Possible realism change..

**Nerouin** · 10-15-2004, 04:45

There are some odd placements in the units area.. for example, the Gauls have a forester warband- the best archers in the game, iirc- but have no basic archer unit. In another area, the Britons have axemen but not swordsmen, and Gauls have swordsmen but not axemen! Weird, eh? :)

Also, the individual barbarian (barbarian comes from the latin barbarus, meaning foreigner.. it wasn't deragatory, did you know that?) was a much better fighter than the individual Roman. The average barbarian had been brought up in a harsh, violent society, and were generally much larger, stronger, and more experienced in individual fighting than the average Roman.. it was a lifestyle, in a way, even more than war was a lifestyle for the post-Marian legionnary. The strength of the Roman lay in his discipline, and fighting in formation.

Thus, for example, shouldn't your average warband be stronger than a unit of Hastati? The Hastati are much less experienced and much weaker than your average barbarian.

Just a suggestion.. the idea that the individual barb was a better fighter but untrained is an important concept.. all the factions having units that they realistically had would be nice too.

Oh! And it should be harder to do a successful conquest! :)

Anyway, back to taking over the world.. I love this game!

**Hagbard la Suede** · 10-15-2004, 13:01

First of all,do you think a man who trained regularly with heavier swords and armor than they used in battle,would be weak?That was a roman way,if the training is very hard,the fighting will be easier.I don't know where you guys get the idea of romans being some weak sissys :P
These were strong men,and skilled at individual fighting too i'd say.
But they came to their best when in a formation, using the advantage of a shortsword to stab forward.

"Barbarians" on the other hand,were larger in growth due to heritage,and skilled with individual fighting since formations werent really used by them.
But this does not mean the barbarian commoner would defeat one Hastatii.
And certainly not a whole unit of them!
However,Hastatii should cost ALOT more.
Barbarian units:Lower training cost,higher upkeep due to them eating more
Roman units:High training cost(and i mean HIGH),lower upkeep due to them eating ransons.

**David** · 10-15-2004, 14:28

Pre-Marian Roman soldiers were simple citizens/farmers. Most of them could barely could afford their armour and stuff (hastati and velites), and didnt really have that much time to train. Post-Marian romans were indeed better soldiers.

BTW I thought barbarian was derived from Greek, meaning someone who didnt speak Greek. Not sure about that though.

**metatron** · 10-15-2004, 18:53

I have no problems with the Gauls being stronger. As long as I can train a full legion, instead of just hastati.

**BDC** · 10-15-2004, 20:39

Originally Posted by metatron

I have no problems with the Gauls being stronger. As long as I can train a full legion, instead of just hastati.

From the descriptions I felt that Hastati should graduallly change into Princeps etc...

**Meneldil** · 10-15-2004, 21:39

Barbarian is from greek, as David said. Barabarian upkeep should be lower than Romans Upkeep simply because they did not have to take care of their armours and equipment.