[EB] Thoughts on balancing Rome in a historical way

[vartan]

Why would imperial cohorts only have 90 men?

Remember when you asked me about lethality and ap and how these are supposed to work? Well, unit size is similar. We currently have a system in which unit size correlates with the professionalism of the unit more often than not (most of the time, actually). So the 90 man unit would usually perform better than the 100 man unit. Does that answer your question?

Well the assumption for 20 unit armies should be broken away. Macedon can't actually field a decent 20 unit army anyway (if you want your hammer and anvil anyway). If you really made the legion as good as it is in the new statting system and you couldn't make a 20 unit army and it can still win games, who cares about filling all your slots?

You could shoot for an army that looks like 10 cohorts, 4 auxillaries, 2 cavalry or something.

My thoughts exactly. Roman armies were more often than not slightly smaller (in numbers) that most forces they faced. If you are concerned about filling 20 slots, nerf and cheapen aux.

I feel I have to seriously address this matter. It isn't an "assumption" that all armies that players bring to the games should be filled to the brim with 20 units. It's a matter of balance. In vanilla RTW, you could beat an army several hundred men stronger due to upgrades especially. Because we are "limiting" (I use this word with reservation) our upgrade to the relatively expensive (single) chevron, we enforce to some extent relatively equally sized armies, with a margin of a couple hundred maximally (and rarely any more). There is good reason as to why we do this. This is EB and not vanilla RTW. Therefore, even though we are playing a competitive game, there is a reason our units were made with their descriptions, their names, their histories, and statted the way they were (and the way they are). It would be far too easy to forsake the histories behind the units by statting in such a way where numbers weren't as significant as perfecting the right combination of upgrades and unit choice. This would be disastrous to the multiplayer, to be frank. Romans can be fixed. They need not be limited to under-20 armies (and we do not want under-20 Roman armies). There have been different ideas on how to do this. I'm starting to think cheapening auxiliary units for Marian and onward sounds good primarily since it would encourage the use of auxiliary corps.

[TheShakAttack]

What you have said sounds encouraging. I think the main concerns I have heard about Rome is that it is quite expensive to bring a good army. So your point about aux should deal with that.

I also think that legions are not performing as well as they should be doing, espeically in the imperial era. I would rather pay extra and have a 100 unit cohort for it to be realistic. It may well mean fewer cohorts, but at least those cohorts would perform well. I would not like to see it restricted to 90. Having said that, if you feel that it would seriously mess with the balance of game then feel free to make it 90.

[TheShakAttack]

Maybe the only reason I am insisting on strengthening legions is because I am quite partial to them (not in game but rather history-wise). But i hope i am not being too biased. lol.

[vartan]

They can only be as good as their equipment (with other factors being influential as well, though not nearly as much).

EDIT: To make an analogy. In photography we say that your photo is only going to be as good as your lens. Equipment matters. Balancing means a lack of favoritism and an insistence on the consistency of stat values for each piece of equipment.

[TheShakAttack]

They can only be as good as their equipment (with other factors being influential as well, though not nearly as much).

EDIT: To make an analogy. In photography we say that your photo is only going to be as good as your lens. Equipment matters. Balancing means a lack of favoritism and an insistence on the consistency of stat values for each piece of equipment.

Of course, and I was saying that I hope my thoughts were free of any subjectivity/favoritism. Rome had a huge military complex that mass produced high quality armor and weapons at relatively lower costs due to economies of scale and their ability to import materials and labor cheaply. Plus, I do not feel that the higher morale of legions has been accurately reflected.

Because of Imperial Rome's relative lack of diversity in the units, i thought the cohorts should be a bit more powered. Further, it appears that Polybian era Rome fields superior infantry units cheaply (iirc Principes had higher defense value and equal-ish attack value, though 20 fewer men, at 400 mnai less). I have heard other people who play Rome often say this, and my experience also does indicates this. That is why I said, make the imperial cohorts more expensive, superior, and field 100 men.

It isn't favoritism to state that the Roman Legion was one of the most powerful, flexible, comparitively cheap and well equipped infantry forces in the Western World in the EB era. If not the most. Now, of course I do not want them to be ridiculously overpowered (like in RTW), but i do feel that this has been ignored.

All other things being equal (esp player skills), it is quite easy to pin legions with cheaper quality infantry, win cav battle, and anvil-hammer legions to submission.

[antisocialmunky]

They can only be as good as their equipment (with other factors being influential as well, though not nearly as much).

EDIT: To make an analogy. In photography we say that your photo is only going to be as good as your lens. Equipment matters. Balancing means a lack of favoritism and an insistence on the consistency of stat values for each piece of equipment.

If so, get rid of tree bonus and barb bonus.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

If so, get rid of tree bonus and barb bonus.

The barb bonuses are there for a reason: to make them competitive in both campaign and MP. Sweboz are still very tricky to play as, though I did have a match with them last night against LazyO which went pretty well, though his army was experimental and honestly not a comp I would ever take for MP. The one problem we run into when statting lightly armored units is that speed differences between heavy and light infantry aren't drastic enough, nor are the stamina differences. The difference for infantry between very good stamina and no stamina boost is about 20 seconds worth of fighting. That's 20 seconds for which the lighter unit has an advantage which is made up for by the fact that they have already been slaughtered up to that point when the heavies get tired. Since all this is hardcoded, I feel as if a minor bonus is the least we can do.

[antisocialmunky]

No, Vartan just said that you should just stat the equipment and ignore the man. I'm just saying that the person and skill must be considered as well.

Rome seems quite reasonable at 1800 legions. You just need proper support units. I managed to make a working army with cavalry with 8 legions, 4 spear auxillaries, and 4 numidian archers.

You can go ahead and make imperials better if you reduce support infantry unit costs to somewhere closer to 1400. Make all the Rome guys happy.