Quote Originally Posted by Sakkura
I don't know, Pyrrhos was regarded as a magnificent general but was only barely able to defeat camillan Roman legions, at proverbially great cost.

But true, the Roman legions should not really be superior to Hellenic armies. Their stats should just match them; this would simulate how the phalanxes were perhaps slightly better on level ground while the legion was more versatile and suited to rougher ground. (since the RTW engine can't simulate all the effects of terrain properly).

All the points I was going to make have been made. But I think we're getting off-topic. I want to see a explanation of the gameplay in .8 and why the changes in the gameplay were necessary in 1.0. All we're doing mostly is measuring our phalluses here, comparing stats and historical knowledge. How does what happened in history related to gameplay and having fun?

Regarding my quote, with Pyrrhus, he lost because the terrain(woods, hills) he fought his pitched battles in were not suited to his heavy infantry and more numerous calvary. Also his elephants were used against him being scared by flaming spiked carts and velites.

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.