Spears are very unbalanced

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Huh? As far as I know, the legions were transformed to standing military units with year-round training in the period after 107 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Reforms

Wiki is wrong. After Marius the legions were often kept under arms because of the almost constant state of war, the term of service was actually fixed under Tiberius according to Tacitus.

Oh yes, a militia capable of defeating the Germans, defeating Tigranes II, the Lusitanians, whatever. You're certainly mistaking the strict Roman discipline with "unwilligness" to fight, and then most of them give a single Roman defeat as an excuse to say that Roman troops were "inferior". Well, so inferior that they manage to defeat the Parthians :P.

There were loads of Roman defeats, two Legions were routed during Corbulo's campaign. The Roman soldiers were only as good as their commanders. I don't know why you think I'm talking about an "unwillingness" to fight. Corbulo's men had spent too long in camp without fighting, Tacitus tells us there were 20 year veterans who had never constructed a night-camp. Even if he is exagerating the situation was certainly dire.

At no point did I say the Romans were inferior, but under Marius they remained a militia and although four months was the standard training period often they recieved far less. These men were either disenfanchised farmers or beggars and vagabonds, of the latter Marius could not take many because they were unfit for service.

The idea that the Greeks were "just" farmers is absurd, like the Romans the local militiamen trained regualrly, and were then drilled en masse to bring them up to fighting stanard after call-up.

Most of the Greeks didn't have a standing army and no continual military training. Post-Marian legionaries at least were continually mobilised, undergoing training (you think they would just be idle all the time). It's true that quality went down during war, when a mass of recruits was needed, but there are so many evidences of the awesome Roman discipline and organization that no average guy could ever manage to do that without heavy training and discipline and, being heavily disciplined and trained, they inevitably also fought well.

See above, the Greeks had standing units of infantry and cavalry, the Silver Shields, Shieldbearers, Companions, Theban Sacred Band.... the list goes on. By contrast until Augustus Rome had NO standing army, only men unfortunate enough not to have been discharged.

When Successor armies were kept in the field for extended periods they reached a comparative level of excellance. When the Romans beat the Makedonians the latter were mostly fresh levies while many of the Roman Triarii had joined as Hastati to fight Hannabal.

Depends on who uses the best tactics :).

Not really, Alexander's army was more flexable, tougher, and at least as well armed and armoured. They also used the superior combined arms tactics that it took the Romans a very long time to adopt.

Take a look at the cavalry engagement at Pharsallus, once Pompey's supperior cavalry were eliminated Ceasar relied on his veteran infantry and he even used those infantry to kill the opposing cavalry themselves, rather than his own horsemen.

Roamn armies were mincing machines, flexable in their own way but also quite limited.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Wiki is wrong. After Marius the legions were often kept under arms because of the almost constant state of war, the term of service was actually fixed under Tiberius according to Tacitus.

But they were still constantly under arms, like the Pre-Marian legions earlier.

There were loads of Roman defeats, two Legions were routed during Corbulo's campaign. The Roman soldiers were only as good as their commanders. I don't know why you think I'm talking about an "unwillingness" to fight. Corbulo's men had spent too long in camp without fighting, Tacitus tells us there were 20 year veterans who had never constructed a night-camp. Even if he is exagerating the situation was certainly dire.

At no point did I say the Romans were inferior, but under Marius they remained a militia and although four months was the standard training period often they recieved far less. These men were either disenfanchised farmers or beggars and vagabonds, of the latter Marius could not take many because they were unfit for service.

Does that make the Greeks superior to the Romans as in EB? Actually, the Greeks also suffered a lot of defeats that went to history, and their level of training was quite even.

See above, the Greeks had standing units of infantry and cavalry, the Silver Shields, Shieldbearers, Companions, Theban Sacred Band.... the list goes on. By contrast until Augustus Rome had NO standing army, only men unfortunate enough not to have been discharged.

Yet these are only the elite corps of the army. The great majority of the rank-and-file soldiers was only mobilised during an emergency, and as such they can't be classified as "permanent" soldiers.

When Successor armies were kept in the field for extended periods they reached a comparative level of excellance. When the Romans beat the Makedonians the latter were mostly fresh levies while many of the Roman Triarii had joined as Hastati to fight Hannabal.

Great when you talk in equal terms. The Pre-Marian army wasn't permanent, yet they reached a great level of experience with the continual fighting during the 3rd and 2nd Centuries B.C., particularly with Scipio in Zama.

Not really, Alexander's army was more flexable, tougher, and at least as well armed and armoured. They also used the superior combined arms tactics that it took the Romans a very long time to adopt.

Take a look at the cavalry engagement at Pharsallus, once Pompey's supperior cavalry were eliminated Ceasar relied on his veteran infantry and he even used those infantry to kill the opposing cavalry themselves, rather than his own horsemen.

We all accept that Roman cavalry really didn't have the level of Macedonian Cavalry, yet we're talking about different situations here. As said, if Alexander chose to fight Caesar, then the number of possibilities is great.

Plus, later on the Romans adopted auxiliaries to fill supporting roles to heavy infantry. But in-game, timing isn't relevant as the Macedonian army was pretty decadent in 272 B.C, and the Romans still relied heavily and solely on infantry.

[JMRC]

Basileos, I think everybody has understood your concerns and since stats are the core of the battles, it's something to which we devoted much time both in development and testing.

The team already explained the reasons why the stats were changed. They are based in the directions of historians and scholars that help the team. You may not agree, but as you saw, there are other people who think the stats are fine.

I would ask you to look at this thread where Watchman makes a "matter-of-fact" report about things that in his oppinion are not correct in the EDU. We'll look at his suggestions to see if anything really needs to be changed or corrected. No fuss and no endless discussions about this or that.

As a sidenote, you must know that no matter how much we adjust the stats of the units, the AI still doesn't have the capacity to win you in battle (unless it has huge odds), so this whole discussion is useless because you will always beat the AI, regardless of the stats, be it roman or nomad.

IMO, you should make a matter-of-fact description of what you think is wrong and, most importantly, the solution you propose. Then, we can look at it and see if they are valid. In the meantime, you change your EDU to reflect the changes you proposed and even if the team doesn't accept your suggestions, you keep your changes and play with the stats that you prefer.

And everybody will live happily ever after.

PS: and don't forget about the -4 penalty. It makes all the difference.

[Sakkura]

Wiki is wrong. After Marius the legions were often kept under arms because of the almost constant state of war, the term of service was actually fixed under Tiberius according to Tacitus.

But with a near-constant state of war, wouldn't that just mean that the state of readiness of the Roman legions was kept high just as much as it would have been in a peacetime professional army? Perhaps even more, actually.
So in that light, the Roman forces should perhaps be treated as a professional standing army even if they were not formally a standing army.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Units that have been kept under arms will have more XP, won't they?

My point is very simple, the base level of training was fairly even and the Romans did not have the elite permenant soldiers other armies did until after Augustus.

So why should a newly recruited Marian cohort be better than a newly recruited unit of mid-level phalangites?

Edit: Just to be very clear here, the post-Marian army was still a militia, conscripted in emergencies, not a proffesional force. Which was why when Pompey returned from the East he had great trouble settling his veterans.

[Sakkura]

Units that have been kept under arms will have more XP, won't they?

My point is very simple, the base level of training was fairly even and the Romans did not have the elite permenant soldiers other armies did until after Augustus.

So why should a newly recruited Marian cohort be better than a newly recruited unit of mid-level phalangites?

I'm not asking that, I just expect that a cohort should, man for man, stack up fairly evenly with eg. pezhetairoi. Like I said earlier, I haven't done the testing to find out whether this is the case; if it is, then the cohort is fine.

My point about the evocati stands, though. I don't see why veterans should be better at throwing the pilum but identical in every other respect. I doubt the older veterans would have stronger arms or better eyesight; it seems much more likely that their experience (yes, even a freshly recruited cohors evocata would consist of veterans with experience) would give them better morale and perhaps slightly better melee skills. It depends how big the effects of being older vs. being more experienced are, and that is debatable.

[The Internet]

Wiki is wrong. After Marius the legions were often kept under arms because of the almost constant state of war, the term of service was actually fixed under Tiberius according to Tacitus.

Funny, the experts believe differently?

There were loads of Roman defeats, two Legions were routed during Corbulo's campaign. The Roman soldiers were only as good as their commanders. I don't know why you think I'm talking about an "unwillingness" to fight. Corbulo's men had spent too long in camp without fighting, Tacitus tells us there were 20 year veterans who had never constructed a night-camp. Even if he is exagerating the situation was certainly dire.

No one has ever said that the Roman army has been great since the beggining and it is widely known that sometimes things went pear-shaped in a very bad way, especially if the commander didn't do his job. The same can be said of any army in history, without a good leader no army, no matter how powerful, is useless.

At no point did I say the Romans were inferior, but under Marius they remained a militia and although four months was the standard training period often they recieved far less. These men were either disenfanchised farmers or beggars and vagabonds, of the latter Marius could not take many because they were unfit for service.

The fact that they had nothing else to lose made them better fighters and soldiers. They had grown up living harsh lives and were used to things being rough, joining up with Marius gave them an income, food and a purpose. Their equipment was standardised and so was their training and their is quite a few important historians who believe this wasn't the first time such men had been used. People like those you have described saw the army as a career and a chance to make something of themselves and to gain a lot of money from plunder. The fact that he did not take some with him was nothing new to the Roman army and had happened many times long before Marius.

The idea that the Greeks were "just" farmers is absurd, like the Romans the local militiamen trained regualrly, and were then drilled en masse to bring them up to fighting stanard after call-up.

The Romans did it yearly, the Greeks only did it when it was needed, mercenaries were used a great deal more.

See above, the Greeks had standing units of infantry and cavalry, the Silver Shields, Shieldbearers, Companions, Theban Sacred Band.... the list goes on. By contrast until Augustus Rome had NO standing army, only men unfortunate enough not to have been discharged.

Small numbers of men compared to the rest of the citizens who formed the rest of the army. Much like in Celtic society where a small number of men would be full-time fighters and the rest were conscripts.

When Successor armies were kept in the field for extended periods they reached a comparative level of excellance. When the Romans beat the Makedonians the latter were mostly fresh levies while many of the Roman Triarii had joined as Hastati to fight Hannabal.

Same can be said for the Romans, the longer they were in the field the better they got, infact the same can be said for any army. Please stop throwing out excuses when it suits you, first you say that the Roman armies were less effective than others because they had no real standing army til Augustus BUT then you say the only reason they won is because they had experienced men in the ranks, you are only supporting my earlier statement that in general, a newly raised Roman army would have somewhat more experience than say Greece or Macedon because a good portion of Roman men would of already seen service in previous call-ups.

Not really, Alexander's army was more flexable, tougher, and at least as well armed and armoured. They also used the superior combined arms tactics that it took the Romans a very long time to adopt.

More flexible than armies of that time. superior combined arms? How would an army several hundred years older have superior arms? The Romans carried 2 pila a man, a good sword and a large sheild. The Pila would remove the protection of the Phalanx's shields and leave them vunerable to the swords. The tactics employed by the Romans seems to of come on quite fast by ancient standards and after Alexander, things in the army barely changed in the Hellenistic world.

Take a look at the cavalry engagement at Pharsallus, once Pompey's supperior cavalry were eliminated Ceasar relied on his veteran infantry and he even used those infantry to kill the opposing cavalry themselves, rather than his own horsemen.

Roman armies were mincing machines, flexable in their own way but also quite limited.

He knew his horsemen would never stand up to Pompey's cavalry so he used his greatest asset to deal with them, his veterans, there is nothing wrong with that and if you wish to use that example then it means that Alexander and his cavarly weren't very good because he used light infantry to run along side his cavarly in close support, not unlike Caesar did at Pharsallus.

The Roman armies were indeed flexible, unlike the phalanx which is why they had the advantage in their engagements.



I really do not wish to carry on a debate about Alexander, this is about the balance of the Romans in the EDU and simply wish it to be resolved.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Funny, the experts believe differently?

Two questions:

What experts?

And:

Who am I?

The Romans did it yearly, the Greeks only did it when it was needed, mercenaries were used a great deal more.

Legions were recruited yearly but the level of training was actually fairly even. Greeks didn't actually go to the gymnasium just to get buff.

Small numbers of men compared to the rest of the citizens who formed the rest of the army. Much like in Celtic society where a small number of men would be full-time fighters and the rest were conscripts.

Compared to none of the Romans?

I have tried to explain this every way I can think of but you all simply refuse to pay attention to what I am saying.

So frankly I'm done.

The Romans were not amazing, for most of our period they were just another citizen militia, you might think about how they won in spite of that.