A humble petition for changes in the MP unit roster of EB 2

[Arjos]

I'll say let's discuss this once EBII is out XD
And for the "barbarian" unit size, it's historical accurate to have their number of "professional" soldier lower than the mediterranean factions, they didn't have the means to support such forces, but they had a superior warrior ethos in overall...

Also the legionary cohorts represent the great pool of trained manpower the romans had access to during the late republic, while the hellenistic factions, after the death of Alexandros, all adopted the system which Philippos developed of specialized training for the middle-lower classes giving them huge numbers of soldiers capable of doing the phalangite work...

[VikingPower]

I'll say let's discuss this once EBII is out XD
And for the "barbarian" unit size, it's historical accurate to have their number of "professional" soldier lower than the mediterranean factions, they didn't have the means to support such forces, but they had a superior warrior ethos in overall...

Also the legionary cohorts represent the great pool of trained manpower the romans had access to during the late republic, while the hellenistic factions, after the death of Alexandros, all adopted the system which Philippos developed of specialized training for the middle-lower classes giving them huge numbers of soldiers capable of doing the phalangite work...

I would not think it to be historically correct to allow Legionary cohorts to have 100 men per unit because AFTER they defeated all the civilized world, where same thing applies about the Hellenic factions. What you are stating is similar to that if all other western factions should still be limited to some 18th century manpower while the United states would have all their present population after their rise to power.

[Arjos]

No, my point was that those "civilized" factions had the economic possibility to arm and train more people, while the "barbarian" factions couldn't...
And I will not enter into a discussion about modern warfare and economics...
As I said:

trained manpower

I was explaining that it is not an issue of mere numbers, but who could boast more soldiers (men specialized in operating as a unit) opposed to warriors (men experienced in single combat actions)...

[Loverartis]

In my opinion the peculiarities of an army heavily depend on culture of the ancient civilizations. For example Vikings distinguished theirselves for the ferocity during the battles, 'cause their society taught them this vigor.
P.S.: For culture I intend a whole of aspects: technology, art, religion, economy, organization of the society...

[Ludens]

No, my point was that those "civilized" factions had the economic possibility to arm and train more people, while the "barbarian" factions couldn't...

But shouldn't that be reflected in the number of units they can field rather than unit sizes? Following that reasoning, legionary cohorts should have more men than phalanx formations.

I was explaining that it is not an issue of mere numbers, but who could boast more soldiers (men specialized in operating as a unit) opposed to warriors (men experienced in single combat actions)...

I agree with your point (that the Romans could field more well-trained men than the Celts), but I am not sure if you can make this distinction. I guess it depends on how you define the terms. I would define a warrior as someone who made war his profession. A soldier is a warrior that is a member of a formalized military, rather than a loose warband.

Also, I'd say single combat is something for expert warriors rather than poorly-trained levies. Roman legionaries were drilled to employ complex formation, but all non-skirmisher levies had to rely on some form of formation-combat in order to survive.

[Arjos]

But shouldn't that be reflected in the number of units they can field rather than unit sizes?

Maybe, but at the same time the legionary cohort is a unit capable of "solo" operation and I think that their unit size reflects that...

I agree with your point (that the Romans could field more well-trained men than the Celts), but I am not sure if you can make this distinction. I guess it depends on how you define the terms. I would define a warrior as someone who made war his profession. A soldier is a warrior that is a member of a formalized military, rather than a loose warband.

I don't see a warrior as someone who lives by waging war, because actually he spend more time working as trader or farmer, while the soldier doesn't do anything else during his career...
The warrior is more concern in loot and fame...

Also, I'd say single combat is something for expert warriors rather than poorly-trained levies. Roman legionaries were drilled to employ complex formation, but all non-skirmisher levies had to rely on some form of formation-combat in order to survive.

The young poorly-trained levy start with no experience and fight in single combat, if he survives become more expert and maybe richer...
Yes, they form some sort of formation, but in detail everyone is fighting his own duel, while soldiers are more packed and fight in cooperation...
And the roman non-skirmisher levies were warriors from other societies allied to rome ^^

[Cybvep]

Unit numbers should be balanced, not "realistic", because MTW2's army sizes are not realistic (nor is the limit of 20 units per army). Realistic battle results are much more important.

MTW2 engine allows the EB team to limit the number of elite units considerably and in a realistic way, because of "unit depletion" feature. It's a much better tool for such things than unit sizes.

[Ludens]

Maybe, but at the same time the legionary cohort is a unit capable of "solo" operation and I think that their unit size reflects that...

That would also mean legionary cohorts should have more men than phalangite units .

I don't see a warrior as someone who lives by waging war, because actually he spend more time working as trader or farmer, while the soldier doesn't do anything else during his career...

I understand you want to make a distinction between professionals and part-time fighters, but "warrior" is not the right word. Professional soldiers are sometimes called warriors. And consider the etymology of the word: why should the term warrior be applied to levies but not those who make their living from war?

The warrior is more concern in loot and fame...

Those people who are farmers (traders, artisans, craftsmen...) first and fighters second do not go to battle for loot. They are mostly there to protect their homeland. It's the soldiers and the warrior castes that care most about fame and the spoils of war, because warfare is what they owe their status to (and because the pay of the rank-and-file has always stunk).

The young poorly-trained levy start with no experience and fight in single combat, if he survives become more expert and maybe richer...
Yes, they form some sort of formation, but in detail everyone is fighting his own duel, while soldiers are more packed and fight in cooperation...

What you describe is correct for skirmisher levies, but I doubt that close-order levies, such as hoplites and lugoae, would abandon their formation and engage in a series of duels. Rather, they would do what frightened men of all times have done and stand closely together. The resultant wall of shields would have offered them more protection. Yes, their formations would have been simple and there would have been no "squad tactics", but it definitely wasn't a series of duels.

[Arjos]

Ok that everyone involved in a war is a warrior, but you must agree that the word soldier add a further meaning...
Than I never referred to levies in my very first post, the "warrior" class is a sort of middle class I'll say, I can't see why they couldn't join a short-timed raid during late spring or early summer...
My point was that the cheap units (levies) have 60 as unit size, while medium (warrior class as I define them XD) are at 50, and I think that those numbers are ok; while the roman and hellenic factions have an high number in size of "top soldiers" as you could call them a sort of regulars...
Than that the spear isn't a "dueling" weapon I agree, I was talking of other ones...
About the topic of cohort more numerous than the phalanx I don't know, seems fine the way it is, maybe having the first cohort with 60 would be acceptable...

[WinsingtonIII]

But shouldn't that be reflected in the number of units they can field rather than unit sizes? Following that reasoning, legionary cohorts should have more men than phalanx formations.

Ludens is spot on. Given the recruitment mechanics of M2TW, the Romans can have larger max recruitment pools (and faster replenishing pools) than many other factions, and this will accurately represent their trained manpower advantages. Thus, in campaign, the Romani will enjoy an historically accurate manpower advantage in the later game. However, in multiplayer, they will not enjoy this advantage, which will prevent some complaints and balance out the experience a bit more. Keep in mind they will most likely still have quite cheap troops, so don't worry too much, Romani fans.

However, I am guessing that phalanxes will probably retain their numerical advantage, because their high numbers were about trying to accurately scale down a phalanx from real life to game terms. Of course, as long as they are expensive enough, this won't be a huge issue, whereas the Romani in EB1 have both higher numbers and incredibly cheap troops.

VikingPower, if the Celts/Sweboz/Lusotanians did not historically utilize armored slingers, then I can assure you that the EB team is not going to give them these units for MP purposes, that's just not how EB works.