I have always played Roma in my campaigns. I've genuinely tried to get into other campaigns, but I've found I'm hopelessly set in my ways with this one. 1,400 hours in, and Roma is still my go-to. I know, I know: there's tons of fantastic, fascinating factions to choose from in DeI that I really should play. They are carefully crafted works of art, history, and game-design that ought to be appreciated. And I really do appreciate them.
As they receive a gladius face-first from my battle-hardened legions. I know other factions rather intimately because I routinely face and DEFEAT them! Muhahahahahaha!
Lord knows I'm not helping the friendly rivalries around these forums. How many times have Macedonian and Epirote players threatened my men with their mighty pikemen?
But I digress: I am a resident expert on Roma. Now, I'm not an expert on Roman History, mind you; I'm merely an intensely fascinated hobbyist, and I have no accreditation in anthropology, history, and so forth (I'm a Comm major for goodness sake). What I mean is that I've accrued enough wisdom in playing as the faction that I'm highly sensitive to what makes it strong, what makes it weak (yes, Roma actually has weaknesses, believe it or not), how the troops perform against any variety of foes, how the economy reacts to changes in unit organization...I could go on. Essentially, all aspects of Roma from a game-design/players' perspective are deeply familiar to me. Am I the best player? Probably not. I don't really enjoy raising battle difficulty since CA just boosts stats instead of doing something interesting with the AI, and VH for campaigns mostly makes everyone hate you and makes economics a chore. I still challenge myself, but some of you guys and gals are unreal with the challenges you take on. So I could probably do what you do (humble brag), but I'm much too satisfied with how the game plays on H/N to really budge.
So, when the Beta rolled around with adjustments to KAM's new experimental pack, something I was always enthusiastic about, I had to give it a roll after completing my latest Grand Campaign with 1.2.3e's balancing. Cue my favorite DLC campaign in the game: Caesar in Gaul. A great way to test the mettle of Roma's bread-and-butter troops is having them face the onslaught of angry Celts, and it's always satisfying to triumph over them despite the odds. With over a dozen hours clocked into this campaign, how has the combat system fared?
My goodness I'm blown away. KAM has always striven for Stats mattering, and in 1.2.3e, while it certainly felt that way, it was flawed in my eyes (and CA did everything they could to make it that way, given their balancing in patches had disrupted the mod's, ironically). It was hard to tell when one unit was clearly superior by the numbers unless there was a substantial disparity, plus units would interact in bizarre ways that severely diminished the performance of some units despite their superiority (hoplites and cavalry were primary offenders). 1.2.3e was very good, don't get me wrong, but it still had places to go.
And then KAM took it to those places. First off, no passive buff for "Disciplined/Professional" units: either fight in loose order, or get into disciplined formation and fight it out that way. Out the door, nuance has been added to the style of Roman (and other factions') combat. This is likely my most controversial point: I find Disciplined Formation to be fantastic and very, very useful. Others, as I have read and respected, find its benefits negligible and its behavior unreliable. Perhaps it needs further buffing. Perhaps my experience is not the norm, or I need to spend more time with using it to see its flaws, but to me, Disciplined Formation has HELD THE LINE despite ridiculous odds, and SLAUGHTERED THE BARBARIANS in impressive numbers. Now it's not like a machine gun nest racking up kills rapidly, but over time, I lose very few men for what is a huge return on investment...precisely how Romans (and other professional units) ought to play when they engage the enemy on their terms. While the troops do spin around weirdly at times because of CA's nonsense, and yes it's not always the best choice in battles, I find it an invaluable tool in tough fights and a cool option for commanders when trying new strategies. I would highly encourage discussion on this topic though: it takes a village to balance this game, as we all know. My one experience is insufficient in providing the fullest picture of this phenomenon.
Next is the consequences of the stats themselves, and a shift toward armor's import. As a Roman player, I must say there's a lot to love about this. Armor is never in short supply with Roman units (an understatement for the ages), so I like it when I get something in return for the damn expensive armies I field. Legionaries have good base stats, but it's their armor, their morale, and their abundance (any proletarii in the audience?) that sets them apart. In previous combat iterations, I've only felt the staunch effect of the latter two, while armor always seemed questionably useful (save against missiles, where it's always been helpful). Not to say it wasn't useful, but I always focused on stat boosts and positioning to minimize casualties, while differences in armor only contributed some modest amount to preserving my men's lives. Yet now, with stats really, REALLY mattering, I'm seeing the difference. Celtic units with equal stats but low armor struggle against my legionaries. Yes, my men suffer, but not nearly as much as they do. Their armor penetration does not equal a nullification of armor, and it shows. Ill-disciplined and poorly-equipped troops engage legions at their own peril without substantially outnumbering and outpositioning Roman battalions, for one of them is often worth many of your own.
And even then, there's another thing up Roma's sleeve...yes, I'm not done praising Disciplined Formation. The boost to armor, the bonus versus infantry, the reduced effectiveness of enemy numbers (they can no longer engage one roman with tons of other men), the raised defense and higher morale all make my men a real nasty tick to have to confront. My men, though not invincible, present a hard fact about war: the individual prowess of troops is always trumped by the unity and coordination of men working as one. I think Disciplined Formation is a damn fine way of representing the less tangible elements of Rome's martial excellence: constant training as a unit with drills day in and out; a set standard for troop quality that is sustained by the legion's leadership; a decentralized command structure that relied on individual battalions being more combat effective on their own to achieve local victories...yes, I think Disciplined Formation helps paint that picture. Is this unique to Rome in history? If my memory serves me well, I'd say no. Other societies had achieved such things, and even without them they were able to rival Rome's dominance. So other units having this formation makes sense to me, and it's important that the formation isn't overpowered. Besides, Rome still has things like testudo, Repel Cavalry, and other formations embedded into their legionaries that sets them apart even further. Still, with all that KAM has done, I find Roma's balance fitting for her lofty place in history as a titan on the field that must be engaged with care and cunning (and there's a myriad of other advantages Roma has that makes it so damn scary that need not be mentioned).
There are many, many other things to discuss: army balance for other factions is astoundingly spot on and immersive from what I can tell. Cavalry behaves much better, now being more vulnerable in melee versus infantry without seeming weak. Missiles play a diminished role, but still pack a punch when used right (and it is currently a forefront of the Beta's balancing, so my position on it is hardly final). Yet I'd like to keep things narrow here, and move onto curiosities/comments about Roma that could be helpful.
For instance: Veteran Legionaries. What are they good for? Absolutely: something, I think.
Allow me to clarify: Vet's are equivalent in cost to their normal kin, but draw from the Pleb population rather than Proletarii. Fair enough, given they're veterans. Their stats are equivalent to regular Legionaries save in morale. Okay, makes sense: just because you've seen combat doesn't mean you should get super big buffs, and more morale is useful! But, is it useful enough to justify taking plebs away from cavalry? And furthermore, is it useful enough to strain your logistics as you try to reinforce from a more selective pool of troops? It's hard for me to justify, personally. Base legionaries are so good already that I don't really need to take on some more morale. I buff my units accordingly via generals and agents, and that's that. Now, I still include Vets because they're cool and having nothing but legionaries is kinda boring, but I'd likely be better served if I just neglected them entirely. Now I'm talking about Marian Veterans specifically, and I can't recall if Imperial Veterans had more stat differences to make them special. That said, the problem remains: Veteran Legionaries just don't have much to set them apart. I'm not advocating for crazy buffs, but perhaps an increase to melee attack alone would be enough, making them 8 att/8 def over the regular legionaries 7 att/8 def. That coupled with the morale would be enough to motivate me to prioritize them. I'd like to hear suggestions about that though. I'm apprehensive when it comes to making Roma stronger in any way, given their power is already staggering.
Finally, Peregrini populations. They are more than useful, they're sometimes vital to Roman army composition given Auxiliary usage. Sadly, they dwindle rapidly after I consolidate my presence over a region. Usually all this means is I need to shift my auxiliary recruitment to a new frontier, but there are troops that I lose access to over time in this endeavor. I always keep auxiliary buildings in Iberia, Gaul, the Alps, Octoduron, et cetera, so I can have auxiliary contingents with my 40 stack armies. Over time though, I have a mountain of Proletarii everywhere, and only a small foreigner class still lingering. Would it be reasonable to buff the 4th pop growth rate on the auxiliary chain, or is the solution simple in maximizing other building chain buffs to 4th pop? This is perhaps the least related comment, all things considered.
In summation, the DeI team has delivered another fantastic product, and we're all spoiled rotten by their efforts here. While I focused almost solely on KAM's combat work, as combat will always be my true love in RTS's, the other elements of 1.2.3f and the mod overall are praiseworthy in their own right. I'm just trying to keep things manageably short in this post. No need to write a dissertation on the mod...yet. I have rarely been more satisfied with a game than I am right now. I say that routinely due to DeI, and think the product can't get much better, but you guys just keep one-upping yourselves, and it's admirable and inspirational. This kind of focus and strive for excellence is rubbing off on me. I can only dream of running or contributing to a team as successful as this one.
Thanks for all your work guys! And by the way, it's about time I support you guys financially with how much entertainment and education you've granted me through this project, so consider me your newest patron as of this post. Cheers!