Spears are very unbalanced

[Tellos Athenaios]

Quite the opposite. In fact the spears were underpowered.

Let me remind you that if any unit was overpowered it'd be the Romani Legions. I mean, it's not like they were any better than pezhetairoi as far as we can judge. Still they were statted if they were some kind of elite soldiers; which again they are not. Now they are not a "bunch of weaklings" but they aren't an elite unit either. Perhaps, then, for the very first time you'll have to rely on brains; or take our advice and not play on anything more difficult than M (for battles) to win a fight against equally strong opponents?

I suggest you try some other factions as well; see if you still think that the Legions are a bunch of weaklings now.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Quite the opposite. In fact the spears were underpowered.

Let me remind you that if any unit was overpowered it'd be the Romani Legions. I mean, it's not like they were any better than pezhetairoi as far as we can judge. Still they were statted if they were some kind of elite soldiers; which again they are not. Now they are not a "bunch of weaklings" but they aren't an elite unit either. Perhaps, then, for the very first time you'll have to rely on brains; or take our advice and not play on anything more difficult than M (for battles) to win a fight against equally strong opponents?

I suggest you try some other factions as well; see if you still think that the Legions are a bunch of weaklings now.

Wrong. Legionary Cohorts had full-time professional, tough training and excellent equipment. Really above even the Pezhetairoi and only inferior to the Elites, and EB 0.81 did well; Legionaries were strong, but not excessively overpowered.

Rome did have war-winning troops. Why aren't the Evocati elite anymore? They are supposed to be, but now what's the worth in recruiting them? The Romani are underpowered now, in fact.

I really would like to know why such changes were made. Most Greek and barbarian spearmen weren't even full-time warriors. Rome was the first to have a stable and permanent system capable of training solid soldiers, and the legionary infantry was the most superb not only in tactical capability but also in unit strenght. That's why Rome conquered the whole world; many had economical links with many places, but only Rome was able to effectively conquer a lot thanks to their superb military machine. And that's not represented well now.

Wait until a Romani Member sees this.

Because they were. Not. Fine. By any means. At all.

Sorry, but apart from the minor historical innacuracies, I liked them. I found them one of the best legionary graphical mods, really.

[The Wizard]

Indeed, many times a spear is weaker than a sword, less maneuvarable than many shorter swords, and many times it lacks the punch of a longsword manned by a professional warrior.

To butt in for a moment, that may (note may) hold true for single combat, but definitely isn't true when you're talking massed formations of men. The spear was probably the most cost-effective, useful weapon in the ancient world when it came to massed warfare: just stick the pointy end in the enemy's direction and keep it there. It was anything but weak and ineffective.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

To butt in for a moment, that may (note may) hold true for single combat, but definitely isn't true when you're talking massed formations of men. The spear was probably the most cost-effective, useful weapon in the ancient world when it came to massed warfare: just stick the pointy end in the enemy's direction and keep it there. It was anything but weak and ineffective.

And that doesn't mean it was weak and ineffective before. However, with the strenght it has now, it really makes me doubt why many units have switched to swords in the period, or why many sword-armed infantry won the day against spears, or why many elites had swords instead of spears.

[The Wizard]

And that doesn't mean it was weak and ineffective before. However, with the strenght it has now, it really makes me doubt why many units have switched to swords in the period, or why many sword-armed infantry won the day against spears, or why many elites had swords instead of spears.

Swords were a weapon for the elite -- the few. Only the best and richest warriors of a Celtic clan or tribe had one. They were prestige weapons, and thusly designed for the best of the best, be that in society circles or among warriors.

Meanwhile, spears, because they were far cheaper (took less metal to forge, and involved little to no balancing work while forging, either) and easier to make as well as easier to learn to use (unless we're talking exceptions like Shao Lin spear styles), were the weapon for the masses, the plebs, the common man. In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

So, yeah, the majority of units used spears, and one of the most disctinct military formations of the period functioned as one that did. I haven't had the chance to play EB 1.0 yet, but what I can say is that if spear-wielding infantry is effective, that isn't unrealistic.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Swords were a weapon for the elite -- the few. Only the best and richest warriors of a Celtic clan or tribe had one. They were prestige weapons, and thusly designed for the best of the best, be that in society circles or among warriors.

Meanwhile, spears, because they were far cheaper (took less metal to forge, and involved little to no balancing work while forging, either) and easier to make as well as easier to learn to use (unless we're talking exceptions like Shao Lin spear styles), were the weapon for the masses, the plebs, the common man. In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

So, yeah, the majority of units used spears, and one of the most disctinct military formations of the period functioned as one that did. I haven't had the chance to play EB 1.0 yet, but what I can say is that if spear-wielding infantry is effective, that isn't unrealistic.

That swords were weapon for the few, and the elite, I can't deny. However virtually every Roman carried a gladius with himself, and the Principes even switched to swords in the 3rd Century B.C. We're not talking about Elites, we're talking about a massive citizen army wielding short blades. Shorter blades were also less expensive than their Celtic Longsword counterparts.

In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

Yes, the Roman military was very effective, but then they still carried the short Gladius sword. They stabbed a lot with them, yet it was still a sword... And with the Gladius, they managed to defeat a myriad of enemies who valued Spearmen a lot.

Just know that the stats can be missleading. Spear units get an attack penalty against other infantry

Yet, stats are too high.

I'm not saying spears are weaker than swords. I think EB 0.81 had a fine balance in armour and attack stats; if an increase in the stats of spearmen is ever needed, then it shouldn't be as high as in the present EB version. Massed spears were an effective weapon, but it was much more than just sticking it to the front. A spear has to be maneuvered so that the enemy doesn't cut it in pieces, and a sword can be better maneuvered than a spear.

[The Wizard]

As said, the Roman maniples and cohorts operated like flexible phalanxes (i.e. able to meet a threat on any side easily), mainly due to the fact that their "spears" were a whole crapload shorter than that of a troop of Foot Companions in Alexander's army. The basic principle of the shield wall that stood at the foundation of the Greek phalanx remained the same with the Roman reformed army from Camillus onwards.

But as said, I haven't played EB 1.0 yet so I can't comment on spears vis-á-vis swords; what I can say is that spears, and the formations that used them (or acted like one of those) were dominant in militaries throughout the ancient Mediterranean world -- for good reasons.

[mighty_rome]

I totally agree with your posts, Basileos ton Ellenon. (In fact I already posted much of the same things earlier myself).

I believe we got the attention of one of the EB guys and they said that the new Romani units are going to be readjusted to match with the rest of them (sorry I don't remember which thread it was in). The old Evocata unit really was awesome, so again I'd really like to see a mod that brings the old one back (many people seem to be requesting this)

It also seems to me that the Romani are now clearly underpowered, but someone said something along the lines of "we have a very complex system that we use to make accurate stats for units based on many different things and the guy doing it is very good." That said, I still believe 0.81 had better balancing. Romani isn't the only faction who has suffered stat-lowering of their elite units, Carthaginian sword-wielding heavy infantry has been downgraded as well.

[mcantu]

Yet, stats are too high.

I think you misunderstood...spear units get -4 (off of the shown attack number) against sword-armed infantry.

[mcantu]

Just know that the stats can be missleading. Spear units get an attack penalty against other infantry

[NeoSpartan]

And who says Pezetaroi (sp) were not a profesional, hardcore infantry??? Hey they kicked a** either in a phalanx or out of a phalanx.

Spears are not weaker that swords, maybe in 1-to-1 they are. But when you are facing a group of men with spears then there is no real disadvantage.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

And who says Pezetaroi (sp) were not a profesional, hardcore infantry??? Hey they kicked a** either in a phalanx or out of a phalanx.

Spears are not weaker that swords, maybe in 1-to-1 they are. But when you are facing a group of men with spears then there is no real disadvantage.

The Pezhetairoi were only great pikemen. However, when the pike phalanx failed and swords had to be used, any phalangites would be at disadvantage fighting against the heavy legionary infantry.

The game already represented that well. In Custom Battles, I was able to defeat a wave of Roman legions with only a few Phalangitai Deuteiroi in defensive mode. Phalangites were already the most formidable troops on the field without the need for further stat increases.

[Sakkura]

Cohors Evocata seem to have been nerfed. Their stats are almost exactly identical to Cohors Reformata, but with a higher cost. The only difference is they are better with the pilum, and have one man less.

In 0.81 they had a lot more armor than Cohors Reformata, so a reduction was okay; but I think it may have been reduced too much, so that they are now useless.

[abou]

Wrong. Legionary Cohorts had full-time professional, tough training and excellent equipment. Really above even the Pezhetairoi and only inferior to the Elites...

Pft... bollocks. When you spend most of your time building your night camp you don't exactly get the training that people think you do.

[blank]

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them. Just in case, i'll say this: the Romans were NOT super mega fighters 1 on 1. They were inferior to most Celts or Germanics in that matter. Their strength lied in their tactics, not their big muscles. See?

If you take 250 Roman legionaries and pit them against a phalanx of 250 man on even ground then i would put my money on the phalanx...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So would I, and btw I'm in a good mood guys, so this is coming from the head. Generally when the Romans won in our period someone else screwed up, they weren't that great and Evocata Cohorts were sat on their backsides twiddling their thumbs until recall.

Only under Augustus did the army become professional, the Makedonian or Seliukid soldiers were more than a match one-for-one before that.

[mighty_rome]

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them.

And I get tired of people saying this kind of thing when all we want is more realistic stats for the Romani faction. I'm not a "Roman fanboy" by the way, I am an "Ancient world fanboy". I love playing as KH, AS, Carthage and Baktria. When I play against Rome I want it to be a challenge to defeat them. When I play as them I want them to have the stats they deserve. I'll say it again: EB 0.81 seems to have been more balanced, in my opinion.

[blank]

And I get tired of people saying this kind of thing when all we want is more realistic stats for the Romani faction. I'm not a "Roman fanboy" by the way, I am an "Ancient world fanboy". I love playing as KH, AS, Carthage and Baktria. When I play against Rome I want it to be a challenge to defeat them. When I play as them I want them to have the stats they deserve. I'll say it again: EB 0.81 seems to have been more balanced, in my opinion.

And i assume you have fought the new reformed legions extensively in your 1.0 campaigns to come to such decision?

Seriously, to those who claim not to be fanboys, why do you keep ignoring the explanations given as to why the Romans shouldn't have so high stats?
And: have you actually tested the units in battle rather than just taking the OP's word for it?

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...

[Watchman]

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...

In all fairness though, there's a whole lot of consistency issues in some units' armour values (shields are more debatable). And don't get me started on the movement speeds.

Although, as it goes, I don't think too many of the Romani units have such issues.

[mighty_rome]

And i assume you have fought the new reformed legions extensively in your 1.0 campaigns to come to such decision?

Seriously, to those who claim not to be fanboys, why do you keep ignoring the explanations given as to why the Romans shouldn't have so high stats?
And: have you actually tested the units in battle rather than just taking the OP's word for it?

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...

You sure do seem to imply that anyone who wants realistic stats for Romani are a a bunch of ignorant "fan boys" who haven't done any research. You're wrong, and I also have to say that I don't appreciate your attitude. I haven't seen any satisfactory explanations yet, probably because there aren't any; the late Romani units are underpowered whether you want to admit it or not. You certainly don't.

You're obviously "anti-Romani" so I'll consider any further comments you make to this thread irrelevant.

[Sakkura]

Great care and deliberation was put into each and every unit and their stats, we didn't just roll a dice and put the results as stats ffs...

Well then explain to me why evocati, reenlisted veterans, have the same stats as regular cohorts on every point except missile attack. It would make more sense to me if they got perhaps a point in either defense skill or melee attack, and some higher morale.

[Sakkura]

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them. Just in case, i'll say this: the Romans were NOT super mega fighters 1 on 1. They were inferior to most Celts or Germanics in that matter. Their strength lied in their tactics, not their big muscles. See?

If you take 250 Roman legionaries and pit them against a phalanx of 250 man on even ground then i would put my money on the phalanx...

Asking for balance doesn't make people Roman fanboys. The fanboys would just stay with vanilla RTW and love it.

I for one don't see the reason why Cohors Evocata are almost exactly the same as Cohors Reformata, yet cost substantially more. You'd think veterans would have better morale and perhaps slightly better melee fighting skills.

[konny]

I agree that the Evocata isn't worth its money. As veterans they should have a higher attack and defense value as if they had a chevron or two. I can't see the point in making their pila stronger

Most Greek and barbarian spearmen weren't even full-time warriors.

Now, that's for sure not correct: Most of the Greek and Barbarian warriors were in fact mercenaries and by this professionals.

I also do not agree that the Roman Legionar was superior to his opponents. The Roman military machine was, but not the single soldier.

[artavazd]

I dont mind trained spearmen being good, but here is the biggest issue which I think needs balanceing.

A lot of spear armed units have a lethality of 0.123, and many sword units have a lethaity of 0.1


Now the basic spear armed levies are more lethal, than the medium sword infantry. Also in the case of Armenia, the noble infantry uses a spear and a sword. The spear does damage of 14 with lethality of 0.123 and the sword does I think 10-12 with lethality of 0.1 why would the player switch to the sword, when the spear does more damage, and has higher lethality?

The medium sword armed infantry for Armenia has damage of 11, with lethality of 0.1 the peasant spearmen have dammage of 13-14 with lethality of 0.123

THis issue is universal in the mod, and is not only a case with Armenia.

I think, that levied spearmen should be given a lethality of 0.1 with damage of 9-11. and the more trained swordsmen given a lithality of 0.123 with damage of 10-13