EB Unit Stats Tweaking - phalangites, hoplites, chariots, gaestae, etc - suggestions?

[SlickNicaG69]

I will add ideas as they come to me, but here is one that seems obvious:

Legionary Description from EB Website:

The gladius hispaniensis, adapted during the late 3rd century BC conflicts, is a great weapon for fighting in close formations. Its strong, unbending blade has a sharp point to penetrate heavy armour and can deal an effective blow with both edges. So it can be used for stabbing or slashing as well. The pilum, the heavy Roman javelin, is designed to bend after impact so that it is worthless for the enemy and is difficult to remove from shields. Its weight also gives the weapon great penetration capability.

The points I emboldened only leads me to rationalize that:

*Legionary attack should be AP, it says it in the description.
*Legionary lethality should be at least .225 or higher, since even the Southern Gallic Swordsman has a lethality of .225, despite possessing a common 'longsword.' It would be wrong to factor in reputation in for this.
*Since the 'rendering the shields useless' is impossible, somehow adjust the pila so that it doesn't kill 0 units up front, regardless of what unit type it is... this one is especially needed as anyone can tell you how unrealistic it is for pila to be thrown at the flanks of a phalanx unit, and still kill only 1 soldier (I remember throwing one whole volley at the backs of some Scythian cataphracts and killed a total of 1 unit... yes 1!!!), there is something wrong with that.
*The pila has an attack value of 4!, even being armor piercing, what difference would it make vs some light infantry? It would actually be weaker than a rudimentary javelin from a Spanish ambusher... again... a nice subject for an experiment...
*Why isn't their attack value higher, being that they can attack by slashing and thrusting... this can be applied to anytime of soldier with such description (such as Boii swordsmen). This one should be more based of reputation, as it would be wrong to give a Gaestate a less powerful attack then a legionary.

In regards to the Neitos, why is their defense skill, armor, and morale so high? Their description says the following (from site):

Well armored in quality chain, with sturdy shields, and good longswords, the Neitos (Nee-yet-os; "Soldiers") are professional soldiers, and excellently skilled and disciplined when compared to the bulk of light Gallic soldiers ... they were rarely in large enough number to act as anything but a tiny elite, though they, in truth, were little more than average soldiers of regular warriors in superior armor and with superior equipment.

Why would their armor be superior to the Romans'? Why would their defense skill be higher? Why would, above all things, their morale be so close to the Romans if they were merely the Boutoras in heavy armor... I'd concede a morale of 10, assuming their equipment enchance their 'confidence.'

*I take this opportunity to identify what I believe to be the clearest reference for applying stat values... Unit Descriptions.
*In said descriptions, have a standard for each, kind of like done by Gamegeek above... chainmail = __. Non-metal curriass = __... etc. etc.
*Thus, no hoplite, except maybe levies, and certainly no 'pike', should have a 'light spear'.

*Oh and for the cavalry problem, why not just give light skirmisher units and to a certain extent heavier ones (I would exclude, for example, the Thracian Peltast as in description it says it is very effective vs cavalry) negative mount effects vs. cavalry?

I agree with those who have said don't mess with the chariots/elephants as, historically, they were much more hindrances than beneficiaries... you seem to possess a desire to see them used much more effectively than they actually were... just an objective opinion.