Are the Romans too Powerful?

[OliverWKim]

I am running vanilla RTW at 1.5. To compare the troop qualities of the Greeks and the Romans I created a custom battle with one army of only Spartan hoplites, all upgraded veterans, and another army of Roman troops, all of which were Legionary 1st Cohorts, upgraded to the max. The Spartans were defending an unwalled minor city, sort of like Sparta in the 'Siege of Sparta' historical battle. According to their unit card description, they are 'perfect soldiers'. However, in reality, they were massacred to the last man by my endless waves of Roman legionnaires, even when I set the difficulty to the highest possible level. Even though this was not really a formal, scientific, closed-system no-variable experiment, the fact that these Roman legionnaires could basically chew up and spit out the very, very, very, very best the Greek cities can offer chills me. Does anyone else recognize this problem?

[King of Finland]

Yes other factions have no chance against romans. They have the best infantry, reasonable cavalry and archers. Egypt might be the second best faction. Rest are barbarians or only phalanx nations. In that perspective RTW is unbalanced . In M2TW theres no supreme faction.

[guineawolf]

I am running vanilla RTW at 1.5. To compare the troop qualities of the Greeks and the Romans I created a custom battle with one army of only Spartan hoplites, all upgraded veterans, and another army of Roman troops, all of which were Legionary 1st Cohorts, upgraded to the max. The Spartans were defending an unwalled minor city, sort of like Sparta in the 'Siege of Sparta' historical battle. According to their unit card description, they are 'perfect soldiers'. However, in reality, they were massacred to the last man by my endless waves of Roman legionnaires, even when I set the difficulty to the highest possible level. Even though this was not really a formal, scientific, closed-system no-variable experiment, the fact that these Roman legionnaires could basically chew up and spit out the very, very, very, very best the Greek cities can offer chills me. Does anyone else recognize this problem?

do you ever upgrade those armor of spartan hoplites?
i think the real problem is the comparisom of their armor,do you realize that roman legion have the hardest armor in the RTW(except cataphract of coz)

[Stuperman]

Historically Roman Legions did conquer most of europe, north africa, asia minor, the 'holy lands', and as far east as the persian gulf and armenia under Trajan, so it's not like it's totally inaccurate.

were the flanks secure in your test battle?

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Sadly, I do agree. Post-Marian reforms, the Roman units are almost unstoppable. R:TW certainly is quite imbalanced in this regard, much worse than all other TW games, and in many others.

It seems as if the Romans are engineered to rule the world, as they almost did historically, but they did not conquer lands as quickly as R:TW portrays - R:TW shows them having their empire at it's largest extent by about 100BC when really it was at this point by two hundered years later.

[Noir]

Now add the fact that post Marian Roman units are supported from 3 separate factions and how fast the Marian Reforms themselves can happen...

RTW vanilla - any version - is unbalanced beyond redemption and in fact many battle oriented mods came out originally in order to deal with this and the gross historical innacuracies.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Stuperman]

I will admit that I hate how early the reforms come, I've had them as early as 230 BC, personally I'd like them at the historical time of 107. But the intense discipline and training that the soldiers faced would make them incredibly tough. Especially at that time in history when most opposing army was made up of relitively inexpierenced people forced into military service.

[guineawolf]

i think that it is the idea of the developers,since it's objective is to capture Rome to win the campaign,then it must create those superior army nearby to avoid it being captured so easily to increase it's difficulty(just like a knight must defeat the dragon to reach the sleeping beauty,hehehe )

i read it,historically that roman are 1 of those greek culture,and their original army are same as greeks,based on hoplites and phalanxe formations.But since it get defeated by gauls come from north with using phalanxe formations,and Rome itself almost get abandoned by it's people,but 1 man summoned them back to rebuild Rome.Since then,romans decide to adopt the gaul's equipment and fighting style and give up the phalanxe,then it is the creation of legions.

too bad i lost the link to that site,but i will search for it,i will post that link here if i find it.....

still find it yet..but got a site which got pictures too

homepage:
http://www.roman-empire.net/index.html

pictures:
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army-pictures.html



somehow it have tell the story that the form of legions:read from the early legion
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html
and read from the early legion,it seems that romans early legions not just hastati,principles and triarii,it got "rorarii" and "accensi" too

this site at least tell me history and details about roman army:
-The Greek Phalanx
-The Early Legion (4th century BC)
-Scipio's Reforms of the Army
-The Roman Legion (2nd century BC)
-Marius' reforms of the Army (our Marius' reforms)

[King of Kings]

well i think its hardly inaccurate because there the most successful army of the ancient world.But that said there cav is to over powered cos they didnt have many or that great cav,most of them werent Romans or Italians.And also i dont think they could of beat the spartans in real life anyway.

[Kuni]

Yes, Romans are too powerful. They are no doubt a superpower.

But this is Rome: Total War, after all.. MTW M2TW and STW are not centered on one faction, RTW is.

[IceWolf]

I'm starting to think that post-Marius they are. I'm playing a Scythian campaign right now and I keep trashing one stack after another (at much higher cost than my earlier battles) and another group of hard fighting Brutti/Julii pops up to take their place. Rome has the units and the econ to support them.

[Celt Centurion]

While the Romans can be some tough guys, I've found many other tough units in other factions. As one of you mentioned, I also upgrade armor as soon as I can, and as often as I can. Copper upgrades to silver which upgrades to gold. If I managed to build or capture a city with a foundry and a temple of Hephaestus, or Artemis, I upgrade the armor of everybody in the place, and then start "trading" units from neighboring cities to get the armor upgrades.

Presently, I have an XGM game as Macedon. I've taken most of present day Turkey from The Greek Cities and Selucids. Pergamum has a foundry and awesome temple of Artemis. Imagine the armor upgrades in that! I've also gotten the same upgrades in every city in Western Turkey, and have taken a bunch more.

I think that a lot of it is upgrading with improved barracks and armor.

Try the armor and experience upgrades, and you may find what you are looking for.

Strength and Honor

Celt Centurion

[Shieldmaiden]

well i think its hardly inaccurate because there the most successful army of the ancient world.But that said there cav is to over powered cos they didnt have many or that great cav,most of them werent Romans or Italians.And also i dont think they could of beat the spartans in real life anyway

Yes, I think what bothers me is why they are overpowered in RTW.

Romans in RTW would be more historically accurate without silly uber Cavalry, and continue to be powerful due to their superior infantry and infrastructure.

[Noir]

this whole discussion stating essentially "they've beaten everyone in history they should be doing so in game" is flawed IMO and this is why:

a) In "real" history the Romans faced defeat inumerable times (Pyrhus, Hanibal, Celtiberian&Gaulish&Germanic&Balkan Tribes, Carrae, Teutoberg Ward and many others battles lost) - they learned from it though and adapted their style and equipment, and this adaptability gave them an edge. Their battles were nowhere easy or won before fighting actually happened. This is not accounted for in the game, as their units are the best in every "era" by default.

b) From a gameplay perspective it is absolutely wrong to give all winning cards in one team - the game is no fun then. All factions should have strengths and weaknesses in the field giving overall equal chances of success and this is poorly implemented in RTW (although attempted) as the Roman units can beat the equivalent of most other factions in the field and also field the best units in every department , which is boring and historically inaccurate.

The Romans had no archery or equastrian traditions they were terrible horseman and ineffective with the bow - they've always relied on mercenaries and auxiliaries for this.

RTW, attempted to introduce TW to new fans, first ad foremost. It was for this reason that the Romans are overpowered and one can win anyway with them.

Many Thanks

Noir

[caravel]

People often assume that the Roman empire was built on the strength of it's armies alone. In truth it was the Roman beliefs and values, greater unity than their neighbours, better system of government, higher morale and better training of troops, logistics and way of life that all contributed to establish the Roman Empire, not brute force alone. The idea that the Romans simply headed north and wiped the floor with the inferior "barbarians", because they had tougher armies, is a little naive.

The Romans' Manipular formations and tactics were also superior to many of their opponents at the time, again this is something for the player to learn to do in battle. Forming up your units with use of good tactics (which is how the Romans won their battles), as opposed to bum rushing the RTW Roman uber units at the barbarians knowing quite well that you're going to win nearly every time, because of the overpowered nature of the Roman units.

[Stuperman]

this whole discussion stating essentially "they've beaten everyone in history they should be doing so in game" is flawed IMO and this is why:

a) In "real" history the Romans faced defeat inumerable times (Pyrhus, Hanibal, Celtiberian&Gaulish&Germanic&Balkan Tribes, Carrae, Teutoberg Ward and many others battles lost) - they learned from it though and adapted their style and equipment, and this adaptability gave them an edge. Their battles were nowhere easy or won before fighting actually happened. This is not accounted for in the game, as their units are the best in every "era" by default.

Most of the battles you have listed were lost due to poor leadership on the roman side, or military genius on the behalf of the roman opposition. In generally all situations, man to man, the romans were MUCH better trained and disciplined, especially after the marius (marian?) reforms.

b) From a gameplay perspective it is absolutely wrong to give all winning cards in one team - the game is no fun then. All factions should have strengths and weaknesses in the field giving overall equal chances of success and this is poorly implemented in RTW (although attempted) as the Roman units can beat the equivalent of most other factions in the field and also field the best units in every department , which is boring and historically inaccurate.

The romans (in game) do have a few ahistorical units (urban cohorts, high end cav), but I wouldn't say they have all the wining cards, Cataphracts(sp) are the best cav, pharos bowmen, cretian archer and forester warband are all better missle units. Spartans, Bastarnae, beserkers, and Sacred Band can all beat post marian armies. Scutarii/spanish mercs and most phalanx units can beat pre marian armies relitively easily.

Some factions (carthage) are grossly underpowered but that is really for game play reasons and Vanilla Balance mod ( https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79547 ) helps fix that if it really bugs you that much.

The Romans had no archery or equastrian traditions they were terrible horseman and ineffective with the bow - they've always relied on mercenaries and auxiliaries for this.

Many Thanks

Noir

Not going to touch the horsemen one, but after the reforms the archer units avaiable to the romans are called archer auxillia.

Thanks

Stuperman

[Noir]

Originally posted by Stuperman
Most of the battles you have listed were lost due to poor leadership on the roman side, or military genius on the behalf of the roman opposition.

Agreed, however the same can be claimed for their victories, no? (ie poor leadership of opposition and Roman military genius - not to mention Roman logistical strength past some point).

Originally posted by Stuperman
In generally all situations, man to man, the romans were MUCH better trained and disciplined, especially after the marius (marian?) reforms.

Yes, however the game has other factors than simply giving better fighting stats to reflect this - like for example morale and discipline. These were fully employable in the old engine STW/MTW, but i have no clue how much they matter in the new one.

If anything the Roman units should be having lesser stats than say the Barbarian units that were larger and stronger men.

Originally posted by Stuperman
...but I wouldn't say they have all the wining cards, Cataphracts(sp) are the best cav, pharos bowmen, cretian archer and forester warband are all better missle units. Spartans, Bastarnae, beserkers, and Sacred Band can all beat post marian armies. Scutarii/spanish mercs and most phalanx units can beat pre marian armies relitively easily.

They have: the best infantry, excellent cavalry and very good missiles. They overall excel over other factions by a large margin except the Seleukids and the Egyptians (in these cases the margin is smaller) - that also can be beaten easily with a little patience to shoot out the troublesome chariots and elephants.

What you list is a few units that are better and not a faction that has equal chances.

By the way both the Egyptians and the Seleukids have dead flat boring overpowered rosters IMO.

As for the most phalanx units beating principe and hastati or postmarian legionaires i doubt it in a practical situation as they take ages to do so and need to engage front only in order to. By then they are dead.

Originally posted by Stuperman
Some factions (carthage) are grossly underpowered but that is really for game play reasons and Vanilla Balance mod ( https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79547 ) helps fix that if it really bugs you that much.

Well it "bugs me" so much i'm afraid that i gave up on RTW after playing it and many of its mods for almost 2 years. My favorite mods were: RTRplatinum with Naval&City Mod and EB as well as others not in the setting (tried Chivalry, The Crusades, Napoleonic and others).

The battles are only a shadow of what they've been in the older games IMO. Balancing is accoding to SP criteria only most of the time that do not account exactly for the best results relative to tactics. Ironically enough mods that turned RTW "more tactical" took out key TW features like morale or increased defence and morale to the skies (essentially taking them out again) to make melees last longer.

Originally posted by Stuperman
Not going to touch the horsemen one, but after the reforms the archer units avaiable to the romans are called archer auxillia.

Yes, auxilia recruitable all over the Italian peninsula in the provinces of the old Res Publica- not very convincing i'm afraid.

Many Thanks

Noir

[caravel]

The whole problem seems to me that CA contrived it so that the Romans would do very well, whether controlled by the AI or the player.

In doing this they had to ensure that the Romans won a large proportion of autocalced battles, and to achieve this the Roman units' stats were souped up.

Also Celtic, Germanic and other "barbarian" warriors were fearsome fighters and should excel in the "bumrush", whereas the Romans should excel in using cautious advance, and strong tactical formations, relying more on their morale and guts.

Again the problem is down to weak AI. Unable/unwilling to find any other way to represent the superior Roman tactics, deployment and logistics the developer has simply treated the Roman units in RTW like the Saxon/Viking Huscarles in the MTW/VI campaign with artificially increased stats. In this campaign, Anglo-Saxon hegemony was assured by the presence of these uber units in the unit roster to imbalance autocalc battles in the Anglo-Saxon faction's favour.

[Stuperman]

Agreed, however the same can be claimed for their victories, no? (ie poor leadership of opposition and Roman military genius - not to mention Roman logistical strength past some point).

The roman logistical strength was superior to most opposition, true and Roman military engineering (siege engines, Ceasar's defensive lines at alesia) was really second to none.

Yes, however the game has other factors than simply giving better fighting stats to reflect this - like for example morale and discipline. These were fully employable in the old engine STW/MTW, but i have no clue how much they matter in the new one.

If anything the Roman units should be having lesser stats than say the Barbarian units that were larger and stronger men.

lesser attack maybe, but I doubt defensive skill, roman training would have kept that high. Roman diets would probably have been better than 'barbarian' diets too.

They have: the best infantry, excellent cavalry and very good missiles. They overall excel over other factions by a large margin except the Seleukids and the Egyptians (in these cases the margin is smaller) - that also can be beaten easily with a little patience to shoot out the troublesome chariots and elephants.

What you list is a few units that are better and not a faction that has equal chances.

Seleukids, Egypt, can both beat the romans, I think Makedonia could too if they were farther away from rome geographically, whicch would give them time to develop.

As for the most phalanx units beating principe and hastati or postmarian legionaires i doubt it in a practical situation as they take ages to do so and need to engage front only in order to. By then they are dead.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=14

that's what I thought too.

Well it "bugs me" so much i'm afraid that i gave up on RTW after playing it and many of its mods for almost 2 years. My favorite mods were: RTRplatinum with Naval&City Mod and EB as well as others not in the setting (tried Chivalry, The Crusades, Napoleonic and others).

I like RTR platinum 1.8, Metro and navel mod is really nice cause many cities have no walls. Gave EB a try, but at that time there were very few unit cards and I found it too annoying to play, finding the correct group of units when they all look the same at the bottom is not fun.

The battles are only a shadow of what they've been in the older games IMO. Balancing is accoding to SP criteria only most of the time that do not account exactly for the best results relative to tactics. Ironically enough mods that turned RTW "more tactical" took out key TW features like morale or increased defence and morale to the skies (essentially taking them out again) to make melees last longer.

AI tactics leave a lot to be desired, I agree there, I'm not sure what you mean about the moral thing, I find it way too low in the regular game, RTR:PE on hard is about right for me. IIRC in RTR:PE hard gives +3moral and attack and VH gives +7 to both.

Yes, auxilia recruitable all over the Italian peninsula in the provinces of the old Res Publica- not very convincing i'm afraid.

And all factions can recruits thier own troops from any barracks. For example I can recruit hastii from a barabrian or greek barracks if I have recently taken the settlement and haven't built a roman one yet. The lack of AOR is regretable, but is a gameplay issue, infact I think roman citizenship (and thus military service) barely extended beyond Italy until the reforms of Marius.

Regards

Stuperman

[caravel]

AI tactics leave a lot to be desired, I agree there, I'm not sure what you mean about the moral thing, I find it way too low in the regular game, RTR:PE on hard is about right for me. IIRC in RTR:PE hard gives +3moral and attack and VH gives +7 to both.

Morale appears to be too low because kill rates are two high. In fact base morale has been increased in some mods to stop premature rout problem. The high kill rates causes the "losing badly" status to kick in very early and the rout begins, and then chains off to the other units. Battles in STW and MTW didn't have such accelerated kill rates and real tactics played a bigger part. It would take much longer to defeat and rout a unit. Increasing morale alone only keeps the unit on the field longer to die instead of it running away. The root of the problem is poorly balanced unit stats, over the top cavalry charges and exaggerated movement speeds.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Stuperman
lesser attack maybe, but I doubt defensive skill, roman training would have kept that high. Roman diets would probably have been better than 'barbarian' diets too.

Disagree on this one. The Romans didn't necessarily excel on an individual basis over others. Their main attribute was fighting with high morale and discipline. There were other ways to instill this in game as i said, for example a legion unit could get rank bonuses when keeping the formation.

The diet playing a part in strength linearly i find very debatable.

Originally posted by Stuperman

Seleukids, Egypt, can both beat the romans, I think Makedonia could too if they were farther away from rome geographically, whicch would give them time to develop.

In fact anyone can beat the Romans regularly, i have done so with every faction, even with Numidia and Gaul in the hoghest difficulties and much more easily (almost for fun) with the theoretically "weak" Carthage. As Carthage for example i was very depressed when i realised in one of my first campaigns that 4 units of elephants charging head-on will win you the campaign. I used 3 round shield cavalries to scoop up routing enemy units. It worked every time and i left the campaign after 6 battles like this and never played like that since.

The fact that others can beat the Romans doesn't mean that factions and their rosters are balanced. The game is full of exploits that unbalance it all around in the campaign and in the field.

Originally posted by Stuperman
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpo...3&postcount=14

that's what I thought too.

You mean? All i see that is there is that phalanxes will beat the legion when engaging head-on and lose if they are attacked from the flanks. I agree on this as i said before, however i repeat that in the field it doesn't happen exactly like this - even the AI when playing the Romans tries to flank, sometimes succesfully. I also did similar tests for some home modding i did long time ago now.

Originally posted by Stuperman
I like RTR platinum 1.8, Metro and navel mod is really nice cause many cities have no walls. Gave EB a try, but at that time there were very few unit cards and I found it too annoying to play, finding the correct group of units when they all look the same at the bottom is not fun.

Metro and naval mod is really good for having no walls as you say and for the incomes in provinces that are linked with the little villages. I took it in fact one step further and moded out the machine gun towers - so even the cities with walls would be interesting battles. Just before an assault in them i added to their garrison militias and archers instead for the AI to use in the walls with a cheat.

Eb is much better since the latest version was released sometime before Xmas. I reccomend it to anyone who plays RTW SP.

Originally posted by Stuperman
AI tactics leave a lot to be desired, I agree there, I'm not sure what you mean about the moral thing, I find it way too low in the regular game, RTR:PE on hard is about right for me. IIRC in RTR:PE hard gives +3moral and attack and VH gives +7 to both.

The TW AI is probably in RTW as competitive it was in MTW and that is not bad at all in fact. What killed it was the taking out of the blobbing penalty, and as Cambyses II says the higher movements and higher kill rates and chain routes and super overpowered charges and unbalanced unit stats.

If you ever try MTW, try the Samurai Warlords mod that goes for balanced armies in the campaign - the AI is a very hard opponent there without uber units or campaign beefings - it might pleasantly surprise you how much actually. This cannot manifest in RTW though because of the gross imbalances IMO and the way the engine works.

Originally posted by Stuperman
And all factions can recruits thier own troops from any barracks. For example I can recruit hastii from a barabrian or greek barracks if I have recently taken the settlement and haven't built a roman one yet. The lack of AOR is regretable, but is a gameplay issue, infact I think roman citizenship (and thus military service) barely extended beyond Italy until the reforms of Marius

Agreed, the problem is way more general as you describe - most mods took good care of this as you mention.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Afkazar]

In campaign mode id say it depends how you build your army to counter them.I play as selecuids. half sythed chariots and half cataphract combo has yet to lose me a single battle.I think I've taken on armies 3 times my size and crushed them. Romans should be rightly afraid of 3 things. Elephants,Berserkers and chariots. Romans have to semi prepare on how they plan to combat these threats.Phalanx armies have no trouble with these problems.
Also in campaign mode Phalanx armies Have GODLY defense of city streets and squares. In my selecuid campaign I literally routed thracian and macedonian armys at least 10 times in the one city. I think its where constantinople should be.

In multiplayer me and an ally defeated some romans with all phalanx armies. He took spartans and i took sacred band inf.

[guineawolf]

I am running vanilla RTW at 1.5. To compare the troop qualities of the Greeks and the Romans I created a custom battle with one army of only Spartan hoplites, all upgraded veterans, and another army of Roman troops, all of which were Legionary 1st Cohorts, upgraded to the max. The Spartans were defending an unwalled minor city, sort of like Sparta in the 'Siege of Sparta' historical battle. According to their unit card description, they are 'perfect soldiers'. However, in reality, they were massacred to the last man by my endless waves of Roman legionnaires, even when I set the difficulty to the highest possible level. Even though this was not really a formal, scientific, closed-system no-variable experiment, the fact that these Roman legionnaires could basically chew up and spit out the very, very, very, very best the Greek cities can offer chills me. Does anyone else recognize this problem?

do you ever noticed your spartan's stamina?
when both side stamina reduce to lowest level,that it will lower their attack and defense "skill"=combat effecientcy,but not their armor value.....
roman legion=12 armor
spartan hoplite=3 armor

i only figure out a way that read in roman history,when using phalanxe for defense,try using some rotation method,that will conserve their stamina,like first line unit fall back behind second line unit after receive first wave of attack for resting,then when the second line unit fall back behind first line unit,those first line units oredi become fresh again,and so on ......

[Afkazar]

i only figure out a way that read in roman history,when using phalanxe for defense,try using some rotation method,that will conserve their stamina,like first line unit fall back behind second line unit after receive first wave of attack for resting,then when the second line unit fall back behind first line unit,those first line units oredi become fresh again,and so on ......

There are a few problems with this theory.
1. Romans enjoy having cav break you side flanks.Any attempt to run away would end in more casualties than normal.
2.Having troops that could be in combat sit and rest seems kinda crazy to me.

However, in reality, they were massacred to the last man by my endless waves of Roman legionnaires

Ahh so thats the problem. Your commanding the romans not the spartans. The AI has proven a bit...Stupid at times. The best way to defend any city is to take your phalanxs,find the main entrances that lead to your town square and place the phalanxs there. You should have about 4 points that need covering. This will allow you to clog the romans at these choke points without the worry of romans hitting you in the back. No one enjoys taking 9 ft spears head on. Not even elephants.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Afkazar
In campaign mode id say it depends how you build your army to counter them.I play as selecuids. half sythed chariots and half cataphract combo has yet to lose me a single battle.I think I've taken on armies 3 times my size and crushed them. Romans should be rightly afraid of 3 things. Elephants,Berserkers and chariots. Romans have to semi prepare on how they plan to combat these threats.Phalanx armies have no trouble with these problems.

Agreed and in fact i implied this earlier when saying that "...Romans can beat the Seleukids and Egyptians with a little patience to shoot the troublesome elephants and chariots". This is made all the more easy in SP as the AI decides to skirmish many times with the chariots if they have bowmen or even worst send them directly front charge to spears.

Sometimes (usually when he has superior power) he goes for a full head on attack combining all units together that its his strong point (as he can control them simultaneously much better than the player) giving some hard times with the chariots.

Originally posted by Afkazar
In multiplayer me and an ally defeated some romans with all phalanx armies. He took spartans and i took sacred band inf.

Is this in a single battle or a series of battles? Is it against a particular set of players or against random unconnected players? How often those opponents have fought an all phalanx army? How experienced are they and how experienced are you? Just a few curiosity questions.

As far as i knew (never was interested in RTW (*edit*in RTW MP, i mean) and as things stand never will be) Roman armies were very much prefered generally in MP with the Seleukids being also a strong choice.

Many Thanks

Noir

[caravel]

2.Having troops that could be in combat sit and rest seems kinda crazy to me.

It is, because with RTW's game engine there is no tactical advantage to reserving units due to the lack of the squeeze penalty. You may as well through your men into the melee blob and have them fight to wear down the enemy faster. Historically the Romans would have fought similarly, in the pre marian era anyway, to how guineawolf described and it was effective. The formation usually advanced with the Velites up front, the Hastatii behind, Principes behind them and Triarii at the back. These tactics are worthless in RTW due to unrealistic fatigue and exaggerated kill rates, except perhaps for having your velites up front, as you are better of simply bumrushing and encircling.

[guineawolf]

There are a few problems with this theory.
1. Romans enjoy having cav break you side flanks.Any attempt to run away would end in more casualties than normal.
2.Having troops that could be in combat sit and rest seems kinda crazy to me.

yes,it is posible when you are defending a street,mostly i put 3 line of phalanxe waiting for enemy come for slaughter so when they pass through the first line there will be second line of spearwall waiting for them.You dun need to cover all streets,coz enemy won't move a lot to go to your back,mostly they attack from front and your side.

i idn't tell you to run away,but you can wait for the gap that enemy fall back and regroup,in that time,you are free to fall back,let the full strength squad to replace your duty.

[OliverWKim]

I retried the battle experiment, this time with the Spartans upgraded to the max in terms of armor, weapons and veterancy, and suffered the same results. The Spartans' flanks were definitely secure, as they clogged up the streets with unit after unit. However, even then my Romans were able to cut down the Spartans in the flanks until a little vacuum appeared in the flank, and then I ordered them to pour in and cut down the Spartans from the sides.

[guineawolf]

I retried the battle experiment, this time with the Spartans upgraded to the max in terms of armor, weapons and veterancy, and suffered the same results. The Spartans' flanks were definitely secure, as they clogged up the streets with unit after unit. However, even then my Romans were able to cut down the Spartans in the flanks until a little vacuum appeared in the flank, and then I ordered them to pour in and cut down the Spartans from the sides.

perhaps you should try using spartan hoplites to siege roman legions defenses,try set phalanxe off,guard off and use your sword......
coz phalanxe get bonus fighting cavalry,but get penalty fighting infantry...... i think still the 12 armor problem..........

[OliverWKim]

perhaps you should try using spartan hoplites to siege roman legions defenses,try set phalanxe off,guard off and use your sword......
coz phalanxe get bonus fighting cavalry,but get penalty fighting infantry...... i think still the 12 armor problem..........

I was playing as the Romans, not the Greeks.