about 1300-1400 unless you are phalanx and then you employ really expensive line infantry and cavalry and cost effective filler support like hoplites and celto-hellenic hoplites and then you buy the cheapest missile units possible to fill out(3 slingers).

    Rome is comparable to the latter case except their expensive line infantry is cheaper but their support units cost almost as much as they do so you have to skimp on cavalry or archers and you don't have very many cheap options for either.
    Last edited by antisocialmunky; 09-01-2011 at 14:40.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO