Suggestions for Roman Army Composition.

[Lord Damian]

Hi everyone.

I have some thoughs to share with you:

1. I think would be a great idea for Camillian and Polybian army, to cap principes and hastati to 5 each per stack. It would be a representation of the historical roman army.

When you have the money, you just can recruit the most expensive unit available but this is not the rigth thing for a historical accuracy mod. 5 hastati, 5 principes and 3 or 4 triarii would be the best for immersion.

2. This is a question not a suggestion: Why veteran legionari have less stats than normal/amateur legionari? Im talking about legionaris you can recruit after marian reforms with barrack lvl 2.

[UsulDaNeriak]

1. I think would be a great idea for Camillian and Polybian army, to cap principes and hastati to 5 each per stack. It would be a representation of the historical roman army.

No, it is not! Not even close.

A mid-republican army was composed of 1 roman legion and 1 legion of the socii. So you have just 10 slots for roman units, if you really like to be historically correct.

The other option is, to enforce players to make every 2nd legion a full socii legion and never attack with less than 2 stacks!

But why the hell all this babysitting?

[Ano2]

I wouldn't cap Hastati, it would force the player to build a mun rax lvl 2 or be stuck with only 5 heavy inf units. I wouldn't mind seeing a stack cap on principes and triarii though. Maybe 4 each or something. Maybe.

What I would definately like is a cap on pedites extrodinarii. I tried using some equites but they really, really suck by comparions, so I just build pedites as a result. Seems a bit silly that as Rome I have access to unlimited awesome cavalry, really negates one of their historical weaknesses.

[tomFoolery]

My camillan/polybian armies generally have 3 hastati, 3 principes, and 2 triarii, and about equal amounts of socii of each kind (maybe a bit less depending on how much cav/velites) to approximately emulate half an army consisting of socii and the historical hastati:principes:triarii ratio.

I'd comment on the stats of veterans compared to normal legionnaires, but for some reason the normal ones are missing from Italia, so I haven't seen them...

[Ano2]

My camillan/polybian armies generally have 3 hastati, 3 principes, and 2 triarii, and about equal amounts of socii of each kind (maybe a bit less depending on how much cav/velites) to approximately emulate half an army consisting of socii and the historical hastati:principes:triarii ratio.

Exactly how I have it, although I will sometimes use auxilla in place of the socii. I've noticed you just can't rely on the socii morale compared to their roman brothers. Whenever a unit breaks in battle, I can almost guarantee its one my my socii.

[UsulDaNeriak]

Whenever a unit breaks in battle, I can almost guarantee its one my my socii.

I bet, ancient roman authors agree with you about this point.
So, working as intended.

[Ano2]

I bet, ancient roman authors agree with you about this point.
So, working as intended.

No doubt, but maybe they should get a price/upkeep decrease in the future. I don't want to pay cowards so much.

[Lord Damian]

I wouldn't cap Hastati, it would force the player to build a mun rax lvl 2 or be stuck with only 5 heavy inf units. I wouldn't mind seeing a stack cap on principes and triarii though. Maybe 4 each or something. Maybe.

What I would definately like is a cap on pedites extrodinarii. I tried using some equites but they really, really suck by comparions, so I just build pedites as a result. Seems a bit silly that as Rome I have access to unlimited awesome cavalry, really negates one of their historical weaknesses.

Ok you have made a point Ano2. So yeah, not cap for hastati but for principes. There is a cap now for triarii of 4 so its fine. They should cap equites extraordinari becouse they are very powerful and can compete with barbarian horses. Maybe 2 equtes extraordinari per stack?

PD: Veteran legionari are cheaper and weaker than normals, dunno why.

[Marcus Marcellus]

As of this awsome new feature by CA(not working with current DeI) of retraiining units after reforms i had a "realistic" roman army composed of: 4x Hastatii, 4x Principes, 2x Triarii, 3x Velites/Leves, 2x Eqvites and one general. After i hit Legionarii reforms i have a retrained 10x cohors/legionarii(REALISTIC??) and 3x skirmishers 2x Ala Legionarii(cavalry) and 4 slots for random avxiliarii. I found this very intresting and rewarding that most of the time im "outnumbered" even by a single stack of enemy scum

[Friedrich's Moustache]

My standard approach so far (haven't got beyond Camillan) is to have two stacks wandering around together, the Legion and the Alae. So for example:

Legio I Germanica - Led by Scipio (Older General)

4 Leves
4 Hastati
4 Principes
2 Triarii
3 Rorarii
2 Equites
1 General

Alae I Germanica - Led by Maximus

4 Ascensi
4 Samnite Hastati
4 Samnite Principes
2 Pedites Extraordinarii
3 Equites
2 Equites Extraordinarii
1 General

Seems to me to be a fairly accurate composition based on what I've read, though I'd like to hear people's thoughts.

[UsulDaNeriak]

Actually, I was so far more interested in the late roman / imperial army, than the manipular legion of the mid-republic, but here I tried to calculate some ratios, based on common knowledge. Even if the sources differ and it is a safe guess, that even the manipular exercitus was more flexible than many people would assume.

A manipular legion was often (but not always) a double legion of 1 roman and 1 legion of the sociii
The composition of both legions was similar (but not always): 1200 per unit-type; triarii just 600)
However, depending on regions and traditions the socii legion was most probably pretty flexible and could include more special units and could have a more or less different structure.
The socii provided 3 alae of equites, the romans just 1.

That leads to a double legion of roughly 9600 men. Ingame we have to put these guys into 38 slots (+ 2 generals).
Sometimes such an army was reinforced by non-italian allies or mercenaries. You could call these guys the precedessors of the later auxilia. But now you have to recalculate the numbers below, because you have to put more than 9600 men with different percentages into 38 slots.


Unittype Number Percentage Slots (rounded)

Velites 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5) (wasn't it just 1000?)
Hastati 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5)
Princeps 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5)
Triarii 600 6,25% 2,4 (2)
Equites 300 3,13% 1,2 (1)

Velites soc. 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5)
Hastati soc. 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5)
Princeps soc. 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5)
Triarii soc. 600 6,25% 2,4 (2)
Equites soc. 900 9,38% 3,6 (3)


The naming velites soc., hastati soc., etc. for the socii is somewhat misleading. It just means units with the same type/role. And as mentioned above, socii were perhaps often not structured exactly the same like the roman part. A similar structure is just another more or less good speculation of historians.

Roman legions in the mid-republic were just numbered, because best case they were just recruited for one campaign (a few months) and disbanded afterwards. IIRC they had no cognomen, but I am not sure. I have no clue, how the "legion" of the socii was named. Surely not Ala, because this is the name of a cavalry unit only. Perhaps Legio sociorum (or samnitorum if all Samnites) or numerus sociorum or exercitus sociorum instead of legio, if legio was reserved for romans only.

You also have now 3 equites sociorum and just 1 unit of roman equites. So you have to move 1 equites sociorum into the roman legion.

I guess, this is as close as you can get to historical accuracy, imho. But remember, the romans were pragmatists and even the roman manipular legion, especially the part of the socii was most probably more flexible than some historians can imagine.

Therefore I always vote for very generous caps for roman armies, if we need caps at all.

[Keyser]

Why not "ala" ? That means "wing" after all, and the allies wings were deployed on the wings (traditionnaly at least). That actually makes sense. Same thing for the use of the word for a cavalry formation, it was a wing of cavalry for the same reason.

[UsulDaNeriak]

Why not "ala" ? That means "wing" after all, and the allies wings were deployed on the wings (traditionnaly at least). That actually makes sense. Same thing for the use of the word for a cavalry formation, it was a wing of cavalry for the same reason.

Of course also the romans distinguisehd between wings and center on the battlefield. And often (but not always) socii or later the auxilia cohortes and alae were posititioned exactly there. But they were not named ala alltogether. The only unit, which was named ala, was a cavalry unit.

In modern armies, we also have a left wing and a right wing. But a division on the left wing is still called a division not a wing. Well, in some airforces a wing is a unit, like in the roman army an ala was a cavalry unit. Nothing more and nothing less.

I guess, you got this from wikipedia. I know that article and wonder, where the author had read in ancient sources, that the cohortes and alae sociorum alltogether were called ala.

One problem is, that ingame we have really 2 indpendent big units with 2 generals marching together. But in reality it was merged into one consular exercitus of double legion size. Often under command of a single consul. Perhaps there was no need at all for a name, but cohortes et alae sociorum in history.

I don't have this problem, because i mix roman and non-roman units in one stack about 40:60 or 60:40. And I call them Legio I, II, III .....
That is not fully correct, because such a stack is not e.g. Legio I but Exercitus legionis I. But even roman authors did not take care about such details and used legio sometimes for an army with a legion as its core, and sometimes for the roman unit only.

[LawL_LawL]

I don't have this problem, because i mix roman and non-roman units in one stack about 40:60 or 60:40. And I call them Legio I, II, III .....
That is not fully correct, because such a stack is not e.g. Legio I but Exercitus legionis I. But even roman authors did not take care about such details and used legio sometimes for an army with a legion as its core, and sometimes for the roman unit only.

Same, I just look at Legio I as being 'Legio I et al' with whatever may be attached at the given time. Sometimes field losses necessitate that I fill in with locally recruited units, other times I'll have the chance to field more units of Romans to have the Legio closer to being the full strength of an actual legion. Though I take liberties with the proportions of unit compositions because I'm inevitably forced to face hordes and hordes where I'd not bet my money on a Socii trooper of low quality to stand his ground. Extraordinarii however, good soldiers! Better morale values on the Pedites Extr. than our Roman Triarii at that. Though the Triarii more or less close this gap when they form phalanx so it's not all too bad.

Oh and part of why I end up with the armies I have is that I tend to have an excessively elitist (hell blatantly xenophobic) view in any TW game and treat levies/non-nationals in armies as being little more than second-line troops that I can do whatever with and not worry about casualties. This also applies to garrison units now that they're more involved in the game. Sadly Roman garrisons are not exempt from my lack of compassion towards the lower rungs of the infantry. In my eyes the Roman Hastati are the beating heart of my army, and though they're the lowest tier of Roman melee infantry at my disposal, that's leaps and bounds more valuable than most of what else I'll have access to.

Mercenaries are even a step further below, with the absolute bottom occupied by mercenaries of cultures/factions I'm at war with.

My system makes for good arrow-fodder assessment as I'll never have to question which portion of my army I'm willing to have endure more missile fire.

[tomFoolery]

Oh and part of why I end up with the armies I have is that I tend to have an excessively elitist (hell blatantly xenophobic) view in any TW game and treat levies/non-nationals in armies as being little more than second-line troops that I can do whatever with and not worry about casualties. This also applies to garrison units now that they're more involved in the game. Sadly Roman garrisons are not exempt from my lack of compassion towards the lower rungs of the infantry. In my eyes the Roman Hastati are the beating heart of my army, and though they're the lowest tier of Roman melee infantry at my disposal, that's leaps and bounds more valuable than most of what else I'll have access to.

Mercenaries are even a step further below, with the absolute bottom occupied by mercenaries of cultures/factions I'm at war with.

So far as I know, this is a fairly historically accurate approach to things too...

[LawL_LawL]

So far as I know, this is a fairly historically accurate approach to things too...

Yeah looking back over that... Sounds about right, so I suppose I inadvertently role play that aspect at least, even if not the triplex acies legion battle-array or unit compositions.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

With he 20 unit army limit I just build four infantry per rank and do half and half socii/roman. So 2/2 hastate/socii hastate, 2/2 principes/socii princpes, etc. Then one equites and two soccii equites (with the general representing the 4th cavalry force). 2 slingers and 2 leves round out the camillian period armies. The polybian armies just upgrade to current era units and replace all ranged units with velites.

[UsulDaNeriak]

Yeah looking back over that... Sounds about right, so I suppose I inadvertently role play that aspect at least, even if not the triplex acies legion battle-array or unit compositions.

The triplex acies formation is overrated anyways. The romans already knew that.

[Barune]

I just use 40 unit armies and boom problem solved. Course i know not everyone's pc can handle that.

[UsulDaNeriak]

I just use 40 unit armies and boom problem solved. Course i know not everyone's pc can handle that.

Not really. For a correct roman manipular consular legion including socii you need more than 70 units. Well, for a small imperial army (exercitus) based on cohorts, 40 slots is not that bad, and 20 works; only just.

However, Rome 2 vanilla is better in this department, than Rome 1 ever was. And with DeI it becomes better and better.