Realism vs gameplay balancing?

[Zanderpants]

Hmm, if the Romans were so superhuman, shouldn't they've been able to win the "battle" of the Teutoberg forest? I know this is an unfair example, but it proves a point. The Romans were still men; some are better at fighting than others, and no matter how good at fighting they are, with incompetant leadership, they'll still lose a fight. What the Romans really had going for them was their superior tactics. We see that when Roman tactics fall by the wayside, they lost battles. Namely, the battle of the Teutoberg forest, as well as a battle of Adrianople.

[DemonArchangel]

Ok, look at the Cry for Help thread.
This is a game, with possibilities too.

What if the Romans encountered the Ptolemies instead of the Carthies first? How would they have developed differently?

What if the Germans, not Gauls sacked Rome in 390 B.C?

There are many, many other possible scenarios, and EB should reflect that.

[GeWee]

Hey, what's this?
I come back after a few days and find my thread's been hijacked and crashed by the road(forum)side...

[Urnamma]

Guys, everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, and Romans are no different. But we must all remember that humans are made, not in batches, but as individuals. You can have people like M. Claudius Marcellus that can defeat a Gallic king in single combat without breaking a sweat, then you have people like Varro who lead their armies into hell. I'm sure there were some Romans that could beat the living hell out of an Iberian soldier, just like there were Iberians that could do the same to a Roman soldier. The point is the creative tactics used by the generals and officers. That is what wins a battle for you.

The Roman units will not be nerfed, and they'll be strong enough to assume their proper place in history. Prom is speaking emotionally and unconvincingly, but we must all concede that he has a grain of truth in his words. There is an unfortunate bias against Romans and Greeks here, which I find odd seeing as how these two peoples did manage to sweep all before them except one another. That said, no one is really more powerful than anyone else (speaking of the factions), because creative generalship is the key to winning any battle or war.

[Steppe Merc]

I think their's more of a bias against Roman's than against Greeks... some Greeks knew how to ride horses at least!
And Romans didn't conquer all in their path. It took very many years for them to do what they did. Besides, most of the Generals were politicians, so it's not pure military in what they accomplished.

[Vinsitor]

So Romans were crap... but ruled the ancient world, strange

I believe that Roman's soldiers' strenght was in tranining and "faithful" on the general and their "warmate" (like Greeks Oplites).
Barmarian warriors' strenght was in the individual skill. This is the point IMHO

[giorgio666]

All the antipathy against Rome by the americans here is just based on envy. At the times Romans built a huge empire and beautiful buildings you were living in caves or tents, the more civilized. U got no history and u quote the few battles where the romans were defeated...what about the other thousands they won? You know why anyone remembers them ? because they were just the exception that confirms the rule, id est the roman army and his generals were superior. It's like quoting general Custer being crushed by Crazy Horse at lil big Horne. Hope u get the point.
As for the other european here you might have had good warriors but they lacked of discipline.
Hat's off to Alexander the Great and his Macedonian army, his only misfortune was that he died too young and no one was great like him to manage his huge empire.

[Big_John]

it's just us americans that are bashing rome?? i never woulda thunk it.

i'm no fan of denegrating the ancient romans, but you'd do well to remember, giorgio, that rome often 'out-diplomacied' her enemies long before beating them in battle.