Quote Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon
The problem is, "luck" is an important, but not exactly the only factor to be considered. The Romans painted not only Greece in red, they painted the whole area around the Mediterranean plus a lot more to the North. They only did not paint Germania and Parthia in red because their Empire was already too extensive.

"Luck", certainly, isn't the only factor here. People don't get enslaved and conquered due to diplomatic intrigue, bribes, or economical influence. Surely these help, but the absolute conquest and subjugation only come through military strenght. And seeing how the Romani were able to defeat militarily most of the Civilized world of the time + a lot of "less civilized" ones, shows their strenght in arms. It wasn't just throwing a lot of people on your enemy 'till he gets sick and surrenders.
You'll notice I was talking about thousands of variables. I never, in fact, even mentioned luck. That the Romans won out was far -- very far -- from a foregone conclusion. Arguing from that point of view (the Romans conquered lotsa land so they have to be l33t!) is a flawed, and, frankly, ignorant way of looking at the real history.

I'll reiterate, however, my previous statement that I haven't actually played the latest version of EB. All I am now commenting on is the most oft-repeated argument in favor of Roman strength of arms, an argument which is logically flawed.

Besides that, I can safely say, as a former member of the EB team, that I strongly doubt that the team has weakened Roman units in favor of those wielding spears without well-researched, argumented, and downright good reasons, let alone wrongfully so.

In fact, I've seen depressingly little real hard numbers and battle tests to support any of the arguments of those complaining at all. Doing so would seriously strengthen your case, guys. Beats using flawed logic.