Polybian Reform

[Olaf The Great]

Yes all those things are great n' all.

But what about Polybian Triarri and Equites?

:)



The Triarii nerf makes sense, now they're just "heavy spearmen" rather than elites, and they ARE lower in price, still, it feels like you're missing something.\

Take note that just because they're "reformed" doesn't mean they're supposed to be better than their older counterparts

[Horst Nordfink]

The only city in north Italy I don't own is Mediolanum.

[Pharnakes]

But you need mediolanum

[konny]

Okay, so if they are practically identical to Polybian Principes why the uber bump in ukpeep?

If I had made the units costs in EB, what I didn't, I had decided for higher upkeep for them too. They are mercenaries that have to be hired and garrisoned, while the Principes are a militia unit that have just to be called to arms.

[Sakkura]

If I had made the units costs in EB, what I didn't, I had decided for higher upkeep for them too. They are mercenaries that have to be hired and garrisoned, while the Principes are a militia unit that have just to be called to arms.

They were not mercenaries. The legionaries were Roman citizens.

[konny]

They were not mercenaries. The legionaries were Roman citizens.

And Roman citizens cannot be Roman mercenaries (or if you like, payed professional soldiers of the Roman army)? BTW, I didn't know that only citizens were allowed to serve in the professional Legions in our time frame.

[Sakkura]

And Roman citizens cannot be Roman mercenaries (or if you like, payed professional soldiers of the Roman army)? BTW, I didn't know that only citizens were allowed to serve in the professional Legions in our time frame.

AFAIK the general rule was that the legions were for Roman citizens only; others could join the auxilia and gain citizenship that way.

And the definition of a mercenary is someone who goes to war in the armed forces of another nation, for profit. I suppose you might also regard someone who fights for his own nation but outside the regular army (and with profit as the main motive) as a mercenary. But that isn't the case with the Roman legion.

[konny]

AFAIK the general rule was that the legions were for Roman citizens only; others could join the auxilia and gain citizenship that way.

Yes, your are absolutly right for our time frame. Hireing foreigners for the Legions and giving them citizenship in reward did not become a habit before the 2nd Century.

And the definition of a mercenary is someone who goes to war in the armed forces of another nation, for profit.

That is a very modern definition of mercenary, what does not fit our time frame.

---------------------------
On the other hand, I think you had missed my point, why later Legionars should be more expensive in upkeep than Republican Legionars:

They are mercenaries that have to be hired and garrisoned, while the Principes are a militia unit that have just to be called to arms.

[Sakkura]

Yes, your are absolutly right for our time frame. Hireing foreigners for the Legions and giving them citizenship in reward did not become a habit before the 2nd Century.



That is a very modern definition of mercenary, what does not fit our time frame.

---------------------------
On the other hand, I think you had missed my point, why later Legionars should be more expensive in upkeep than Republican Legionars:

They are mercenaries that have to be hired and garrisoned, while the Principes are a militia unit that have just to be called to arms.

If I wanted to use a historical word I would use mistophoroi or something like that. The word mercenary has a quite clear meaning in current English.

I never disagreed that Cohors Reformata should be more expensive than Principes. It was just the (IMHO unnecessary) mercenary remark that set me off.

[konny]

If I wanted to use a historical word I would use mistophoroi or something like that. The word mercenary has a quite clear meaning in current English. (...) It was just the (IMHO unnecessary) mercenary remark that set me off.

I thought Mistophoroi is just the Greek translation of "mercenary"?


For the modern definition of mercenary, as some one fighting for a foreign land for his own benefits, we need national armies in advance. And these had not exist until the 19th Century. The overall bad image of the mercenary is a little older and comes from the 18th Century when the new standing armies tried to differentiate themselves from the previous mercenary armies. In fact the standing armies were - at least in peace times - made of the same persons that formed the back bone of their forerunners (including lots of foreigners).

Before that a mercenary was someone who joins the (any) army not because he must but because he was going for personal benifits, be it payment, plunder or imaterial things like citizenship. Which one he finally entered was very much a matter of random.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The Polybian Reforms give a very large boost to Principes, Hastati, and Skirmishers, but leave Triarii about the same and turn Equites into a laughing stock (more so than before).

THe Marian Reforms, though, are really more of a joke than anything else.
Cohors Reformata and Polybian Principes are pretty much identical, except Principes look cooler. For the upkeep of three Cohors Reformata you could maintain 5 Principes, which I would say would be far more useful, despite the "bonuses" that they recieve.
The other incentives for these reforms were the Antesignani and Cohors Evocata, Evocata are pathetic now. Their stats are identical to Cohors Reformata, and they are more expensive. Antesignani are good, but are so few their stats just cannot compete. Seriously, their armor is 26, but all the other factions micro-elites have either huge armor (like Sacred Band, Hypaspitai, etc.), huge lethality (Thraikoi Rhomphaiaora, Kluddargos, etc.), or great bonuses to your troops (Druids, Pictone Neitos, etc.).

Who wants to bet that a unit of Antesignani would lose to any one of those?
The Augustan Reforms are the same. The only difference is that you can recruit Praetorians in the one place that will never be attacked, and have three mediocre auxiliaries to fight for you.

Frankly I think that the Marian Augustan stats should have been left the same, rather than have them hit with a nerf hammer.

They use "stuborness" as an excuse for "individual weakness".

"Oh so the Romans were so weak, they lost in Teutoburger Wald, they didn't train very much, it's all propaganda. It's because they're stubborn, not because of their amazing discipline and heavy training. It's all a lie."

Give me a break. They use even petty excuses to weaken the Romans, including the infantry elites; one unit many never heard of gets lots of bonuses, oh yes, they were uber, perfect, while the Romani with all their feats of discipline and force in the battlefield get nothing. They just don't stop quoting Roman losses, yet their military achievements far overshadowed these losses, and that's why they built a big Empire. I remember when I discussed about this, and all I got were "Alexander's superior to Caesar" to read. When you're fighting against a decadent Empire with an army made of fresh, light levies and only small elites, that's what you get. And a more favourable political situation, where you don't have a Senate to keep plotting against you when you're away, too.

Stubborness was never an excuse for weak troops. Weak troops never win a war.

Oh yes, the Greeks, who lost several battles against the Romans repeatedly, they were "stronger". It was all due to stupidity and tactical mistakes, but they were stronger; they keep yelling Arausio, and forget about Magnesia. If we analize, both were tactical mistakes, but of course when a Greek loses a battle, then it's nothing. But when a Roman loses a battle, it's always an excuse to tell they were weak.

I could keep complaining about how pikes are overpowered and killing too fast, and how a few Successor units manage to kill a lot of foes, how the Successor armies are overpowered, but of course it's all a part of the game. "They were strong", "don't question our godly words". I even tried to reach a compromise, but...

But wait, RTR 7 is coming. EB is great, but RTR has improved gameplay combined with impartial realism, not an anti-whatever bias and mostly cosmetic improvements. EB is great for that bookish feeling, but when I want to play Rome Total War I go for other mods.

[Sakkura]

I thought Mistophoroi is just the Greek translation of "mercenary"?


For the modern definition of mercenary, as some one fighting for a foreign land for his own benefits, we need national armies in advance. And these had not exist until the 19th Century. The overall bad image of the mercenary is a little older and comes from the 18th Century when the new standing armies tried to differentiate themselves from the previous mercenary armies. In fact the standing armies were - at least in peace times - made of the same persons that formed the back bone of their forerunners (including lots of foreigners).

Before that a mercenary was someone who joins the (any) army not because he must but because he was going for personal benifits, be it payment, plunder or imaterial things like citizenship. Which one he finally entered was very much a matter of random.

Yeah, just like Viking is Norse for raider/trader. Point is to use a different term when you mean something different than the usual. You could say something like "mercenary in the classical sense" instead if you prefer.
When you just say mercenary without any qualification, one must assume you mean mercenary according to the regular definition.

[QwertyMIDX]

Why does everyone keep unstinting that units are weak or strong without using them? The Cohors Reformata are pretty damn tough. They have good armor, well above average attack and defense skill, and come in a big unit. The Cohors Evocata got overnerfed in 1.0, they're getting fixed in 1.1. The Antesignani are a lighter infantry than regular legionaries, they serve a different battlefield role.

Oh, and Augustan Legionnaires really were elites. They were used only in the most dire situations and only consistently lost in the Civil Wars of Rome. They were capable of besting nearly any enemy who came their way, and should be shown for the badasses they were in the game.

This one is just pretty crazy. A) They're damn tough and come in a big unit. B) They're not a small group of crack elite troops, that's just not in line with the actual history. For the backbone unit of an army there's nothing better in EB though (the only thing that comes close in the Cohors Reformata in fact), which is accurate I think. The strength of the Romans in EB (especially Marian and later), and I would argue that this mirrors the history, is not their small units of crack elites, but their large number of very good core troops.

[gran_guitarra]

Which is exactly why there were only 28 Legions and the 2 Praetorian Legions during the high period.

The Legions were only called out to deal with massive threats and nearly always acquited themselves well. Their discipline, training, and psychological advantages were massive, and they were truly the envy of the world.


I mentioned that Cohors Reformata were just fine by me. My problem was twofold:

Cohors Evocata were over-nerfed, but I know that is being fixed.

Antesignani. They may have been lightly armored, but they were the consequence of over a decade of experience serving under a constant state of readiness in the finest military machine of the ancient world. Frankly they do not match up to their counterparts, despite the fact that they were among the best troops of the classical world.

Frankly the stats for the Marian and Augustan Legions were just fine the way they were.

[blacksnail]

They use "stuborness" as an excuse for "individual weakness".

"Oh so the Romans were so weak, they lost in Teutoburger Wald, they didn't train very much, it's all propaganda. It's because they're stubborn, not because of their amazing discipline and heavy training. It's all a lie."

Give me a break. They use even petty excuses to weaken the Romans, including the infantry elites; one unit many never heard of gets lots of bonuses, oh yes, they were uber, perfect, while the Romani with all their feats of discipline and force in the battlefield get nothing. They just don't stop quoting Roman losses, yet their military achievements far overshadowed these losses, and that's why they built a big Empire. I remember when I discussed about this, and all I got were "Alexander's superior to Caesar" to read. When you're fighting against a decadent Empire with an army made of fresh, light levies and only small elites, that's what you get. And a more favourable political situation, where you don't have a Senate to keep plotting against you when you're away, too.

Stubborness was never an excuse for weak troops. Weak troops never win a war.

Oh yes, the Greeks, who lost several battles against the Romans repeatedly, they were "stronger". It was all due to stupidity and tactical mistakes, but they were stronger; they keep yelling Arausio, and forget about Magnesia. If we analize, both were tactical mistakes, but of course when a Greek loses a battle, then it's nothing. But when a Roman loses a battle, it's always an excuse to tell they were weak.

I could keep complaining about how pikes are overpowered and killing too fast, and how a few Successor units manage to kill a lot of foes, how the Successor armies are overpowered, but of course it's all a part of the game. "They were strong", "don't question our godly words". I even tried to reach a compromise, but...

But wait, RTR 7 is coming. EB is great, but RTR has improved gameplay combined with impartial realism, not an anti-whatever bias and mostly cosmetic improvements. EB is great for that bookish feeling, but when I want to play Rome Total War I go for other mods.

This is really uncalled for. You have repeatedly made these accusations with increasing levels of stridency and vitriol. You assert that the entire EB team is deliberately portraying the Romani in bad faith. While the idea of a "pro-Barbaro/Hellenic agenda" is amusing to consider, I have not seen it in nearly two years on the team.

On a more direct note, you seem to have taken it personally that not everybody agrees with every post you make here, and you seem quite bitter about it. I do not comprehend the level of anger I repeatedly see in your posts on an Internet message board about a computer game. If EB causes you such feelings of anger, I highly encourage you to find another, more positive outlet. I can certainly recommend RTR 7, the RTR team does excellent work and if it brings you enjoyment rather than frustration, I hope RTR 7 is the game for you. Your sources of fun should not cause you the level of anger I frequently see in your posts. It's just not healthy.

[QwertyMIDX]

Which is exactly why there were only 28 Legions and the 2 Praetorian Legions during the high period.

The Legions were only called out to deal with massive threats and nearly always acquited themselves well. Their discipline, training, and psychological advantages were massive, and they were truly the envy of the world.


I mentioned that Cohors Reformata were just fine by me. My problem was twofold:

Cohors Evocata were over-nerfed, but I know that is being fixed.

Antesignani. They may have been lightly armored, but they were the consequence of over a decade of experience serving under a constant state of readiness in the finest military machine of the ancient world. Frankly they do not match up to their counterparts, despite the fact that they were among the best troops of the classical world.

Frankly the stats for the Marian and Augustan Legions were just fine the way they were.

So your only standing complaint is with the Antesignani then? I'm happy to play test them and see how they perform the next chance I get. If they're not capable of kicking ass and taking names on a level similar to other elites then I will do my best to fix them. I will say though that I doubt the Roman team will want them to be stated in such a way that they end being used as troops of the line rather than quick and flexible skirmishers and assault troops.

[gran_guitarra]

Thank you very much. I doubt that Antesignani would be used as line troops because of their low numbers.
The real problem comes into play because they are suppossed to be beefed up assault troops and super skirmishers, but their stats do not compare with other factions.

Compare them with Thraikoi Peltastai (or a similarly elite skirmisher unit), or with Hypaspitai (or some such unit), and you will find that they look nowhere near as good.


If your results argue otherwise I will accept them in good faith. If you find that they reflect poorly on the Antesignani then I will ask the EB team (hopefully with your support) to alter their stats.

[blacksnail]

Thank you very much. I doubt that Antesignani would be used as line troops because of their low numbers.

You'd be surprised what the AI will spam if there is too much of a disparity in stats. Or maybe not, if you've played 0.80.

[Sakkura]

Thank you very much. I doubt that Antesignani would be used as line troops because of their low numbers.
The real problem comes into play because they are suppossed to be beefed up assault troops and super skirmishers, but their stats do not compare with other factions.

Compare them with Thraikoi Peltastai (or a similarly elite skirmisher unit), or with Hypaspitai (or some such unit), and you will find that they look nowhere near as good.


If your results argue otherwise I will accept them in good faith. If you find that they reflect poorly on the Antesignani then I will ask the EB team (hopefully with your support) to alter their stats.

Hmm, their stats seem to be fairly evenly matched with a unit like the Pheraspidai. Slightly more pricey, gain some armor but lose a tad attack and lethality. Also gain all that stamina and the hiding ability.

But compared against the hypaspistai I guess they do seem a bit less worth their expense. Hypaspistai are only marginally more expensive, but get 2 armor and 1 shield, plus a better spear and the sword attack which antesignani don't have. Of course, the hypaspistai on the other hand don't have the javelins, so that might make up much of the loss.

[Sakkura]

You'd be surprised what the AI will spam if there is too much of a disparity in stats. Or maybe not, if you've played 0.80.

Hi2u 15 Lusotannan stormtrooper armies of death

(dosidataskeli)

Or their AS equivalent I guess, when the AS doesn't get eaten by the Ptolies and Baktria (which happened in most of my 0.81 games, hence my aversion to Lusotannan elites instead).

[Morte66]

Plus, you get to recruit them all over the place instead of only in Italy, which I would say is a pretty damn big improvement.

Yep. Not much difference in one battle, but a huge difference when it comes to building an empire.