Spears are very unbalanced

[Bootsiuv]

Why is my post from the swastika thread quoted in this thread?

[LordCurlyton]

For what my input is worth, I rather like the stats. While I have yet to get to the Marian Era (obviously) I find that my trusty Camillan Legions perform roughly comparably as well in 1.0 as in 0.8x. And sometimes I think people get mislead a lot by the numbers, as units that look mediocre seem to perform beyond expectations. Or maybe it could be because I love to use guard mode. Hastati or Principes in guard mode rock as far as pinning even quality units down, Gaesetae included, though they WILL lose, and quite handily after a while if you don't get the support in (ie roll up the weaker flank of the enemy). Maybe people expect something different out of legions of any era, but for me the obivious advantage of playing Romani is this: from top to bottom, even in the Camillan Era, the Roman army's infantry units are pretty even in quality, and even though the difference in quality is evident at the Camillan stage of the game, it is nowhere near as great as, say, the difference between Levy Hoplites, Standard Hoplites, and Elite Hoplites like Spatiatoi or Syrakousoi. That means that a Roman player has no truly weak flank, and as such can reasonably expect the flank facing the stiffest competition to hold out long enough for the side facing inferior opponents to chew through that flank, at which point the battle is over. Of course, if that DOESN'T happen you're screwed six ways from Sunday. But then that's where superior tactics comes into play, no? Which goes to show that the Roman's best asset was tactics and logistics, plus a certain societal mindset, as has already been stated in this thread previously.
That being said, IF the Evocata are practically identical to standard Marian legions, then I guess I just won't recruit them. I see no problem in giving them one or two more points of attack and defense skill to represent the first term of service. Though I will hardly weep if that is not done.

[Patriote]

I would like to add my contribution to this post which I find very interesting except maybe for the anti/pro roman boys (although I am myself a roman fanboy) but I just want EB to be as close as possible to reality.

First of all, I always hate when people say that spear was as good as sword in battles. Spear is not worse or better than sword, it was meant to have a different battlefield role. Although I can't quote which page exactly, anyone who read The Prince of Machiavelli might remember this text.

In Machiavelli times, German pikemen but even more Swiss ones were reputed for their quality and were excellent anti-cavalry units. Yet, Machiavelli retold a fight in which Spanish heavy infantry(armor, shield and short sword probably) went under the row of pikes pointed at them using their shield to protect them and then they started slaughtering the pikemen. Only the timed arrival of some allied cavalry drove the Spanish infantry back and save the pikemen. So spear should be anti-cavalry weapon and the sword an anti-spear weapon. As for sword vs cavalry, I think swords already have a penalty


As for the debate concerning roman soldiers. Roman soldiers were, as warriors, very competent, well trained and in good physical condition nonetheless, but it was their tactical flexibility as an army that allowed groups of armed roman soldiers to excel against others well trained and well equipped armies.
Here a good link to a website that I find extremely interesting:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...z/gabr000c.htm

It is mainly a study of the evolution of the military theory of the ancient armies.


But the real problem being, as a player, we have SO MUCH control over our troops, thousandfold times the amount of control generals had in ancient and medieval times as we fly over the battlefield as a all-seeing god (especially those playing without the general camera view) able to redirect every unit in a single click and all armies working as well oiled machines with the same efficiency.
But it is impossible to modify this aspect, especially for the AI. If in E:TW, units has to be grouped in formation before the start of the battle and then giving orders, orders that can only be modified with the use of runners then romans could be given an advantage to represent their tactical flexible. Until then, I guess the easiest way to represent this roman "superiority" would be give roman units a somewhat better stats as this would represent this so-called superiority.

BTW, if roman units were to be "power up" I would play them in this way to ad a little more realism to the game. As my battle lines and wings would advance to meet the enemy, instead of ordering them what to do exactly, I would simply delegate them to the AI. Sure they might (and will!) do stupid things but let just call it "battlefield confusion"

[Beefy187]

I can go rant about Roman soldiers. But most of the things are probebly already said and I havnt read the entire thread word to word.

I got a idea for the the elite cohort imperatoria (Sorry forgot the name) If its possible you could make the cohort imperatoria upgrade to elite soon as they get like 3 silver chavron. Maybe..

[Thaatu]

Why is my post from the swastika thread quoted in this thread?

Someone's building up for a nazi-flame invasion! Damn, these always end like that.



Anyway, I certainly haven't played with marian or augustian Rome, so I can't comment on much...

I was just testing basic strength...even running head first, I expect a fully trained veteran Post-Marian Cohort of the Roman empire to defeat a half trained peasant militia levy-phalangite from a disintegrating rebel Greek city state...

...other than on fighting against levy phalangites. They may be effective head on, but other than that, I don't put much trust on them. They rout very easily, and once the formation is cracked, that's pretty much it for them. So if someone tests unit stats head on against levy phalangites, he's playing to their strongest part. And remember, just the fact that they can form a phalanx requires a lot of training, so they're not exactly half-trained peasants.

In my tests a unit of 103 Cohors Praetoriana did indeed lose to 61 Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou in Medium battle difficulty.. and they didn't just lose, they were absolutely massacred

I wouldn't be surprised by that.

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.

I wouldn't say barely. He beat a Roman army twice. Both victories would have been considered great victories, but for the fact that Rome could reinforce, Pyrrhus could not. The third battle is considered a draw by some, a Roman victory by others, but after that Pyrrhus saw no reason to continue his campaign. Thus, it's arguable whether Rome ever defeated Pyrrhus.

[Sakkura]

I wouldn't say barely. He beat a Roman army twice. Both victories would have been considered great victories, but for the fact that Rome could reinforce, Pyrrhus could not. The third battle is considered a draw by some, a Roman victory by others, but after that Pyrrhus saw no reason to continue his campaign. Thus, it's arguable whether Rome ever defeated Pyrrhus.

Hm, I guess that also depends on the sources. Like, the casualties at the battle of Heraclea are stated as 7,000 for Rome and 3,000 for Pyrrhus by Hieronymus of Cardia (a contemporary Greek) or 15,000 for Rome and 13,000 for Pyrrhus by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (a Greek living under Roman rule in the last years of the republic, ie. not contemporary). Who to trust, who to trust...
So anyway, the Romans lost two battles to a great Greek general, who happened to have cavalry superiority and elephants as well. Let's call it one clear defeat, one narrow defeat and one draw; and those were the first three battles the Romans ever faced a strong Greek army in (as well as elephants), and they didn't exactly get mauled (compare it to the battles of the second Punic war, where Rome indeed got creamed on several occasions).

I think this shows that in a head-on battle, camillan Roman legions were definitely the equal of a solid Macedonian phalanx, with a small contingent of elites (maybe slightly better overall due to versatility; this is debatable though, since any proper Greek general would compensate for this by greater use of combined arms). RTW is scaled down compared to RL numbers, and some things concerning formation just can't be simulated correctly; so the problems the phalanx sometimes faced when their formation got disordered should be included in the unit stats IMHO. With the exception of forests, since they do indeed mess with phalanxes in RTW and EB.

In any event, I think I will stop debating this, since if any imbalance exists it is quite minor, and I don't want to contribute to the brewing flame-war. The only thing I will repeat is that I hope the EB crew take another look at the stats of the cohors evocata, since they compare quite poorly to the regular cohors reformata.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Hm, I guess that also depends on the sources. Like, the casualties at the battle of Heraclea are stated as 7,000 for Rome and 3,000 for Pyrrhus by Hieronymus of Cardia (a contemporary Greek) or 15,000 for Rome and 13,000 for Pyrrhus by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (a Greek living under Roman rule in the last years of the republic, ie. not contemporary). Who to trust, who to trust...
So anyway, the Romans lost two battles to a great Greek general, who happened to have cavalry superiority and elephants as well. Let's call it one clear defeat, one narrow defeat and one draw; and those were the first three battles the Romans ever faced a strong Greek army in (as well as elephants), and they didn't exactly get mauled (compare it to the battles of the second Punic war, where Rome indeed got creamed on several occasions).

I think this shows that in a head-on battle, camillan Roman legions were definitely the equal of a solid Macedonian phalanx, with a small contingent of elites (maybe slightly better overall due to versatility; this is debatable though, since any proper Greek general would compensate for this by greater use of combined arms). RTW is scaled down compared to RL numbers, and some things concerning formation just can't be simulated correctly; so the problems the phalanx sometimes faced when their formation got disordered should be included in the unit stats IMHO. With the exception of forests, since they do indeed mess with phalanxes in RTW and EB.

In any event, I think I will stop debating this, since if any imbalance exists it is quite minor, and I don't want to contribute to the brewing flame-war. The only thing I will repeat is that I hope the EB crew take another look at the stats of the cohors evocata, since they compare quite poorly to the regular cohors reformata.

As for the in-balance between Greeks and Romans, I find it highly questionable the new stats. Phalanxes were already strong in 0.81, but now they got their stats boosted. I mean, even if they had Attack 5, simply having these very long spears would make anything non-phalanx run. Otherwise they're very vulnerable, and I can hardly see how an unit of Militia Phalangites can ever match Post-Marian infantry cohorts.

I'm simply not convinced to believe that Greeks had the same amount of training as a Post-Marian Roman unit. And I'm not convinced the Post-Marian Romans were a "militia" either. Get any serious history book and you'll know the Roman drill was one of the toughest, and it was uniform for all Post-Marian recruits. So saying the Greeks could get as strong as them in the Gymnasium is a highly debatable statement, especially because most of them didn't have a lifetime uniform training and discipline as the Roman Post-Marian cohorts. And also consider that Alexander was dead, and the quality of Hellenic Phalanxes is ina steady decline, with many recruits being levy phalangites who were too busy harvesting their crops to train on any significant level, and with even the Pezhetairoi training quality in decline; their only mission was to keep thrusting their pikes forward, and pray that they don't get attacked from the flank or the rear. But now, it seems that a well-trained Roman soldier, with a reinforced heavy Scutum, a good coat of Lorica Hamata with over 30.000 rings and a bronze helmet has difficulty in defeating even a Levy Phangite in Linothrax. I'm not saying that they have problems from the front, but I had problems charging them from the rear because of the reinforced stats of the Greek Phalangites. And it is impressing that a Hoplite with a round argive shield and only leather and linen has the same amount of defense as a professional Roman soldier with a Scutum and mail armour.

I'm frankly disappointed with the stats in EB 1. I was waiting for more, but the spears are now too powerful. I think the team has been focuing too heavily on making uber-greeks and haven't even bothered to tweak the stats for the Romani, except to give them a little more inferiority. Regardless of what you may say upon the quality of legionaries, history is very different, with the Legions often winning the day in heroic situations. They were defeated badly, too, but they have won so many countless times, even when outnumbered, that I can't frankly accept a mediocre quality infantry as true Roman infantry. As much as there were good and mediocre soldiers in the Roman ranks, so there were in the Greek ranks, and I feel the new uber-spearmen, the majority of Greek spearmen (but also a lot of barbarian militia spearmen too) don't represent that as good as they wanted the Romani to represent it.

So, ok, EB is a superb mod. I liked the balance in EB 0.81, and frankly the Romani were even with many foes; they keep complaining about the Cohors Imperatoria but truly the Augustan Reforms came so late that most other factions already could have stacks of elite armies to beat them. And Spearmen were already powerful enough back then to be a threat, but not an uber-threat like now. Spearmen aren't super-heroes just because of their spears: they need to fight, and even then swords had a clear advantage. In a tight formation, the Romani could very well leave little room for enemy spearmen to maneuver, thus slaughtering them in droves; that's what has made the gladius one of the most successful armies of the time.

Well, I think I'll go back to 0.81 and to RTR.

[Sakkura]

I don't think you're necessarily correct that phalanxes got weaker after Alexander. It is my understanding that the AS and Ptolemies tended to add more and more armor, sacrificing mobility for staying power.

Regarding the armor of classic hoplites... Well, they do have greaves, unlike the Romans.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I don't think you're necessarily correct that phalanxes got weaker after Alexander. It is my understanding that the AS and Ptolemies tended to add more and more armor, sacrificing mobility for staying power.

Regarding the armor of classic hoplites... Well, they do have greaves, unlike the Romans.

Regarding the Elites, they say the Cohors Praetoria was filled with people who are there only due to political loyalties. I frankly disagree. How can we prove that the Argiraspidai and the Elite Vascone infantry wasn't filled with people of political loyalty and high material wealth, too? No such systems are 100% meritocratic, and many good warriors would never enter these Elites even if they deserved it. As political loyalty doesn't count as skill on the battlefield, that should count on the unit performance, but overall that's how it should have worked, as it was better to have someone with a mediocre performance and strong loyalty rather than a super warrior with doubtful reputation.

Regarding the Hoplites, their only good defence is their shield. Greaves work well against spears, but the leather and linen body armour is not by far capable of having the same strenght of a Lorica Hamata used by the later Romans.

[Charge]

I don't think you're necessarily correct that phalanxes got weaker after Alexander. It is my understanding that the AS and Ptolemies tended to add more and more armor, sacrificing mobility for staying power.

Regarding the armor of classic hoplites... Well, they do have greaves, unlike the Romans.

This is the reason of their constantly defeats against non-phalanx armies (romans).

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

To jump out of the time frame for a second, many Frankish infantry, though heavily armored, often are depicted as fighting with spears instead of swords, the spear type they often had has a very long protected shaft and something that looks like double headed hammer just under the neck of the blade which implies that they used the spears in the pole arm sense for parrying and thrusting and whacking at their oponents, arguably they could also pull cavalry down with the mor melee orientated parts of the spear. So clearly the spear can be a weapon of the elite and was undoubtably one of the more successful weapons in history.

Spears are very effective weapons, however, IMO EB portrays them in an uber manner. I feel that we could only solve this by providing reliable test data, and that includes training both sides, then giving one side fake spears and shields and the another fake shortswords and shields, then throwing one against another . That's how we can get good data about it :P.

[Tellos Athenaios]

This is the reason of their constantly defeats against non-phalanx armies (romans).

I'd not say "constant" -- and I'd not say "This is the reason". The phalanx army is one of the best formations of all time - requiring limitted man power to win a great odds. What it does require however is the support of powerful cavalry or the advantage of the terrain.

By the time the Romans faced some serious phalanx based armies who could rely on reinforcements to replenish the losses as well; the phalanx armies did no longer have that powerful cavalry support.

To say that the phalanx is an inflexible formation isn't exactly true either. It's a back-bone and as such cannot be sacrificed too much; but you can perform some pretty amazing tactics with them. Gaugamela is a classic for a reason...

Also I'd like you to consider that phalanx does not simply mean "Pezhetairoi and the like" -- in fact it is pretty much the Greek name for shieldwall/ heavy infantry. It's a minor note at best; but something which should be the key to how you use a phalanx on the battle field.

[KARTLOS]

Why is my post from the swastika thread quoted in this thread?

it just seems to happen sometimes! obviously i was trying to quote the the first post.

[Charge]

Well why not give Evocata, Principes, other experienced units EXP from EDB and more than 1 turn to build???

[Watchman]

Uh... the Principes were part of the Republican reservist militia, like everybody else. Required to own a certain minimum level of war gear and be reasonably trained with it, and come to the standards when Rome called for her children to make war.

They weren't normally even more experienced than the Hastati and the other lighter-equipped reservists, simply wealthier and hence better equipped. Ditto for the Triarii and Equites.

[Little Legioner]

Stop complaining about the stats people. Just do something if you still think about Romani are underpowered.

I'll revisit Romani stats tonight and replace 8.1 stats instead of 1.0. Ok?