Roman aggression

[BiggBudd]

Am playing uni julli campaign bbw 8.1 as britons. Do the romans EVER start to expand? Av been playing for 15yrs [4 turns] and they arnt even at war with gaul/cartage or anyone!

[[Sextus]]

I've played this mod. The Romans are ridiculous, weaker than barbarians, weaker than greeks. They aren't the best soldiers in the world, like they were, but something similar to legionaries in Asterix...

Sextus

[Starance Quintus]

Maybe he doesn't like the power the romans had

[Opeth_Oz]

Playing this mod as greeks...3 familys,the romans are all over me from the start,big stacks of town watch,so maybe the greeks are taking the heat in your game?

[nath9091]

Playing as Romans atm with the field army thingy turned off. Walls costing 20k is getting really annoying, will probably mod those to be about 5000 or so.
Romans are amazing. What makes them look weak is that for some reason the AI Gauls get a lot of exp bonuses and the weapon and armour upgrades to silver. However, get a nice line of Principes with the starting weapon and armour upgrades and the +1 exp and leave them to fight for awhile and they'll become godlike. Also with heavy armour and shields they're very durable against missile. For anti-cavalry measures have 2/3 Triarii around. I'm also lugging around the starting archers, they do their part and rarely take casualties.
Battle tactics are basically maintain a strong heavy infantry line with archers behind and Triarii ready to charge to spots where cavalry attack. Set your Hastati/Principes to fire at will. Don't let your line become disorganised until the enemy army breaks, then its your choice. Keeping formation will reduce casualties, but might reduce the amount of xp you end up getting. I don't bother with Velites, no range/no ammo/not enough killing power. Archers once they get a few weapon upgrades and exp will do far more and take far less casualties.
Playing on huge unit size, M/M (okay, it's slightly easier than H/H).

[xristosQ]

the romans werent the best soldiers they were the most dicipline also they had a big shield and the short sword for stabbing

[Derfal Cadarn]

discipline isnt the only thing that conquers the known world. no one gets far withought having the best soldiers. consider the fact that legionaires enlisted fo 25 years. after 1 year of solid combat you have a veteren and a dangerous warrior. now put him with thousands of his freinds..... and hey presto you have the roman empire

[fatape]

discipline isnt the only thing that conquers the known world. no one gets far withought having the best soldiers. consider the fact that legionaires enlisted fo 25 years. after 1 year of solid combat you have a veteren and a dangerous warrior. now put him with thousands of his freinds..... and hey presto you have the roman empire

The reason the rome conquered so much was the result of a lot of factors , including geographic location , government ,culture,unity and having one of the first professional armies (always having more than 20+ legions at your disposal is helpful) and being willing to do anything to win including assassination ,betrayal, bribing ,genocide ect; and of course no empire can be established without a lot of luck.

Roman soldiers individually weren't the best soldiers of there time , there short sword actually put them at disadvantage individually. What made rome's armies good was there discipline and organization, which made it so each cohort could react quickly without a generals guiding hand. The fact they a jack of all trades master of none type unit really helped as well since they had few weaknesses.

Without support troops they were at a huge disadvantage against skirmishers actually, there armor made it so they couldn't run long/fast and chasing would disrupt there organization making them vulnerable to hand to hand combat.This led to some of the biggest roman losses.

Roman legions were good no doubt but there not unbeatable super soldiers like vanilla would have you believe.

[Romanheart]

Simple roman legionaries were good individual soldiers. Veteran roman legionaries were true killers, also individually.

[z3n]

Any veteran soldier is a true killer Roman or other.

[z3n]

The reason the rome conquered so much was the result of a lot of factors , including geographic location , government ,culture,unity and having one of the first professional armies (always having more than 20+ legions at your disposal is helpful) and being willing to do anything to win including assassination ,betrayal, bribing ,genocide ect; and of course no empire can be established without a lot of luck.

Roman soldiers individually weren't the best soldiers of there time , there short sword actually put them at disadvantage individually. What made rome's armies good was there discipline and organization, which made it so each cohort could react quickly without a generals guiding hand. The fact they a jack of all trades master of none type unit really helped as well since they had few weaknesses.

Without support troops they were at a huge disadvantage against skirmishers actually, there armor made it so they couldn't run long/fast and chasing would disrupt there organization making them vulnerable to hand to hand combat.This led to some of the biggest roman losses.

Roman legions were good no doubt but there not unbeatable super soldiers like vanilla would have you believe.

It wasn't quite 'one of the first' professional armies...have a look at this.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...z/gabr0004.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_D...Shang_Military
Don't you forget the Babylonian Empire of Nebukadnezzar and the Egyptian Kingdom of Ramses!
There are many others but I simply do not have the time to find links for them all.

[Romanheart]

Any veteran soldier is a true killer Roman or other.

Roman veterans were usually stronger then other ones, thanks not only to continuous battles and wars, but also training (roman soldiers always fought, in war and peace time).

[z3n]

Contrary to your beliefs other soldiers did fight during wars too and strangely enough they didn't fight during peacetime unless your referencing to raids? Match a veteran spartan, immortal, any mercenary, a tribal warrior from europe, illyrians (the list can go on) against a roman veteran and the roman veteran would likely lose many more fights than he won.

This is because roman equipment was like greek hoplite equipment it was designed in a way to force you to lock shields with your unit and fight as a team and not an individual fighter like the falx or rhomphaia wielding "barbarians" fought! Hence the large unwieldy shields and short stabbing swords.

Also countary to your rather bias opinion other countries had standing armies that trained during peace time and please note that the roman army only kept a standing army after several reforms. If your looking for examples, the macedonian armies, the spartan armies, the ptolmeic armies, the seleucid armies, the list goes on again.

I'll give you some unasked for advice (which I think you may need). Try not to let your love for rome cloud your views of history.

Roman veterans were usually stronger then other ones, thanks not only to continuous battles and wars, but also training (roman soldiers always fought, in war and peace time).

[Romanheart]

Match a veteran spartan, immortal, any mercenary, a tribal warrior from europe, illyrians (the list can go on) against a roman veteran and the roman veteran would likely lose many more fights than he won.

And... on what kind of resources do you write that? Or it's a simple, personal opinion, transformed in historical truth?

This is because roman equipment was like greek hoplite equipment it was designed in a way to force you to lock shields with your unit and fight as a team and not an individual fighter

Wrong. Oplites way of fight was closer and more compact than manipular one. A legionay had to know how to fight in the shield wall and in open formation. I've never said that roman soldiers fought individually in battle, I've said that they were individually very good fighters thanks to continuous training. And in this training, they used to fight also 1vs1, not only in formation.

please note that the roman army only kept a standing army after several reforms

Thank you, my master. I didn't know that until now. I've always tought that Rome had professional legions since the wars against Etruscans...

I'll give you some unasked for advice (which I think you may need). Try not to let your love for rome cloud your views of history.

I don't need it. I only need to understand that writing in theese type of discussions is really useless.

[z3n]

Spartans would definitely lose against a roman veteran! Immortals who trained from childhood and saw battle after battle were no match for a roman veteran either. the thracian tribal warriors who forced rome to change the way they equipped their soldiers would never win in individual one on one combat.



Obviously hoplites fought in a more compact formation and at no point did I say that roman soldiers fought in the same compact formation and way as hoplites so do not put words in my mouth.


What I did say was This is because roman equipment was like greek hoplite equipment it was designed in a way to force you to lock shields with your unit and fight as a team and not an individual fighter like the falx or rhomphaia wielding "barbarians" fought! Hence the large unwieldy shields and short stabbing swords.

And lastly I agree. It is pointless but can be fun especially if one side presents information that the other wasn't aware of before. Speaking of which...is your opinion on roman veterans based on "simple,personal opinion, transformed in historical truth?

And... on what kind of resources do you write that? Or it's a simple, personal opinion, transformed in historical truth?

Wrong. Oplites way of fight was closer and more compact than manipular one. A legionay had to know how to fight in the shield wall and in open formation. I've never said that roman soldiers fought individually in battle, I've said that they were individually very good fighters thanks to continuous training. And in this training, they used to fight also 1vs1, not only in formation.

Thank you, my master. I didn't know that until now. I've always tought that Rome had professional legions since the wars against Etruscans...

I don't need it. I only need to understand that writing in theese type of discussions is really useless.

[Romanheart]

Spartans would definitely lose against a roman veteran! Immortals who trained from childhood and saw battle after battle were no match for a roman veteran either. the thracian tribal warriors who forced rome to change the way they equipped their soldiers would never win in individual one on one combat.

And this is exactly what I've wrote, as everyone can read...

This is because roman equipment was like greek hoplite equipment it was designed in a way to force you to lock shields with your unit

The difference is that hoplites could fight only in close formation, roman legionaries could fight in close and large formations, thanks to group and single flexibility.

Yes, I agree, this is very fun.

[z3n]

The difference is that hoplites could fight only in close formation, roman legionaries could fight in close and large formations, thanks to group and single flexibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekdromoi

Depends on the type of hoplite.

http://www.agogegrappler.com/about-2
http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=1586
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomphaia

I didn't see that you had written the same thing I did. next time I'll make sure I don't misread any insinuations!

[Romanheart]

Depends on the type of hoplite.

You were talking about classical hoplites with oplon and spears, don't cheat. If not, you shouldn't write that their armament put them to fight shield near shield.

I didn't see that you had written the same thing I did. next time I'll make sure I don't misread any insinuations!

I was joking, and maybe you too, but I don't really care.

Copy and past all links that you want, for me this conversation is closed.

[z3n]

You were talking about classical hoplites with oplon and spears, don't cheat. If not, you shouldn't write that their armament put them to fight shield near shield.


I was joking, and maybe you too, but I don't really care.

Copy and past all links that you want, for me this conversation is closed.

I'm not cheating you simply interpreted words that cover a rather broad spectrum of hoplite types. If you read the link you would know that they did form up in classic battle formation however they could also mix it up in irregular order.

The point I was making when I said roman shields were a similar concept when compared with greek shields was that each typically kept in formation and did not fight in irregular order.


& I share your sentiment.

[spliner]

How many posts on this site turn into a history lesson! yeesh