[EB] Thoughts on balancing Rome in a historical way

[antisocialmunky]

Actually I think I have a better idea where everyone wins. I think what you should do is to model the Marian army as the one of the late Republic during the era of the civil wars while the Imperials should be modeled on the army of the 1st century AD which was slightly different. That we can can have both a more average legion and a more super legion.

The army of the time of Marius would have had an influx of raw recruits so it would make sense that it would have many people but not stated as highly. Basically like more slightly better Hastati (call it ~1.5K-1.6K). The army of the 1st century Principate which had experienced many civil wars and reorganized into basically a super border patrol should have the the legion as a battle hardened nearly elite unit (~1.8K-2K) with many cheaper support units (~1.2K-1.4K) to help out.

There's probably no harm in keeping the legions 200 strong while reducing support units to smaller sizes (spear auxillaries to 160 and archers to 80-120?) since atleast wikipedia quotes documents that put legionary formations as large units with auxillaries in much much smaller units.

[TheShakAttack]

Actually I think I have a better idea where everyone wins. I think what you should do is to model the Marian army as the one of the late Republic during the era of the civil wars while the Imperials should be modeled on the army of the 1st century AD which was slightly different. That we can can have both a more average legion and a more super legion.

The army of the time of Marius would have had an influx of raw recruits so it would make sense that it would have many people but not stated as highly. Basically like more slightly better Hastati (call it ~1.5K-1.6K). The army of the 1st century Principate which had experienced many civil wars and reorganized into basically a super border patrol should have the the legion as a battle hardened nearly elite unit (~1.8K-2K) with many cheaper support units (~1.2K-1.4K) to help out.

There's probably no harm in keeping the legions 200 strong while reducing support units to smaller sizes (spear auxillaries to 160 and archers to 80-120?) since atleast wikipedia quotes documents that put legionary formations as large units with auxillaries in much much smaller units.

Hey

First, I just want to say I am not entirely comfortable with the suggestion. During the “post marian” period, the legions were highly trained and recorded astonishing success under various leaders: Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Augustus/Agrippa. In terms of their achievements, they were no lesser than imperial legions. BUT in terms of a compromise for the sake of gameplay and flexibility, it sounds good.

PS. The Marian reforms did away with the traiditional hastate, principes, trarii division, and it was the birth of the “legions”. But of course, one could make stats and costs lower for Marian cohorts just like you said.

[Ludens]

During the “post marian” period, the legions were highly trained and recorded astonishing success under various leaders: Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Augustus/Agrippa. In terms of their achievements, they were no lesser than imperial legions. BUT in terms of a compromise for the sake of gameplay and flexibility, it sounds good.

Yes, but that's cherry-picking. If you only look at the famous victories, of course the Marian legionaries are going to look good. When Marius first deployed his mules in Numidia, it didn't really alter the progress of the campaign. Yes, he later used them to decisively beat the Cimbri, but not before his consular colleague (presumably also using the new-model legionaries) was defeated. The victory was the work Marius, and his drive for training and discipline, not the new type of legionary.

And I don't believe that all Marian legions were trained to the same high standard. There was no standard because there was no standing army. The level of training would have depended entirely on how motivated the guy in charge was. During the civil wars, Roman legions were often hastily raised and unreliable formations.

[TheShakAttack]

Yes, but that's cherry-picking. If you only look at the famous victories, of course the Marian legionaries are going to look good. When Marius first deployed his mules in Numidia, it didn't really alter the progress of the campaign. Yes, he later used them to decisively beat the Cimbri, but not before his consular colleague (presumably also using the new-model legionaries) was defeated. The victory was the work Marius, and his drive for training and discipline, not the new type of legionary.

And I don't believe that all Marian legions were trained to the same high standard. There was no standard because there was no standing army. The level of training would have depended entirely on how motivated the guy in charge was. During the civil wars, Roman legions were often hastily raised and unreliable formations.

A very fair point and in fact one I considered bringing up. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the defeat suffered at the hands of the Cimbri you mentions was one of the most decisive, and costly (in terms of casualties) in the entire history of Rome.

Even with Arausio, do not forget that the Romans were MASSIVELY outnumbered. I am not entirely sure they were "marian style" troops. If I am not mistaken, Marius was "allowed" raise legions that drew from the head count (ie. landless), but as far as i know, this was not adopted immediately. Marius raised his legion in 107bc, battle was in 105bc. Aruasio troops may well have been the pre-marian type troops.

This was not the only diaster, so, in any event....

I convinced myself that leadership was not a significant issue because leadership is always important (“ten men wisely led will beat a hundred without a head”…sorry couldn’t resist). From my perspective, it is difficult to take into account the influence a good leader would have on his troops when modding EB. For instance, the example you mentioned re: Marius and Caepios + Caepio (Arausio). BUT if you take into account that they were well armoured, typically/comparatively well trained (due to the Roman Infantry Tradition), and professional; and if you compare them to the infantry fielded by other states around them (taking leadership out of the question), man-for-man they were quite superior.

From that time period, the vast majority of defeats were caused by almost purely by bad leadership. I also agree that the opposite is true. The great victories were due to great leadership. But if you look at when they went toe to toe with other heavy infantry, more often than not, they were quite successful. Arausio was a disaster because the 2 leaders led 2 separate armies and would not even camp together due to the fact that one of them was a pleb and other a patrician.

I completely agree that there was no standing army, and no standardisation of training. And these are very good points. For these reasons I am inclined to agree that they should be slightly weaker than imperial cohorts, but no pushovers themselves.

[antisocialmunky]

Well the logic is that you model the Marians at the legions at the beginning of Marius's time before the majority of civil wars had been fought and after the 50 year peace following the conquest of Macedon. So you have a relatively inexperienced but large army that was highly trained, motivated, and well equipped. The great advantage of the Roman army was the amount of armored and well trained heavy infantry they turned out.

You then model the Imperials during the mid 1st Century AD where the legions were considered somewhat of an elite, having fought several major invasions and civil wars continuously for 100 years.

[vartan]

I actually like the points you guys bring up because it goes to show that we would do best to make a clear distinction between bringing a Marian army and an Imperial one, and currently there isn't a big incentive to bring one over the other. Big.

[gamegeek2]

I actually like the points you guys bring up because it goes to show that we would do best to make a clear distinction between bringing a Marian army and an Imperial one, and currently there isn't a big incentive to bring one over the other. Big.

So I would give the +1/+1 melee bonus to the imperials (with the corresponding cost increase for non-barbarians) and reduce them to 90 men in size? That way the units are represented as a mix of veterans and a few greener troops.

[TheShakAttack]

Well the logic is that you model the Marians at the legions at the beginning of Marius's time before the majority of civil wars had been fought and after the 50 year peace following the conquest of Macedon. So you have a relatively inexperienced but large army that was highly trained, motivated, and well equipped. The great advantage of the Roman army was the amount of armored and well trained heavy infantry they turned out.

You then model the Imperials during the mid 1st Century AD where the legions were considered somewhat of an elite, having fought several major invasions and civil wars continuously for 100 years.

Well, in that case ASM, I completely agree with you. And in fact, I think it is an improvement on what I had originally suggested. But is it possible to make mercs cheaper for Imperial rome compared to Late republic (post marian)? This is because just making the current aux units wont really be enough!

[Ludens]

I completely agree that there was no standing army, and no standardisation of training. And these are very good points. For these reasons I am inclined to agree that they should be slightly weaker than imperial cohorts, but no pushovers themselves.

If I am not mistaken, the Roman army at Aurausio was raised using the old militia system. I was referring to Quintus Lutatius Catulus' defeat at the Brenner pass. He was co-consul with Marius during the second Cimbri invasion, and each of them was to defend one entrance into Italy. Marius won a famous victory at Aquae Sextiae, but Lutatius' force was beaten back. In the end, the combined armies of Marius and Lutatius destroyed the remaining Cimbri.

To be clear: I am not saying that, from a historical point of view, Marian legionaries should be weaker than Imperial ones. Marian legions were often ad-hoc forces, so the level of training could vary wildly. But this was a turbulent period in Roman History, so there would be plenty of experienced recruits available, and only the dimmest of generals wouldn't take time to train them.

The difference is that Imperial legions would have (supposedly) had a consistent standard of training. Whether it was better than the average Marian legionary I can't say. (Also, it was not unknown for an Imperial legion to grow sloppy during times of peace. An example would be Corbulo's Armenian campaign: he found that the Syrian legions employed men that were too old for active service, and that a number of soldiers had even sold their armour.)

[vartan]

Ludens is right, but we can't stat individual soldiers, at all. Stats are for entire units, so we'll have to differentiate somehow. If Imperials were +1 against Marians but 90 men, they'd have to cost cheaper than Marians in that case. But then would the Marians still not be able to field 20 units? That's become an issue since the legionary is their primary ingredient.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, I would argue that the Marian army was a crap ton of Italians, Local Allies, and Mercenaries while the Imperial one of the 1st century was a better organized with the socially-more elite Legions and the non-Roman auxillaries. The auxillaries were divided up into much smaller units to give the legions tactical flexibility kinda like Tank/Artillery were distributed by the allied forces in WWII.

So I think the main thing for the armies is to show the Marian army as a somewhat ad-hoc Roman-Local Mixed Army (Caesar's German Cavalry, Numidian Archers, and Cretan Mercenaries for example) and the Imperial as a more thought out and systematic army based around the heavy infantry core and modularized support for the heavy infantry.

[TheShakAttack]

Why would imperial cohorts only have 90 men?

[antisocialmunky]

Ludens is right, but we can't stat individual soldiers, at all. Stats are for entire units, so we'll have to differentiate somehow. If Imperials were +1 against Marians but 90 men, they'd have to cost cheaper than Marians in that case. But then would the Marians still not be able to field 20 units? That's become an issue since the legionary is their primary ingredient.

Well the assumption for 20 unit armies should be broken away. Macedon can't actually field a decent 20 unit army anyway (if you want your hammer and anvil anyway). If you really made the legion as good as it is in the new statting system and you couldn't make a 20 unit army and it can still win games, who cares about filling all your slots?

You could shoot for an army that looks like 10 cohorts, 4 auxillaries, 2 cavalry or something.