Roman Legions seem too weak

[Sarcasm]

As stated in my on-topic comment, I don't believe that they should be supermen. I also firmly believe that there's a lot more than quality of troops involved in determining who wins a battle (something that you can't really portray in R:TW all too accurately.) Set battles and those mostly garnered from Roman sources are (I'm going out on a limb here) what we have to go on. Argueing that guerilla warfare happened and would skew the numbers since many cultures couldn't fight a set battle might very well be true - but simply not important to the discussion here on a TW forum wherein there is no real guerilla fighting going on in game (and in many cases likely a bit of speculation going on.)

Roman troops were, as far as I can tell of good quality, though certainly nothing extraordinary in the early period. They were brave, possessing a mentality that I sort of see expressed in later Italian armies made up of essentially high quality militias (much like the hoplites a couple centuries earlier). Certain periods of the early legion produced abnormally good quality legionaries during great wars (namely the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars, along with the Makedonian Wars). Later, professionalizing the army made a great impact on the quality of the individual soldier and that *is* shown IMO - the late legionaries are just about the best bang for your buck in the mod.

Dogged determination and willingness to adapt is also what made Rome triumph when other powers would have simply give up. Iberia being a prime example - they saw their Vietnam to the end even if it implied mass-murder, genocide, pillaging and mass deportations to do it.

On the sources, there's plenty of Greek and Roman documents that check just how many defeats the Romans suffered during some periods. Meaning, that list is basically bogus. Again resorting to the Iberian scenario, the period of the Celtiberian and the Lusitanian Wars are prime examples with various praetorian and consular armies being defeated several times.

[Sakkura]

the late legionaries are just about the best bang for your buck in the mod.

Actually, it can be argued that the Polybian principes give more value for money than Cohors Reformata/Imperatoria. But the latter is preferable since they can be recruited all over the place.

[blank]

Actually, it can be argued that the Polybian principes give more value for money than Cohors Reformata/Imperatoria. But the latter is preferable since they can be recruited all over the place.

The principes would be experienced soldiers, whereas the reformed legionaries might not be

[HopliteElite]

This has all been very informative. Knowing that history seems to back up some of the weaknesses I mentioned, I am actually enjoying losing less experienced legionaries only to replace them using some sort of sick mass production of men, while I see my enemies slowly dwindling. I am however noticing that my older legionaries that are becoming more experienced are truly becoming fearsome veterans. I still use very little cavalry or archers but I am just more content to throw men at my enemies, only to bring up reserves if things get too hairy, since this, according to this thread, seems to be how the Romans worked. Thanks for all the information, its made my Roman campaign much more fun to know that it all truly is authentic.