EB starting armies - low tech or good to go?

**ah_dut** · 09-30-2005, 22:01

I think the capitals definitely need to be able to build all core units...it's more historical. You didn't have all hastati and then principes and triarii gradually introduced...

**Urnamma** · 09-30-2005, 23:07

Large cities will be able to produce a good range of troops from the beginning. Rome will be able to produce legions from the beginning.

**jerby** · 09-30-2005, 23:46

?what? rome? legions? hé?
what gives? why?

**kayapó** · 10-01-2005, 00:01

Yes, legions of Hastati, Principes and Triarii...

Whad did you not understand?

**Crazed Rabbit** · 10-01-2005, 00:31

B.

Funner and more historical. After all, the celts sacked Rome under Brennus when? 400BC? Why should they just get crap units to start with? And why should the diadochi not be able to build the pike units that made Alexander the Great?

Plus, I don't like the contrived tedium of 'building' an empire that's been around a while.

I'm pleased to hear about Rome.

Crazed Rabbit

**jerby** · 10-01-2005, 22:06

Originally Posted by kayapó

Yes, legions of Hastati, Principes and Triarii...

Whad did you not understand?

sorry,
whenever someones says "legions" i think of the empirial legions..the late ones..

whoopsie

**Byzantine Mercenary** · 10-06-2005, 10:42

i would like to see only the capitals able to produce the full rang of troops at the beggining. Isn't that how armys were put together anyway, in some ways i liked the fact that triarii were hard to build in vannilla, in RTR my armys were made up of almost all triarrii and they were easy to replace, i definately valued them more in vaniila because so few citys could retain units of triarii below stength.

**Meneldil** · 10-06-2005, 15:46

I think this problem (being able to hire loads of Triarii) isn't related to the buildings available in a city at the beginning of the game, but rather to the cost of the Triarii.