Spears are very unbalanced

[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.

[Dram]

romani in 0.81 were way too powerful. almost every core infantry unit was an elite, yet costed as much as a regular unit. there was no incentive for the player to use regional troops, especially once the marian era expanded the recruitment range of legionaires.

[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.

[Watchman]

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.

Underpowered ? Where ? If you ask me they're pretty much exactly what they were historically: disciplined professional grunts, well trained to fight in a certain (quite flexible) tactical system, solidly but not exceptionally equipped.

They were never all-around supersoldiers; the Roman commanders worth their salt knew it, and plugged the various gaps in their expertise with auxiliary specialists as well as padding out the by economic necessity somewhat low numbers with allies and auxiliaries. Properly deployed and commanded by a leader up to the task they certainly won wars often enough, but also often enough entire sections of a line might collapse in a rout and/or the Roman armies have to conduct bitter fighting retreats back to friendly territory. Green, inexperienced troops weren't ultimately that much better than anyone elses' (what now often noticeably better equipped than the rank-and-file of most other armies), and tended to need the example of grizzled veterans or the personal attentions of a respected commander to not turn tail in a tight spot.

[Charge]

. another thread about "weakling" romans and "conan" barbarians with "achilles" greeks.
How the hell romans won battles being outnumbered 1:4 or more and being such a weaklings, while UBER-SUPER-MEGA greeks and gauls with UBER-SUPER-MEGA spears always was in loosers???
(perhaps they were led by AI-captains )

Just as always in such discussions, anti-roman guys (eb team) curve their line about this ^^crap, and even if here, right now roman veteran show them how he can easily beat almost every barbarian, they will say that barbarian won.

Anyway if I had a time, I would completely redone all stats.

[Foot]

Well, other than the evocata/reformata discussion, this thread has not shown any evidence for the positions of those fans who find the romans to be underpowered.

I will state again, we have a stat system which applies bonuses across the board. We feel that this allows for the best balancing. For those who disagree, unless you can throw up some evidence that shows that roman soldiers were superior swordsmen, brave as a bear or that their armour was made out of some incredible alloy, your complaints will bear no fruit and will only frustrate the EB team.

If anyone ever starts making ad hominen attacks against our team (Charge I am looking at you) I will start deleting posts. It is neither fair nor true that we have an anti-roman bias. That you feel that the romans are underpowered is serves just as much as proof of your pro-roman bias. Unless evidence starts coming quick and fast I will start thinking about locking this thread as I have no doubt that it will develop into a name-calling match.

I realise that Blank's comment was out of line and I will speak to him about it, but if you feel that a good response to his accusation of fanboy-ism is to accuse the exact opposite of him or any other EB member is to find oneself in a hypercritical position.

Start being civil and developing arguments, and I and the rest of the team would prefer it if you could show a bit more appreciation to EB for their efforts. We don't mind criticism, but I've been noticing a rather disrespectful attitude in how complaints have been raised. We write on a forum, but exist in the real world, so please be careful what you write as it can be misconstrued and feelings can be hurt.

Thank you,

Foot

[dezzerx]

To hard to win now with the Romans?

Sweboz stats suck compared to the Romans due to less armor and decent weaponry being availablie to them. But I love that! Because now I have to stay on my toes and find new tactics to defeat the Romans with skins of metal.

Anyways, even with this less equipment they did seem to give the Romans a run for their money in Teutoburg Wald.

The Roman stats seem fine to me as they are now. They were not super heroes. They were good fighters, all of 'em but not more so then any other (semi)proffesional troops. They won outnumbered battles because of their tactics and great generals. So if with this new stats you find yourself on the loosing end it's not because of the stats of your Cohorts but because of your skill (or lack thereof.)

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I find an absurd when they say the average Roman legionary was just another ordinary soldier. Then I quote the battles Romani had with several barbarians that ended up in heroic victories against Buddica, the Parthians, and practically everyone who dared to raise their hands against the Post-Marian and Imperial legions. They keep telling: "Teutoburger Wald, Carrhae" but they ignore that Germany was just ignored later, and the victories over the Germans and their shiny barbarian infantry were just as crushing as the one against the Britons and the Parthians. Wasn't for Adrian's unwilligness to keep Parthia, and the general sense that Rome was too big, then Parthia would become a Roman province.

But no, they couldn't defeat the mighty Greeks in their shiny armour and invincible Phalanxes!

Pydna, Magnesia, etc... Just on a conquering party :P. Oh, but they didn't have a cavalry wing! Bollocks, the Romani didn't even need their cavalry wing. If a breach was ever spotted in the phalanx line, they would flood it 'till the whole line routed. The shiny Pezhetairoi wouldn't stand a chance against the 1000% more flexible Roman legion.

This case, against vastly superior barbarians, even "Naked" uber-soldiers, is the most impressive case of Rome being the master of infantry warfare. Do you think we could simulate such victory if EB was reality? No. The legionaries would probably rout, afterall they "have only be trained to raise night camps". Oh yes, and they'll give the excuse that IX Hispanica routed earlier, so watching this, we could conclude that the whole Roman army sucked and only the mass of bodies gave them victory. A mass of bodies rarely gave an effective victory... Remembers me of the Colonial armies of hundreds of men with machine guns defeating several thousand native warriors.

I do recognise that prior to the Marian Reforms, the army relied on numbers heavily. But after the Marian Reforms the legions became a professional force too expensive to be just used in superior numbers as route to victory. And then, the Roman victories on the field even prior to the Marian Reforms show a highly disciplined and effective force that was quite the opposite of today's EB legionaries.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Really in the battles with Pyrrhus, the Hellenistic army lost because the Romans had started using tactics rather than the individual strengths of its soldiers. Originally, the Romans had tried to defeat the phalanx by charging right at it in a bloody attempt to close the distance and chop off the spear points. Instead they made use of the ground to disrupt the line, flanked vulnerable units, and disrupted the line with pila.

The funny thing is that I didn't need more powerful Phalanxes to use tactics. Phalangitai always beat superior foes from the front, in EB 0.81. I find it a fallacy to say that we didn't need tactics as the Romani earlier: on the contrary, they had the balance to be competent, not uber, soldiers, and they wouldn't defeat a phalanx from the front. It was all great back in EB 0.8, regardless if you were Makedonian, Romani, or whatever. Now, however, Spearmen have been getting too many bonuses.

[Sakkura]

Looks like the thread is degenerating into a shouting match

Anyway, I have confidence that the EB team is working to present as historical units as possible, including the combat performance. Especially now that members have agreed that the evocati may need to be looked at. Keep up the good work

[The Persian Cataphract]

I find an absurd when they say the average Roman legionary was just another ordinary soldier. Then I quote the battles Romani had with several barbarians that ended up in heroic victories against Buddica, the Parthians, and practically everyone who dared to raise their hands against the Post-Marian and Imperial legions. They keep telling: "Teutoburger Wald, Carrhae" but they ignore that Germany was just ignored later, and the victories over the Germans and their shiny barbarian infantry were just as crushing as the one against the Britons and the Parthians. Wasn't for Adrian's unwilligness to keep Parthia, and the general sense that Rome was too big, then Parthia would become a Roman province.

...I'm not in the mood. In the least. Apparently someone has a difficulty understanding that neither Mesene/Dasht-î Meisân/Mesopotamia nor sacking Ctesiphon equals the capture of Parthia, even in spite of numismatic propaganda machine minted during the Trajanic age. Those conquests were not safe either. Trajan had failed to capture the Parthian client state of Hatra, and the fact is that Trajan captured Ctesiphon merely through improved logistics, rather than open battle. In other words, don't flatter yourself. The most minor of clashes with the Indo-Scythians or the subsequent Kushans were more devastating than even the most gruesome sack of cities in the Parthian west; That the last of the Parthian-Roman battles ended up in victory to the Parthians, resulting in the end of an almost 200 year long conflict (With no significant change in borders) speaks bounds about your dishonest perception.

If Hadrian did not withdraw his troops, the Arsacids would have little trouble in rallying the nobles to counter-attack; With the Roman East spread so thin over Mesopotamia, a perfect season could turn the tide of the conflict; Instead when Septimius Severus understood this underlying weakness of the Parthian army, only shortly after the withdrawal, the strategy that entailed the same successful model for logistics was further capitalized for another capture of Ctesiphon. Caracalla too managed to "defeat" the Parthians through this way; Quick mobilization, but also deception. Artabanus, in the midst of a civil war, still managed to prove that the Parthians did not take insults lightly. The battle of Nisibis, even with many injured Parthian cataphracts (Thanks to the usage of caltrops) still managed to carry the day for the Parthians.

The shift between Parthian and Sassanian rule was perceived with little difference by the Romans; Both Ardashir and Shapur were considered Parthian. Not entirely an outrightly false label, but Shapur proved himself to be an absolutely devastating force to be reckoned with.

Now, unless you've got some evidence that Romans were knocking on the gates of the Mithradatkart citadel and marched all the way to Hecatompylos to pay visit to the Parthian Shahanshah... No, the Romans never conquered the Parthians. I know certain Romanophiles are infatuated with the idea of Rome ruling the world and "The world is Rome", but in my presence, I'll make it absolutely sure that this image not only is shattered but also completely discredited.

You are free to leave at anytime.

[Conradus]

. another thread about "weakling" romans and "conan" barbarians with "achilles" greeks.
How the hell romans won battles being outnumbered 1:4 or more and being such a weaklings, while UBER-SUPER-MEGA greeks and gauls with UBER-SUPER-MEGA spears always was in loosers???
(perhaps they were led by AI-captains )

Just as always in such discussions, anti-roman guys (eb team) curve their line about this ^^crap, and even if here, right now roman veteran show them how he can easily beat almost every barbarian, they will say that barbarian won.

Anyway if I had a time, I would completely redone all stats.

It's imo very unfair to call the EB-team anti-roman. Some of the most knowledgeable men on ancient Rome that I know reside here. -Zaknafien comes to mind but there are others as well- and I'm sure they aren't biased against Rome. As a matter of fact it's one of the most complete factions of the game -though they're all complete now.
It's just nonsense to state that the Roman soldier would in any way be better than his Greek or Gallic counterpart. Mostly it was reverse. The Gallic society was based largely on warriors and individual honor. It can't be a great suprise then that their soldiers were individually beter than Romans. They were larger, trained with better melee-equipment, some might be called champions...
Whilst the strength of Rome lied in its legions, its organisation. Arguably it was the best the world knew at that time. Capable as a force to withstand the falanx -when they had learned its weaknesses and to withstand the charge of gallic warriors who mostly didn't use any tactics.
If the Romans won against greater numbers it was mostly due to their tactics and organisation, but when the enemy had organised itself, Rome's victories were less obvious...

[Intranetusa]

It's imo very unfair to call the EB-team anti-roman. Some of the most knowledgeable men on ancient Rome that I know reside here. -Zaknafien comes to mind but there are others as well- and I'm sure they aren't biased against Rome. As a matter of fact it's one of the most complete factions of the game -though they're all complete now.
It's just nonsense to state that the Roman soldier would in any way be better than his Greek or Gallic counterpart. Mostly it was reverse. The Gallic society was based largely on warriors and individual honor. It can't be a great suprise then that their soldiers were individually beter than Romans..

So how does this justify the dumbing down of post-Marian Roman veteran elite units to a point where they have the same stats as some medium-tier infantry?

And the Romans fought in a coherent formation, shouldn't they at least get more morale bonuses and more armor than their Gallic counterparts? As for the Greeks, unless they were fighting elite hoplites/phalangites, most of the Greeks hoplites were still essentially farmers called out to fight.

(as for Greek mercs, the AI has a habit of spamming full stack merc armies anyways)

[Vorian]

. another thread about "weakling" romans and "conan" barbarians with "achilles" greeks.
How the hell romans won battles being outnumbered 1:4 or more and being such a weaklings, while UBER-SUPER-MEGA greeks and gauls with UBER-SUPER-MEGA spears always was in loosers???
(perhaps they were led by AI-captains )

Just as always in such discussions, anti-roman guys (eb team) curve their line about this ^^crap, and even if here, right now roman veteran show them how he can easily beat almost every barbarian, they will say that barbarian won.

Anyway if I had a time, I would completely redone all stats.

eh....first of all chill out.

Some battle statistics.

Roman-Hellenic battles:

a)Battle of Thermopylae (191 BC)

Romans: 20,000 infantry, 2000 horse, unknown but small number of elephants
Seleucids: 10,000 infantry, 500 horse, some allies (unknown number)

b)Battle of Magnesia

Romans:43,000 Romans + 6,000 Greeks, 5,000 horse, 16 elephants
Seleucids: 26,000 infantry (16,000 semi professionals) + 3,000 Galatians, 12,000 horse, 56 elephants

c)Battle of Heraclea

Romans: 30,000 plus unknown auxilia
Epirots: estimated 30,000-35,000

d)Battle of Asculum (279 BC)

Romans:20,000 +Dauni allies
Epirots:Not exact numbers, but considered equally numbered

e)Battle of Cynoscephalae

Romans: 32,500-33,400
Macedonians: 25,500

f)Battle of Pydna

Romans: 33,400 infantry, around 4,000 horse, 22 elephants
Macedonians: 44,000 infantry (21,000 phalangites), around 4,000 cavalry

This is for the 4:1 you mentioned against the "achilles" Greeks

Roman-Gallic

I couldn't find accurate numbers with a quick search so, I won't post them. Caesar tended to exaggerate the enemy forces so they are debatable. However, apart from Alesia, I have not found 4:1 overwhelming odds.

Punic Wars

First

a)Battle of Tunis (defeat)

Romans:15,000 Infantry, 500 Cavalry
Carthaginians: 12,000 Infantry, 4,000 Cavalry, 100 Elephants

b)Battle of Agrigentum
Romans: 40,000
Carthaginians: 50,000

c)Battle of Adys

Romans:15,000 Infantry, 500 Cavalry
Carth: 5,000+ Infantry, 500 Cavalry and unknown number of elephants

Second

a)Battle of Cannae (deafeat)

Romans:86,400–87,000 men
Carths: 40,000 heavy infantry, 6,000 light infantry, 8,000 cavalry

b)Battle of Capua (212 BC) (defeat)

Romans:8 Legions, approximately 40,000
Carths:approximately 2000 Numidians plus Capuan allies

c)Battle of Cissa

Romans:20,000 infantry, 2,200 cavalry
Carthies: 10,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry

d)Battle of Geronium (draw)

Romans:4 legions + 4 in reserve
Carthies: 36,000

e)Battle of Cornus

Romans:20,000 infantry (2 Roman and 2 Allied Legions), 1,200 cavalry
Carthies:15,000 infantry,1,500 cavalry +Sardinians (?) + Elephants (?)

f)Battle of Dertosa

Romans:30,000 infantry, 3,000 cavalry
Carthies:25,000 infantry,4,000 cavalry, 20 Elephants

g)Battle of Herdonia (210 BC) (defeat)

Romans: 20,000
Carthies: 30,000


etc, etc

You get the point. I don't know about imperial Rome but in the times of the Republic, I find only its stubbornness and diplomacy impressive. The military is average.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@The Internet: I would not quite say that Crassus merely lost because of his planning. In fact I think the Parthian general deployed some really smart tactics; and the Crassus was stupid enough to take the bait.

IIRC most battles the Romans won against the Parthians; and had more of a "massacre of civilians" to them; than an open field battle.

--------------------------------------------------------------

@mighty_rome:

Yes: the Hellenes & Carthaginians get some really powerful units. At a cost. Litteraly: the use of Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou is prohibitively expensive. And do they beat Romani Legions? No, not really. Unit by unit yes, but not mina for mina. Why? Well, they're not even half the size!

Again and again: the Romani get some of the largest units of such strength compared to any other faction. The only ones close to that are Argyraspidai; and a couple of Carthiginian units.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now let us get back on topic: spear units have been given better melee abilities; because we felt (and that has been an old, very old, very often told) complaint about previous version of EB... the spear units performed decently against cavalry; but were just horrible in melee compared to swordsmen. Which was neither "fair" (balanced) or accurate. Really I'd like people to reconsider this: spearmen fighting in formation, sticking to formation, making good use of their shields & spears are the ancient equivalent of this: http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgur...%3Dnl%26sa%3DN

With humans instead of plants going in; but the end result was pretty much the same regardless. Very crude I know; still that's what they did.

[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.