Are the Romans too Powerful?

[Noir]

Originally posted by econ21
e.g. just match up hastati and cohorts with Gaulish warbands and chosen warriors, or something.

Hmmm... how about pit them against... Gaesatarae then?

Many Thanks

Noir

*edit* That is Gaesatae - its really been a long time since i last played RTW...

[Primus_Pilus]

Guys, I think your overlooking the fact that the Romans in history WERE the super-powers. It's not so much that the units are over balanced; CA actaully did alot of research in to the tactics and unit strengths of the time to insure that they had realism.

For the original poster: You took Spartan Hoplites from 500BC and compared them to troops, the 1st Cohort, of 200 AD or so. That's 700 years of tactical advancement as well as material enhancement. The spartans had a certain tactic that they used and the Romans had, by far, surpassed them in their use of weapons and shields.

This goes for almost any other empire they faced. Rome didn't start loosing battles until close to their fall, and that's only because of the decline of the economy and the leadership. The thing the romans had to their advantage was their ability to absorb different ideas.

So, no, I'm not surprised to see a couple cohorts moe through a phalanx of Spartan Hoplites. I would be surprised to see Hastati do it, though.

[Laman]

Rome did loose battles, it was not an odd occurence. However they never acknowledged they had been beaten. One reason they could conquer most of their enemies was that for the Hellenistic powers, if one battle was lost, then they would sue for peace (it was not easy to replace losses for them). Rome on the other hand would raise yet another army and continue the war (like after Cannae).

[Ludens]

Guys, I think your overlooking the fact that the Romans in history WERE the super-powers. It's not so much that the units are over balanced; CA actaully did alot of research in to the tactics and unit strengths of the time to insure that they had realism.
(...)
This goes for almost any other empire they faced. Rome didn't start loosing battles until close to their fall, and that's only because of the decline of the economy and the leadership.

During the first Punic war the Romans suffered appaling loses and it was only their ability to recover from these that won them the war. The Second Punic War started even worse, with Hannibal Barca annihilating the Romans at Tictinus, Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae, while his fellow countrymen pushed back Roman power in Iberia and Sicily. Only when the Roman legions obtained a decent degree of field experience did they manage to turn the tide. Then did the Roman empire turn into an unstoppable behemoth that trashed the Hellenic powers. Yet as soon as these experienced soldiers became too old for active service, the Romans started losing again. The start of the Third Punic war was a catalogue of incompetence and disaster for the Romans, despite the fact that Carthage was only a shadow of it's former power. In Iberia things weren't much better, and it was the Scipio Africanus the younger who saved Roman pride on both continents. The Numidian war didn't go quite as badly, but it hardly was a walk-over, nor did the Marius and his reforms make much difference. Then the German tribes migrated into Italy and inflicted several crushing defeats on the Romans, including one where casualties may well have rivaled that of Cannae.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. The Romans did lose battles. Quite frequently actually, and more frequently the further you go back in their history or the Republic. However, this does not mean that the Romans of the late Republic or early empire were invincible either: take Carrhae and Teutoberger Forrest, for example. These weren't isolated defeats either, as the continued treat of the Germans and the Parthians/Sassanids proves. Even Julius Ceasar suffered a defeat at Gergovia, although it did not prove a permanent one.

Rome became a world power not because they did not lose battles, but because they did not lose wars.

[econ21]

Hmmm... how about pit them against... Gaesatarae then?

Fine, you can have your Gaesatae if I can have my Camillan triarii.

We would be in for a long night.

OK, after such a feeble offering of mine, I feel I must redeem it by providing some data:


If kill chances depend on the attack-defence differential, as in STW/MTW (and further assuming one point =10% change in kill chances), I make that:

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

[Noir]

Originally posted by econ21
Fine, you can have your Gaesatae if I can have my Camillan triarii.

We would be in for a long night.

We would, indeed!

Originally posted by econ21
OK, after such a feeble offering of mine, I feel I must redeem it by providing some data:

Unit Attack Defence Morale Swing Lethality

RTW hastati 7 14 6 25 1

RTW Gallic warband 7 10 4 25 0.73

RTW early cohort 9 17 10 25 1

RTR PE hastati 10 25 18 0 0.3

RTR PE Gallic warband 8 21 16 25 0.4

RTR PE early cohort 12 36 18 0 0.3

EB hastati 11 21 13 0 0.13

EB Gallic warband (Lugoae) 9 13 8 0 0.125

EB early cohort 12 23 15 0 0.13


If kill chances depend on the attack-defence differential, as in STW/MTW (and further assuming one point =10% change in kill chances), I make that:

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% more lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

Undoubedly the balance of forces is much better in modifications. (As i posted earlier) RTR PE with Naval&Metro mob and EB are IMO the choices for RTW SP.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Kobal2fr]

So...You complain that vanilla post-Marian Rome is woefuelly overpowered in terms of stats... he proves that Gauls are even MORE underpowered compared to even lower-end Roman troops in the supposedly better balanced acclaimed historical mods, and by huge margins too... and you conclude that thus these mods are the choice for balanced RTW SP ?

Am I being dense here and missing an obvious but unspoken logical step ?

EDIT :

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As an aside, I do agree with you that most of MTW/RTW/M2TW units are just tweaks to the basic STW archetypal units, but what you acclaim as proper balance (ie : STW's "purity" through giving everyone exactly the same troops) is not balance at all. It's, specifically, avoiding the whole balancing idea alltogether. Besides, even back in STW the different clans weren't balanced at all anyway. You can't expect me to believe that "can field cheaper ashigaru" can possibly be construed as even remotely equivalent to "can zoom through the whole tech tree because castles are 25% cheaper". Or even "can field archers at the price of spearmen". But I digress.

I also agree that RTW's tentative to recreate the great cultural differences in warfare techniques (ie phalanx, legion, warbands, HAs, chariots etc...) was on the whole a bit of a failure, mostly because the AI used a "one size fits none" tactical decision process. i.e. it couldn't play their strengths or counterbalance their weaknesses worth a damn. It was a good idea that sadly didn't work out that well in it's application.

But I disagree on the fact that it's all because of the evil new engine, the new graphics or CA selling out and dumbing it down to a more "generic" RTS crowd.

Proof being that, as of version 1.2 and a bit of tweaking on the part of Lusted's LTC "mod" (which is less of a mod and more of a fine tuning of the vanilla game) M2TW battles, using the selfsame evil new engine, are very close in feel to STW/MTW ones, without suffering from many of their most annoying properties, like the aforementionned hour-long marathon battles against Egyptian triplestacks, with the reinforcements getting sent in peacemeal, exhausted and half-broken before they even reach your battleline. Or losing a battle because ONE enemy samurai yari wasn't dead or routed off the field before the clock runs out (no kidding. Happened to me when I ran the ol' Shoggy again while I was waiting for M2TW to be properly patched up. Needless to say I got a little... miffed at the time.)

And on a more global scale, M2TW factions are much closer to each other in terms of rosters than those of RTW, most having a common core (though wildly diverse in appearances) with a few faction-specific units that are in essence upgraded versions of said common core, emphasizing this or that tactical field for said faction - or, in STW terms, "can recruit +1 honour No-Dachi". Only, you know, with different unit models as well.

[Laman]

...

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% more lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

Well one thing, Lugoae in EB are not really exactly the same type of troop as the vanilla Warband, the Warband is a basic military unit like Hastati, while Lugoae is a garrison unit (like vanilla Town Watch). I can't say anything about RTR, but for EB, a better unit to compare to might be Gaeroas.

[guineawolf]

Well one thing, Lugoae in EB are not really exactly the same type of troop as the vanilla Warband, the Warband is a basic military unit like Hastati, while Lugoae is a garrison unit (like vanilla Town Watch). I can't say anything about RTR, but for EB, a better unit to compare to might be Gaeroas.

i got only 1 thing to say,you guys should consider about the weapon they using,swords and spear,sound like Age of Empire system,cavalry got bonus against archers,spearmen got bonus against cavalry and swordsmen got bonus against spearmen,something like that...

[Noir]

Originally posted by Kobal2fr
... and you conclude that thus these mods are the choice for balanced RTW SP ?

Am I being dense here and missing an obvious but unspoken logical step ?

You are indeed missing the unspoken logical step - and that is that i do not wish overloading this thread with more hiijacking and almost one man argument.

I haven't concluded anything from econ21's post - i simply bowed and repeated my own previous conclusions.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Kobal2fr]

You are indeed missing the unspoken logical step - and that is that i do not wish overloading this thread with more hiijacking and almost one man argument.

I haven't concluded anything from econ21's post - i simply bowed and repeated my own previous conclusions.

Many Thanks

Noir

Haaaah, I see. So quoting him extensively was merely an elaborate way to dismiss anything anyone might say that goes against a preconceived conclusion.

Carry on !

[Aradan]

Lethality is the last entry in the stat_pri and stat_sec line of a unit, in the export_descr_unit.txt.

This one:

stat_pri         8,6, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0, 0.78

i got only 1 thing to say,you guys should consider about the weapon they using,swords and spear,sound like Age of Empire system,cavalry got bonus against archers,spearmen got bonus against cavalry and swordsmen got bonus against spearmen,something like that...

As guineawolf rightly points out, there are many factors that you haven't considered in the equation. Starting from unit type (swordsman, spearman, etc) and going even to the skeleton of the model... Everything plays a part in combat.

[guineawolf]

Fine, you can have your Gaesatae if I can have my Camillan triarii.

We would be in for a long night.

OK, after such a feeble offering of mine, I feel I must redeem it by providing some data:


If kill chances depend on the attack-defence differential, as in STW/MTW (and further assuming one point =10% change in kill chances), I make that:

RTW
hastati attack Gaul at -3; Gaul replies at -7 and 37% less lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -10 and 37% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 130%

RTR
hastati attack Gaul at -11; Gaul replies at -17 and 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 30%, but have not quantified swing
early cohort attacks Gaul at -9; Gaul replies at -26 and with 33% higher lethality/slower swing
=> Gaul disadvantaged by 140%, but have not quantified swing

EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -12 and 4% more lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -100%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -14 and 4% lethality
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -130%

The maths is ropey (particularly the "=>"), but I think my hunch was right: relative to the "realism" mods, Roman infantry in RTW do not seem overpowered when matched up against low grade Gauls.

Where do i gonna check out the lethality of RTW units???
many thanks if you would kind enough to tell me....

i want to find out which unit most cheapest to recruit as my main light infantry,i oredi use militia hoplites as my regulars in my Thrace campaign,just wanna see if egyptian Nubian spearman would be second choice?town watch ?town militia?eastern infantry?

[econ21]

Well one thing, Lugoae in EB are not really exactly the same type of troop as the vanilla Warband, the Warband is a basic military unit like Hastati, while Lugoae is a garrison unit (like vanilla Town Watch). I can't say anything about RTR, but for EB, a better unit to compare to might be Gaeroas.

Fair enough - if we take Gaeroas, the table should be revised to be:


EB
hastati attack Gaul at -2; Gaul replies at -10
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -80%
early cohort attacks Gaul at -1; Gaul replies at -12
=> Gaul disadvantaged by -110%

It still looks remarkably like the RTW match up.

I still maintain that by the standards of RTR and EB, Romans (as in Roman infantry) are not too powerful. I suspect is the armour stat that explains their superiority.

Guineawolf - I'm not convinced weapon type is relevant here. It's invariant across the three variants for these units. (Although EB does give the warbands javelins, which is a big help).

[Aradan]

Spearmen have lethality at 0.73 iirc and two-handers at 0.87... To compensate for a specific model skeleton issue both have (the spears to a greater degree), that's terribly unbalancing.

[Phoenix]

I think that the 2-handers do pretty good even with the 0.87 lethality they get, it's the Spears that have a lethality of 0.73 that are hopelessly underpowered.

To answer the topic's question, I felt the Romans were so overpowered that I modded Legionary Cavalry, Praetorian Cavalry, and Urban Cohorts out of my game and lowered the armor rating of Lorica Segmentata units to 10, although I raised the melee/pilum attacks of Legionary Cohorts to 10/14 since I thought that after the changes they were losing to Chosen Swordsmen too easily. First time I personally modded a game, but I'm glad I did.

[Shieldmaiden]

I felt the Romans were so overpowered that I modded Legionary Cavalry, Praetorian Cavalry, and Urban Cohorts out of my game

Yes, I felt a bit like that.

I'm modding and limiting recruitment of a Praetorian Cohort and Praetorian Cavalry to Italy, and an Urban Cohort to Carthage, Lugdunum, and Rome. 5th Level Barracks and Stables now give a +1 Exp to a Legionary Cohort and Legionary Cavalry.

Hopefully more historical, and better balanced IMHO