spearmen are tooo weak in RTR!

[AqD]

A simple evidence is that the best Roman infantry before marian reform - the Triaii, cannot stand against Principes at all, even when the latter doesn't use pila.

Isn't this unrealistic? Everyone knows the Triaii were the best of pre-marian soldiers and they're only used in a desperate situation. They should be able to beat principes or even post-marian legionaries.

So how to fix this? I tried to give them equal attack strength, but still no help - they're doomed since the beginning, not a fair fight at all. The casuality was between 1:4 to 1:3 before they routed.

From the EDU guide it says the the triarii's light_spear "Gives default bonus of +8 to defense vs cavalry, and penalty of -4 to defense vs. infantry." Since the light_spear cannot be replaced or removed for non-phalanx spearmen, it's necessary to adjust other stats, but here another problem arises: +4 defense would be too much for cavalry to take them, so it may be better to increase attack instead, but how much would it be suitable? I tried the "ap" (armour-piercing) and it does give 120-men athenian hoplites, though not triarii, a fighting chance against 80-men principes. (but now you see another problem - how come the veteran Roman Triarii couldn't win non-professional Athenian Hoplites? )

Any ideas? suggestions?

------------
UPDATED: I was a bit wrong. With the aromour-piercing capability, triaii may beat principes if the guard mode is turned off, and if it's not outflanked. But the same change also makes greek hoplites a serious threat for any roman legionaries, as they could lose once being encircled (by forming the longest line & minimal ranks).
________
VAPORIZER WIKI

[florin80]

Afaik the triarii were the most experienced, not the best roman infantry all around. Otherwise they would have been used more often I guess instead of being kept in reserve. Plus, why would the triarii need to fight the principes? Where does that leave the hastati? Fighting the velites in front?

[thdot44]

Afaik the triarii were the most experienced, not the best roman infantry all around. Otherwise they would have been used more often I guess instead of being kept in reserve. Plus, why would the triarii need to fight the principes? Where does that leave the hastati? Fighting the velites in front?

hahha

[Patronus]

Cleacherus you are somewhat misguided in your thinking. The triaria were the best the Romans had to offer in the pre marian armies. That is why they had the best weapons, and were usually held in reserve. Remember this, all roman soldiers of the pre marian era were middle class (or wealthier) land owners. Thus they could all afford to buy their own weapons and armor. There certainly may have been a greater social status that came with being in the triaria, but the main reason for having them was to have their experience and combat prowess: they were the vets.

As for whether they were elite, i think people get confused when they talk about elite troops of antiquity. It was very unusual for ancient civilizations to have full time, around the year armies, much less bodies of elite soldiers. Most civilizations, such as the greeks and early Romans, relied on seasonal armies. Even the Spartans fought seasonal campaigns. Do not forget that the Spartans, though they devoted much of their time and effort to war, still had farms to manage and slaves to oversee. The Spartans were certainly good soldiers, as were the triaria. As to who was better, i dont know, since ive never read of a direct battle between the two. Sparta had in fact lost its prominence by the time Rome had become a big power.

I do agree that the veteran triaria should be able to beat, or at least hold their own against other, less experienced infantry. That should be fixed ASAP. And by the way... Cleacherus dont fall into the naive trap that the praetorian guard was an ultimate, uber, elite force. Yes they were usually handpicked men from the legions, but they were more of a palace guard and imperial bodyguard than anything else. They rarely fought on the battlefield. And more often than not, they were chosen for their loyalty and obedience to the praetorian prefect, since it was he who often decided the fates of emperors.

What people on this forum tend to overlook is that during the imperial era of Rome, the common legionaires were truly the "elite" troops. There was no other body of infantry with their training, discipline or combat experience in the whole of the Mediterranean. From the 1st century AD on, they very few enemies of Rome who would dare fight the Roman legions in a head on engagement (at least up until the Hun and German invasions).

[AqD]

Because there were not many of them? But since triarii are more experienced they're not supposed to lose
________
LIVE SEX

[Tiberius Nero]

The way I understand it, being a veteran in an ancient army doesn't mean you can perform awesome feats of spear&shield-fu, it means you probably don't lose your nerve that easily, you follow orders with more precision, you know how to keep a correct formation, you don't take a day to set up your tent when camping and that kind of thing in general. Oh and it also means you are like 40years old, so unless you've been trained by shaolin monks, you are unlikely to be that good at this age at that point in history.

All this can be represented with extra morale and a couple of chevrons, no need to make the triarii awesome warriors that can take on anything. In game they are pretty good at what they do as a vanguard or covering the flanks. They are not to be used all the time as they are costly and they are the best spear unit the Romans can have.

[AqD]

But then they're nearly useless in the game. Why waste money on the expensive and defense-only Triarii instead of Principes, who can act offensively and are not inferior as rearguard at all. The spear bonus against cavalry isn't that much, since no cavalry can beat any heavy infantry in hand-to-hand fighting.

PS: a few points of difference in morale don't have any effects in RTR at all, because every melee-combat units have very high base morale (nearly double to vanilla RTW and other mods). If the overall morales are low, says 10 in average, while Triarii has like 15 - it would make sense, and the eagle they carry would also really stop other units from routing. Perhaps I should change the morale points in my mini-mod too
________
PAXIL LAWSUIT INFO

[Tiberius Nero]

The game is supposed to be historically accurate and some people in fact try to build armies following their historical composition. As such triarii need to be included, to be extra expensive and not be uber-units despite all that, because that would be unrealistic.

If one is only aiming for maximum efficiency in one's armies and doesn't care about accuracy and all that, then in fact one can achieve this by recruiting only principes (the hastati aren't really worth it gameplaywise either). This mod doesn't necessarily follow the logic more expensive--->awesomely better stats. More expensive usually means "rarer", because of historical considerations (in this case its that triarii are old veterans and quite wealthy citizens so there has to be few of them).

[MasterAdnin]

When you fight infantry with Triarii you have to press the alt button. This should make them take out their swords to fight, although I don't know if RTR has this feature. I play SPQR.

Salaam,
Adnan

[AqD]

Well I think people forget historically nobody would use units that are not cost-effective. Remember that the roman army was not based on some traditions or special styles, but soly on military efficiency. They were formed so because it's the best for romans at that time. So a player should use it not only for historical accuracy, but also because it is the best and there is no better combination. (and it's what "realism" is supposed to be)

As I wrote in previous post, Triarii does (or should) have an important role, to carry the eagle which inspire other units, and to hold against enemies when things go bad. What makes them useless in RTR is 1) their attack is too low; even if they're not better attacker than principes, they should not be as weak as non-professional greek hoplites, and 2) their morale isn't high enough - or other units' moral isn't low enough to make the difference. Their presence should have big moral boost in the army.

About the Hastati vs Principes. It's not realistic in RTR because they both require only 1 turn to train. While the Hastati are fresh newbies who need only months of training and can be mass-recruited, the Principes are NOT - they're experienced soldiers; there is simply no way to train them in a short time, and they should need much more time to recruit, and thus the players wouldn't want to create an army of all principes.


-------------

When you fight infantry with Triarii you have to press the alt button. This should make them take out their swords to fight, although I don't know if RTR has this feature. I play SPQR.

Yes it could be made so. But spear is still their primary weapon - for a good reason, though I don't know what exactly the reason is. Perhaps for easier attack behind the shields? (shield wall??)
________
Live sex

[florin80]

When you fight infantry with Triarii you have to press the alt button. This should make them take out their swords to fight, although I don't know if RTR has this feature. I play SPQR.

You can`t. Maybe in SPQR they have the phalanx ability, but in RTRPE they don`t. The problem with the engine of RTW(v1.5 included) is that spearmen without the phalanx ability tend to act weirdly in terms of their weapons used and also giving a sword as secondary weapon to a non-phalanx spearmen can cause CTDs while in battle. The triarii in RTRPE have the sword as part of the model, but they haven`t been given a secondary weapon in EDU.

Well I think people forget historically nobody would use units that are not cost-effective.

Just because you don`t feel like losing the argument doesn`t mean to continue by all means. The cost thing is not in game as it would be in real life of course. So, (theoretical example) if a ptolemaic pezoi unit is more expensive than the one the macedonians have is not because they are better. It`s because it was more expensive for the ptolemaics to keep large numbers of greek/macedonian people for this role. That`s why in game they can be more expensive. It simple shows that faction is less able to afford the unit because of some considerations.

Bottom line, RTR was never started with the aim of improving gamplay via balanced faction rosters and resources no matter what. It was started more with the historical argument in mind. To have to pay more for worse troops makes for the happy people that want to include them because reading books have learned they have to have them for historic reasons. It`s a format that proved very successful for RTR over the years. Others may not like that. Reason for the mods that put most their accent on balanced gameplay to exist. This being said, are you sure RTR is the mod you want? Might be easier if you start modifing a different one or startig with vanilla RTW(no offence intended).

non-professional greek hoplites

You use some concepts, but I wonder why. Why would an athenian hoplite qualify as "non-professional" and a triarii would be "professional" by following your argument? Or the following:

About the Hastati vs Principes. It's not realistic in RTR because they both require only 1 turn to train. While the Hastati are fresh newbies who need only months of training and can be mass-recruited, the Principes are NOT - they're experienced soldiers; there is simply no way to train them in a short time, and they should need much more time to recruit, and thus the players wouldn't want to create an army of all principes.

Why would a hastati need more time to learn how to use a gladius than a principes? The latter didn`t fight better because of more intensive training but because of more experience in battle.

[Tiberius Nero]

I don't know about others, but I at least always include triarii for accuracy reasons and for the eagle. I don't care if they are relatively ineffective, the game is easy enough to beat even without maximum efficiency armies.

When you train Roman units, what you are really doing is calling your citizens to arms. The young and less wealthy join the hastati, the old veterans with the money to buy the right equipment join the legion as triarii. You don't really take people off the street and train them to fight as this or that, so training time is irrelevant, in all honesty the most realistic thing is 0 turn recruitment, even if gameplay wise it is a bad decision IMO.

It is an historical fact that triarii fought rarely and this is how it should be in game; if the battle came to the triarii, it meant all is going down the drain. The phrase "it came to the triarii" is a metaphore akin to the English phrase involving a fan and something flying towards it and hitting it. If that is what they did on the battlefield, i.e. serve as the final line of defence, then surely by making them uber units doesn't represent their historical role.

[AqD]

The training time could be relevant if you consider their gaining for experiences as part of the recruitment process. The only thing that cannot be done in RTR/RTW is to classify the citizens - the noble, the rich, and the poor ones.

Nevertheless, the Tririi shouldn't be that weak. After all they have much experneices and good equipments.

BTW 0-turn is not that bad if your cities grow like only 1% a year. A few lost battles could reduce populations to the minimal 400.
________
Live sex webshows

[Tiberius Nero]

Seriously, these guys are expected to fight rarely (because they are veterans and they have earned it), by standing in close formation, with their shields set at specific points and poking the enemy with a spear. What does it matter how good or experienced or whatever you are if you are expected to fight in one and particular fashion that doesn't allow for much else?

As I said earlier, what makes a good warrior in an ancient battlefield, in an army of the Roman and Greek ethos, which is supposed to operate as a team, is the ability to stand their ground, not lose their nerve, obey orders efficiently and that sort of thing. Perhaps you are thinking of other styles of warfare, but individual prowess in an army supposed to fight in very specific ways simply doesn't matter that much. You are not a good soldier for being able to run through 2 men with one spear stroke; you are a good soldier if you know how to keep formation with the rest of the army when marching towards the enemy and not be scared senseless when you see 20 elephants charging your way.

RE: training times: each turn is supposed to represent 3 months in 4tpy, this is more than enough time to mobilize as much army as you want from a population that is ready to go to war all the time. 0 turn recruitment would be entirely realistic, but I don't think the AI can handle it (off-topic really.

[AqD]

Okay but then they should really get a much higher moral. Right now they have 19 - only one pointer higher than Principes' and Hastati's 18. How can you expect them hold the ground when the other units, whose moral isn't lower at all, begin to rout? It'd be better if there is a difference of 25% or more.

RE: training times: each turn is supposed to represent 3 months in 4tpy, this is more than enough time to mobilize as much army as you want from a population that is ready to go to war all the time. 0 turn recruitment would be entirely realistic, but I don't think the AI can handle it (off-topic really.

Yes AI can handle it. AI frequently trains 2-3 units per city in one turn. With 0-turn recruitment you could see that AI factions are much more aggressive than human players. They always train as many units as possible, up to the limit that they can afford (their income would remain at a level, except when capturing new cities)
________
LIVE SEX

[Tiberius Nero]

With 0-turn recruitment you could see that AI factions are much more aggressive than human players. They always train as many units as possible, up to the limit that they can afford (their income would remain at a level, except when capturing new cities)

Heh, I am not really sure I want to see the AI being more aggressive, seeing as it is already suicidal without 0 turn recruitment. The game has too many battles for my taste (and this isn't historically accurate either) already and an AI recruiting like mad would only mean more battles. IMO battles should be few and decisive, not many and pointless; this is a problem plaguing every single RTW mod and it has to do with the AI, not much can be done about it. Anyway, I digress, this is O/T.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Triarii hardly ever fought in a battle, and if they did it usually was a disgrace to the general for having to use them. Just because someone has the better armor and weapons doesn't mean that they are the best fighting force around, the triarii were pretty old by ancient standards.

Theres a reason they placed them at the back, not to fight but to stand their ground in case the front lines broke and ran. Some sources say that the triarii even took a knee during the fighting because basically they hardly ever had to do anything. Just because they are at the back of the roman lines in reserve and they have the best equipment doesn't mean they are some super-"uber" fighting force.

As for the triarii being better than post-marian legions; the post-marian legions were a professional fighting force that were constantly training. The pre-marian legions were composed of basically citizen soldiers who just took arms when there was a fight

[Clearchus of Sparta]

Between 113 and 105 BCE, Germanic tribes had been able to defeat the Roman army on several occasions because the composition of the Roman army and the line formation had proved inflexable. The line formation could not withstand a flank attack. Enemies were able to bypass the younger soldiers and attack the older more vulnerable triarii in the rear.

Had the existing formations been sucessful, there would have been no need for the Marian reforms. The Roman line was based, like many others on age.
The Triarii were the veterans of previous wars and were not so much there for the fight as maybe nostalgic reasons of youth and being able to say "they were there". As someone earlier pointed out, if the triarii were needed, then things were not going well for the Romans. The triarii should not be regarded as the best of Romes forces, but as the last desperate attempt to save the day by a commander who has no option but to use them. Their "old soldier" pride and experience may make them used to battle and make up in some way for lack of youthful stamina. The wealthiest citizens would have made up the Equites in the early republican army and not the Triarii.

The Principes are the unit in their prime both physically and experienced.
In a way its a shame that hastati cant be made to progress to principes to more realistically represent what really happens.
In truth, we should disband the army every fourth turn until the reforms take place as most of the army would return to their farms in the winter.

[Solaris]

Between 113 and 105 BCE, Germanic tribes had been able to defeat the Roman army on several occasions because the composition of the Roman army and the line formation had proved inflexable. The line formation could not withstand a flank attack. Enemies were able to bypass the younger soldiers and attack the older more vulnerable triarii in the rear.

Had the existing formations been sucessful, there would have been no need for the Marian reforms. The Roman line was based, like many others on age.
The Triarii were the veterans of previous wars and were not so much there for the fight as maybe nostalgic reasons of youth and being able to say "they were there". As someone earlier pointed out, if the triarii were needed, then things were not going well for the Romans. The triarii should not be regarded as the best of Romes forces, but as the last desperate attempt to save the day by a commander who has no option but to use them. Their "old soldier" pride and experience may make them used to battle and make up in some way for lack of youthful stamina. The wealthiest citizens would have made up the Equites in the early republican army and not the Triarii.

The Principes are the unit in their prime both physically and experienced.
In a way its a shame that hastati cant be made to progress to principes to more realistically represent what really happens.
In truth, we should disband the army every fourth turn until the reforms take place as most of the army would return to their farms in the winter.

Ahem, the main reason for the Marian Reforms was because men of recruitable status had virtually ran out, therefore men of no class, i.e. the Head Count, were recruited from for the first time.

The military side of things were just tacked on really by Marius to improve things.

[Clearchus of Sparta]

But why wern't there enough men of recruitable status?

There would most certainly be a smaller number of landowners compared to non-landowners. It would therefore follow that any major battle lost by the romans would result in the loss of men eligable for service. Losing a series of major battles would be even more costly to the army recruitment policy.

Im suggesting that it was the losses suffered at the hands of the germanic tribes that was the reason the reforms were passed. If the romans had not lost so many men, would they have changed something that was working to something that was untried? I suspect not, but Im open to persuasion.

The reforms were able to be enacted due to unusual circumstances. ie no eligable recruits as you rightly pointed out. I suspect that Marius was taking advantage of that situation for the advancement of his own personal glory. He wanted to be the leader of a new army, the saviour of the republic and therfore win the fame and glory not to mention wealth and more political power. Had the situation not demanded the reforms I very much doubt the other senators would have approved a measure that would grant one individual so much fame and glory.

To return to the original point of this thread, about the triarii. It was this reform that did away with the triarii, thereby suggesting that they were not the "elite" unit of Romes pre reform armies. They were unable to react to flank or rear attacks whereas after the reforms the Principes were retained in a similar form because of their ability to react to different battle situations.