should the Legions be tougher

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

I know that the legions are good in EB but they are not as good as they were historically, eg you cant win when massively outnumbered and even when you win against a equal sized force you casulties wont be too much less; but if you look at some of romes most impressive victories they had huge kill-death ratios.
Battle of Watling Street 250-1 outnumbered 23-1 is good example as is Alesia were all though casulties numbered 10,000 the romans were crushed between to forces both larger and still won killing 260,000 of the 330,000 warriors and captured 40,000 which is really a testement to the legions morale, resiliance
and sheer bloody toughness. Ps I know i only gave two examples but there are a huge number of battles (the majority where rome won were with very few casulties but inflicting many).

[Mediolanicus]

Roman soldiers were disciplined and weren't internally divided glory hunters.

They are far from the best infantry ever. They are just the best line infantry of their time.

IMO there is no need to put the Romans on steriods so you can beat every other faction with 250-1 odds in the game. Not even the most Romanocentric mod does that!

[sirfiggin]

the problem is that TW armies are limited in size, so a full stack gallic army roughly represents a full horde while a full roman army could be several legions in game terms- so when you lead legions well, you suffer fewer casualties, when you retrain them after every campaign and get them to full strength before each one starts, they will be unstoppable. Besides the romans didn't win wars just because they were "good", unlike most of their enemies they had decent logistics, securing food and water before each battle, building camps at strategic locations, most of the planning and effort was focused on everything but the actual fighting, that's why the romans won, and to win with them you must do the same.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

Roman soldiers were disciplined and weren't internally divided glory hunters.

They are far from the best infantry ever. They are just the best line infantry of their time.

IMO there is no need to put the Romans on steriods so you can beat every other faction with 250-1 odds in the game. Not even the most Romanocentric mod does that!

But in a army they were i would say the best infantry as a unit and that is part of being the best would you not agree?. After the marian reforms, the peak of there army i dont think there was any infantry that could go toe to toe with the legions and win not in a staight fight any way (although Dacian infantry did have good counter tactics and were pretty good until they were crushed by Trajan but even still they were more resiliant than most). But i do suppose it would be impossible to play as other factions nearby eg the gaul factions or the greeks if they were realistically portraited especially Ceasers legions woe be to the gaul who tried to fight them.

[Mediolanicus]

But in a army they were i would say the best infantry as a unit and that is part of being the best would you not agree?

errr... No.

Winning wars is more than fighting.

[decimator22]

Another good point is that history is written by the victors, I would guess the romans would have aumented the enemy number.

[Watchman]

Romans won by tactics, discipline and superior resources (ie. being able to kit their line infantry with gear equivalent to most opponents' elite warriors), not being ten foot tall and farting fire.

Also, the numbers Roman sources give tend to be absolute BS. Worth noting though that around Caesar's time the average quality of Gallic infantry seems to have been rather low (warfare in the region around that period seems to largely have "professionalised" to comparatively small, well-armed and primarily mounted "guard" troops - not entirely unlike the Middle Ages, really), whereas his troops were hardened veterans of many wars rather benefiting from fortifications, and at Watling Street Suetonius sensibly elected to make his stand on a ground that largely negated numerical advantages by channeling the enemy forces through a narrow gorge...

[Flyboy]

The battles you listed are not the best examples. In both alesia and Watling street the legions possessed MUCH more favorable ground than their enemies. Even then Caesar took 20,000 casualties at Alesia (casualties = wounded + missing + dead mind you). Even at its hight however the Roman empire did suffer several embarasing defeats against the Jews, and twice the Germans (once under Augustus, the other under Marcus Aurelius). The legions were no doubt superior infantry to most of their enemies, however the victories didn't always come from that. Sure they were disciplined, but the command structure, desire for good ground, and flexibility of tactics is what made the legion so amazing. A legion without these components is simply another army, just better equipped.

The legions are buff enough as they are, I've pulled off amazing victories with my legionaries, especially Marian with this lovely formation.

w o o o o o o w
----o o---o o

A six cohort line makes a deep yet long fighting force, not something easily broken from the front. The four cohorts in the rear are angled off midway to the left and right, making it hard to hit the flanks, yet they are close enough to the center to reinforce thinning parts. Cavalry or light infantry on the wings corners off to protect the flanks or become a flanking force themselves. Very rarely is this line broken, especially when there are a host of auxilia.

[magick]

The Romans won their battles because of superior logistics and tactics, not because their men were super-human freaks.

The very structure of the Roman Legions is a testament to this. Assuming EB emulated RL Legionnaires, and pre-Marian troops, perfectly, there really isn't anything that surpasses them in terms of versatility, which is why I find playing Rome in EB too easy. They fit the bill for everything an army needs in just one unit, besides cavalry purposes, but why do you need cavalry when your hastati are quick enough to catch up to anything short of cavalry.

[Watchman]

Well... quite a lot, actually, also if Roman historical practice is to be judged by; there's a reason they drew so much cavalry from the socii, local allies, foreign mercenaries etc.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

sorry guys i think you missunderstand me a bit i know the legions are only human, but i was talking about the fact that the superior tactics (i know to an extent this is up to you but some times the game limits what you can do) formations (missing formation such as shield walls, the wedge or anti cavalry) and logistics dont really come in to play compared to other factions so to compensate for this i was suggesting they be tougher; mainly for lack of formations which were probably along with excellent equiptment the reason they could beat the gauls and others so well. eg they could not or rarely break the roman line and their formations allowed them to break the Phalnax lines of macedon and greece admittdly after some failures but they learnt well.

[magick]

Well... quite a lot, actually, also if Roman historical practice is to be judged by; there's a reason they drew so much cavalry from the socii, local allies, foreign mercenaries etc.

Yup, IRL =P

Based off my experiences in-game, Hastati and other light roman infantry are normally quick enough to catch up to enemy skirmishers and the like, and cavalry, short of horse archers, aren't a huge problem if you don't go charging into them.

[hefa]

Alesia were all though casulties numbered 10,000 the romans were crushed between to forces both larger and still won killing 260,000 of the 330,000 warriors and captured 40,000 which is really a testement to the legions morale

I don't want to deny the morale of the roman legions but those numbers are phantasy products. I know that Ceasar claimes to be outnumberd on his gallican campaign in almost every battle. However, the whole story is a propaganda text of him and you should read it as such. In Alesia the romans were surely not outnumberd, rather the contrary.

Romans won by superior logistics, discipline, the tactical skills of their officers and last but not least by numbers. A legionary was a tough soldier but he was not an ubersoldat.

Greetings

[Flyboy]

In Alesia the romans were surely not outnumberd, rather the contrary.

heh...heh...what?

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

I think that people are being overly derogatory about ceaser he was recognised to be even by the gauls as an acurate source recording blunders and troubles with the campaign; Although i do agree with the critisim of other records (apart from a few historians who are seen as more reliable manly ones who record defeats with seeming accracy)

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Caesar slanted his histories to be favorable to an audience in Rome, such as dwelling on what the Romans considered barbarous about Gallic culture. Such as burning people in giant wicker statues.

Which really is rather barbarous, come to think of it.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

Caesar slanted his histories to be favorable to an audience in Rome, such as dwelling on what the Romans considered barbarous about Gallic culture. Such as burning people in giant wicker statues.

Which really is rather barbarous, come to think of it.

sorry i didnt mean in terms of the descriptions of the druids and the such like i mean battle statistics which he recorded in personal writings not things that he sent beck to rome which as you rightly said were slanted eg he said he had pacified gaul when he had yet to make contact to the most northern tribes so a bit of an exageration

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Oh yeah. This is true.

[silverster]

I think the original poster indicated that a lot of the roman "Discipline" cant be "played" in-game.

For example, formations such as shield wall (RTR has it for some pre-Marian units), wedge, anti-cavalry, line rotation are not in game. Without those formations in the battlegrounds, you got no more than a bunch of javelin-throwing swordsman without a whole lot more to compensate, as well as the speed which a legion can march, not represente in-game either

If Romans indeed are better at logistics perhaps it will be fitting for Roman units to have more stamina compared to other factions so legions arent tired as easily.

I still remember playing EB 0.82 years back on H/H setting where it is impossible to break a formation of Pezoi even if you out number them 5 to 1 with a mix of legion and dacian shock units because the defence factor coded was way to high on Hard setting

[[Sextus]]

The truth is this: roman legionaries were the best soldier of their time. Thanks to 3 things: tactics, armour and training. Roman legionaries were professional killers, trained, motivated and payed for this. They were the first professional soldiers in history. Say "A legion without these components is simply another army, just better equipped" is just a swearword! It's false, like "american marines are only better equipped".
In the battle of Alesia a big horde of gauls, surely more than 100.000 warriors (and I'm talking about the gauls outside the town, we've to remember the other 80.000 inside it), were slaughtered by an army of 40.000 romans with 5.000 german horsemen. And this only one of the incredible roman victories. Think about Magnesia (an entire seleucid army destroyed), Tigranocerta (armenian big army annihilated) or Pydna (macedonian army sweeped out). I've studied roman army's history for many years, I can say without doubts that a roman legionary was potentially a perfect soldier. Obviously, in war many things can happen.
Roman soldiers were trained hours and hours in the use of sword, shield and javelin. In battle the enemies saw this difference. Surely celtic or german warriors were brave and strong, but in the clash with roman line many times the gladius made a massacre.
EB is (and will be) a great mod, but has this problem of overpowering the ellenic and barbarian units, more than their truly historic power. In EB thorakitai are strong like, or more than, roman legionaries, for example. That's a big mistake.
I can easly understand the problem of making an another romanocentric mod, but there are a lot of methods to make roman expansion slower. Make roman soldier weaker than realty is wrong and sad, compared to the historical research of this fantastic mod.