[EB] Thoughts on balancing Rome in a historical way

[TheShakAttack]

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).

[gamegeek2]

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.

[Lazy O]

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.

[TheShakAttack]

@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.

[antisocialmunky]

Can you make the Imperial Roman Auxillary units and Marian Mercs more cost effective?

[TheShakAttack]

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.

[antisocialmunky]

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.

[TheShakAttack]

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.

I understand your point. I agree that aux need to be much, much cheaper.

My original argument was that legion cost should be bumped (remember u are getting more men per unit), but also their stats; limit cohort numbers (to prevent spam), and nerf non-mounted aux/merc troops while making them a LOT cheaper. That way the decision becomes: should I bring in a small or large core of legions and what type of aux do i bring?

Just pulling numbers out of my ass (to illustrate my point; I am not a modder so these are NOWHERE near the actual/practical suggestions), make legions 10-15% more expensive, but also improve their stats by that much. Make aux/mercs (bcoz remember, mercs are acting as aux) 20-30% cheaper, but only decrease morale by about 10-15%. Like I said, this is a rough illustration and not the actual recommendation.

My only concern is that only one part of what I discussed will be implemented, which will ruin balance.

[antisocialmunky]

Actually I think I have a better idea where everyone wins. I think what you should do is to model the Marian army as the one of the late Republic during the era of the civil wars while the Imperials should be modeled on the army of the 1st century AD which was slightly different. That we can can have both a more average legion and a more super legion.

The army of the time of Marius would have had an influx of raw recruits so it would make sense that it would have many people but not stated as highly. Basically like more slightly better Hastati (call it ~1.5K-1.6K). The army of the 1st century Principate which had experienced many civil wars and reorganized into basically a super border patrol should have the the legion as a battle hardened nearly elite unit (~1.8K-2K) with many cheaper support units (~1.2K-1.4K) to help out.

There's probably no harm in keeping the legions 200 strong while reducing support units to smaller sizes (spear auxillaries to 160 and archers to 80-120?) since atleast wikipedia quotes documents that put legionary formations as large units with auxillaries in much much smaller units.

[TheShakAttack]

Actually I think I have a better idea where everyone wins. I think what you should do is to model the Marian army as the one of the late Republic during the era of the civil wars while the Imperials should be modeled on the army of the 1st century AD which was slightly different. That we can can have both a more average legion and a more super legion.

The army of the time of Marius would have had an influx of raw recruits so it would make sense that it would have many people but not stated as highly. Basically like more slightly better Hastati (call it ~1.5K-1.6K). The army of the 1st century Principate which had experienced many civil wars and reorganized into basically a super border patrol should have the the legion as a battle hardened nearly elite unit (~1.8K-2K) with many cheaper support units (~1.2K-1.4K) to help out.

There's probably no harm in keeping the legions 200 strong while reducing support units to smaller sizes (spear auxillaries to 160 and archers to 80-120?) since atleast wikipedia quotes documents that put legionary formations as large units with auxillaries in much much smaller units.

Hey

First, I just want to say I am not entirely comfortable with the suggestion. During the “post marian” period, the legions were highly trained and recorded astonishing success under various leaders: Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Augustus/Agrippa. In terms of their achievements, they were no lesser than imperial legions. BUT in terms of a compromise for the sake of gameplay and flexibility, it sounds good.

PS. The Marian reforms did away with the traiditional hastate, principes, trarii division, and it was the birth of the “legions”. But of course, one could make stats and costs lower for Marian cohorts just like you said.

[Ludens]

During the “post marian” period, the legions were highly trained and recorded astonishing success under various leaders: Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Augustus/Agrippa. In terms of their achievements, they were no lesser than imperial legions. BUT in terms of a compromise for the sake of gameplay and flexibility, it sounds good.

Yes, but that's cherry-picking. If you only look at the famous victories, of course the Marian legionaries are going to look good. When Marius first deployed his mules in Numidia, it didn't really alter the progress of the campaign. Yes, he later used them to decisively beat the Cimbri, but not before his consular colleague (presumably also using the new-model legionaries) was defeated. The victory was the work Marius, and his drive for training and discipline, not the new type of legionary.

And I don't believe that all Marian legions were trained to the same high standard. There was no standard because there was no standing army. The level of training would have depended entirely on how motivated the guy in charge was. During the civil wars, Roman legions were often hastily raised and unreliable formations.

[TheShakAttack]

Yes, but that's cherry-picking. If you only look at the famous victories, of course the Marian legionaries are going to look good. When Marius first deployed his mules in Numidia, it didn't really alter the progress of the campaign. Yes, he later used them to decisively beat the Cimbri, but not before his consular colleague (presumably also using the new-model legionaries) was defeated. The victory was the work Marius, and his drive for training and discipline, not the new type of legionary.

And I don't believe that all Marian legions were trained to the same high standard. There was no standard because there was no standing army. The level of training would have depended entirely on how motivated the guy in charge was. During the civil wars, Roman legions were often hastily raised and unreliable formations.

A very fair point and in fact one I considered bringing up. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the defeat suffered at the hands of the Cimbri you mentions was one of the most decisive, and costly (in terms of casualties) in the entire history of Rome.

Even with Arausio, do not forget that the Romans were MASSIVELY outnumbered. I am not entirely sure they were "marian style" troops. If I am not mistaken, Marius was "allowed" raise legions that drew from the head count (ie. landless), but as far as i know, this was not adopted immediately. Marius raised his legion in 107bc, battle was in 105bc. Aruasio troops may well have been the pre-marian type troops.

This was not the only diaster, so, in any event....

I convinced myself that leadership was not a significant issue because leadership is always important (“ten men wisely led will beat a hundred without a head”…sorry couldn’t resist). From my perspective, it is difficult to take into account the influence a good leader would have on his troops when modding EB. For instance, the example you mentioned re: Marius and Caepios + Caepio (Arausio). BUT if you take into account that they were well armoured, typically/comparatively well trained (due to the Roman Infantry Tradition), and professional; and if you compare them to the infantry fielded by other states around them (taking leadership out of the question), man-for-man they were quite superior.

From that time period, the vast majority of defeats were caused by almost purely by bad leadership. I also agree that the opposite is true. The great victories were due to great leadership. But if you look at when they went toe to toe with other heavy infantry, more often than not, they were quite successful. Arausio was a disaster because the 2 leaders led 2 separate armies and would not even camp together due to the fact that one of them was a pleb and other a patrician.

I completely agree that there was no standing army, and no standardisation of training. And these are very good points. For these reasons I am inclined to agree that they should be slightly weaker than imperial cohorts, but no pushovers themselves.

[antisocialmunky]

Well the logic is that you model the Marians at the legions at the beginning of Marius's time before the majority of civil wars had been fought and after the 50 year peace following the conquest of Macedon. So you have a relatively inexperienced but large army that was highly trained, motivated, and well equipped. The great advantage of the Roman army was the amount of armored and well trained heavy infantry they turned out.

You then model the Imperials during the mid 1st Century AD where the legions were considered somewhat of an elite, having fought several major invasions and civil wars continuously for 100 years.

[vartan]

I actually like the points you guys bring up because it goes to show that we would do best to make a clear distinction between bringing a Marian army and an Imperial one, and currently there isn't a big incentive to bring one over the other. Big.

[TheShakAttack]

Well the logic is that you model the Marians at the legions at the beginning of Marius's time before the majority of civil wars had been fought and after the 50 year peace following the conquest of Macedon. So you have a relatively inexperienced but large army that was highly trained, motivated, and well equipped. The great advantage of the Roman army was the amount of armored and well trained heavy infantry they turned out.

You then model the Imperials during the mid 1st Century AD where the legions were considered somewhat of an elite, having fought several major invasions and civil wars continuously for 100 years.

Well, in that case ASM, I completely agree with you. And in fact, I think it is an improvement on what I had originally suggested. But is it possible to make mercs cheaper for Imperial rome compared to Late republic (post marian)? This is because just making the current aux units wont really be enough!

[gamegeek2]

I actually like the points you guys bring up because it goes to show that we would do best to make a clear distinction between bringing a Marian army and an Imperial one, and currently there isn't a big incentive to bring one over the other. Big.

So I would give the +1/+1 melee bonus to the imperials (with the corresponding cost increase for non-barbarians) and reduce them to 90 men in size? That way the units are represented as a mix of veterans and a few greener troops.

[antisocialmunky]

How much would they be if you kept them at 200 and figured out a way to decrease the size of auxillaries somewhat?

[TheShakAttack]

So I would give the +1/+1 melee bonus to the imperials (with the corresponding cost increase for non-barbarians) and reduce them to 90 men in size? That way the units are represented as a mix of veterans and a few greener troops.

No. Keep size the same, but make aux sig cheaper.

[Ludens]

I completely agree that there was no standing army, and no standardisation of training. And these are very good points. For these reasons I am inclined to agree that they should be slightly weaker than imperial cohorts, but no pushovers themselves.

If I am not mistaken, the Roman army at Aurausio was raised using the old militia system. I was referring to Quintus Lutatius Catulus' defeat at the Brenner pass. He was co-consul with Marius during the second Cimbri invasion, and each of them was to defend one entrance into Italy. Marius won a famous victory at Aquae Sextiae, but Lutatius' force was beaten back. In the end, the combined armies of Marius and Lutatius destroyed the remaining Cimbri.

To be clear: I am not saying that, from a historical point of view, Marian legionaries should be weaker than Imperial ones. Marian legions were often ad-hoc forces, so the level of training could vary wildly. But this was a turbulent period in Roman History, so there would be plenty of experienced recruits available, and only the dimmest of generals wouldn't take time to train them.

The difference is that Imperial legions would have (supposedly) had a consistent standard of training. Whether it was better than the average Marian legionary I can't say. (Also, it was not unknown for an Imperial legion to grow sloppy during times of peace. An example would be Corbulo's Armenian campaign: he found that the Syrian legions employed men that were too old for active service, and that a number of soldiers had even sold their armour.)

[vartan]

Ludens is right, but we can't stat individual soldiers, at all. Stats are for entire units, so we'll have to differentiate somehow. If Imperials were +1 against Marians but 90 men, they'd have to cost cheaper than Marians in that case. But then would the Marians still not be able to field 20 units? That's become an issue since the legionary is their primary ingredient.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, I would argue that the Marian army was a crap ton of Italians, Local Allies, and Mercenaries while the Imperial one of the 1st century was a better organized with the socially-more elite Legions and the non-Roman auxillaries. The auxillaries were divided up into much smaller units to give the legions tactical flexibility kinda like Tank/Artillery were distributed by the allied forces in WWII.

So I think the main thing for the armies is to show the Marian army as a somewhat ad-hoc Roman-Local Mixed Army (Caesar's German Cavalry, Numidian Archers, and Cretan Mercenaries for example) and the Imperial as a more thought out and systematic army based around the heavy infantry core and modularized support for the heavy infantry.

[TheShakAttack]

Why would imperial cohorts only have 90 men?

[antisocialmunky]

Ludens is right, but we can't stat individual soldiers, at all. Stats are for entire units, so we'll have to differentiate somehow. If Imperials were +1 against Marians but 90 men, they'd have to cost cheaper than Marians in that case. But then would the Marians still not be able to field 20 units? That's become an issue since the legionary is their primary ingredient.

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.

[TheShakAttack]

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.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

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.

I found a very successful 20 unit army comp for Makedon pre-3.0. I don't know if it will still be viable with the new prices but I found it successful in the majority of battles I fought. You actually fought against this army in a 2v2 we had ASM. I believe you were Baktria.

[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.