Quote Originally Posted by vartan View Post
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.