Cohorts vs Full legions

[Flavius Maccus Opium]

Emperor Traian used to make good use of cohorts from other legions rather than using full legions exclusively.
I never tried to play building full legions (but I will give it a try next time).I guess I did that because of some practical reasons (sometimes you need quick an army and you can raise it fast using different cohorts than waiting 10 turn to raise a full one) and because the recruitment system of RTW is a "cohorts" based one rather than legions, obviously...
I'm thinking that many of you who use the legion "system" you do so because your wish of preserving the historical accuracy reflected in the game.I invite here in this thread both people who use the legion "system" and the ones who use the cohorts one to tell their opinions ,thoughts, advantages and disadvantages.

[Kallides]

My basic army would consist of a General(obviously), two archery units, two cavalry(heavy) and the rest would be the legionary cohorts recruited in the region that the army is in e.g. Premigenia for Carthage. Also I might have one or two of heavy onagers with the army for taking settlements and forts. I dont use Praetorian cohorts because I find it too easy to fight with them so I keep the Rome's finest in Rome as defense unit or use them as a quick response unit for taking down any rebellions that might arise in the Italian peninsula.

[Flavius Maccus Opium]

My basic army would consist of a General(obviously), two archery units, two cavalry(heavy) and the rest would be the legionary cohorts recruited in the region that the army is in e.g. Premigenia for Carthage. Also I might have one or two of heavy onagers with the army for taking settlements and forts. I dont use Praetorian cohorts because I find it too easy to fight with them so I keep the Rome's finest in Rome as defense unit or use them as a quick response unit for taking down any rebellions that might arise in the Italian peninsula.

I understand , so you are a legion "system" guy.No it's clear.

[Ballacraine]

I do try to do the 'right thing', but often it is quicker and just as effective to mix & match. I do observe the only one first cohort rule though.

If I have the time & resources to plan ahead, I will use the 'historical' approach.

[Brusilov]

I do try to do the 'right thing', but often it is quicker and just as effective to mix & match. I do observe the only one first cohort rule though.

If I have the time & resources to plan ahead, I will use the 'historical' approach.

It's been posted before but it's perfectly acceptable (if you are trying to play 'realistically') to have your army consist of different legions.

Personally, I play 1-turn recruitment and get the legionaries trained from two separate settlements and I have two first cohorts - one for each legion.

In-game I can split my army in two and fight on different fronts.

The split of the auxilliary and other units is dependant upon what each part of the army is expected to face.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to play this mode. Enjoy it however you play.

[Flavius Maccus Opium]

It's been posted before but it's perfectly acceptable (if you are trying to play 'realistically') to have your army consist of different legions.

Personally, I play 1-turn recruitment and get the legionaries trained from two separate settlements and I have two first cohorts - one for each legion.

In-game I can split my army in two and fight on different fronts.

The split of the auxilliary and other units is dependant upon what each part of the army is expected to face.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to play this mode. Enjoy it however you play.

You didn't answer the thread question.I doubt you entered here just to pick a reply of someone and tell him your opinion.So please state what is your system if you please, of course.

[Praetorian_Mossop]

I go for full legions just for the fact that a jumbled unit roster of different legions looks messy to me
It also only takes about 2 turns to raise one provided you recruit the auxillia and cavalry from neighbouring cities.

[Flavius Maccus Opium]

I go for full legions just for the fact that a jumbled unit roster of different legions looks messy to me
It also only takes about 2 turns to raise one provided you recruit the auxillia and cavalry from neighbouring cities.

I guess you mean ...2 turns , playing with "zero unit building turns" ON and got enough immediate cash, right ?

[Praetorian_Mossop]

I guess you mean ...2 turns , playing with "zero unit building turns" ON and got enough immediate cash, right ?

Yes thats correct, I'm not sure what it is like on 1 turn recruitment but in 0-turn the romans are always rolling in cash. It is hard to get rid of it all!

[frankus]

I use the legionsystem, as you call it. but I play at 0-turn recruitment. so I dont have the problem of waiting 10-20 turns for a legion

[Kallides]

I use the legionsystem, as you call it. but I play at 0-turn recruitment. so I dont have the problem of waiting 10-20 turns for a legion

See thats what I do too 0 turn recruitment is the best. A lot of people say that 1 turn way is the only fair and realistic way to play and thats a lot of crap. Now lets be realistic since we all want to stick to history and the way it used to be done so lets do so. For example I want to have 1 General, three Legion Cavalry, fourteen Premigenia cohorts and two Archer units in my army. If I wanted to do that from a settlement it would take me nineteen turns(excluding the General), thats nine and a half years. Are you telling me it took Romans roughly nine years to train a new army if that was the case we would be playing a game called Gaul Total War because Romans would be wiped out before they could raise half a legion. If you look at a bit of history all you see is some Emperor loosing a battle, goes away and comes back with a new army in 6 month or a year. Spare me the hero factor of playing with 1 turn switched on, doesn't make it any more realistic if anything it makes it more fictional.

[Flavius Maccus Opium]

See thats what I do too 0 turn recruitment is the best. A lot of people say that 1 turn way is the only fair and realistic way to play and thats a lot of crap. Now lets be realistic since we all want to stick to history and the way it used to be done so lets do so. For example I want to have 1 General, three Legion Cavalry, fourteen Premigenia cohorts and two Archer units in my army. If I wanted to do that from a settlement it would take me nineteen turns(excluding the General), thats nine and a half years. Are you telling me it took Romans roughly nine years to train a new army if that was the case we would be playing a game called Gaul Total War because Romans would be wiped out before they could raise half a legion. If you look at a bit of history all you see is some Emperor loosing a battle, goes away and comes back with a new army in 6 month or a year. Spare me the hero factor of playing with 1 turn switched on, doesn't make it any more realistic if anything it makes it more fictional.

Well to some extend you are right I guess.It would be unrealistically to be able to raise an army/legion in 9 years.I give you that, BUT...this is still a ...game, isn't it? I don't think the other extreme solution is better either.Bear with me...I doubt the Romans could get and train whenever they pleased an army in terms of quality.There are restriction factors though.You need ONLY men and even this "supply" is not infinite.You can't take children in army either etc.Even if you got a mass of people...how many will be really skilled there even after a period of training ? and so on...
Personally I am in the middle of these solution that's why the 1 turn feature I find it more "realistic" (if I can name that this way ).But...as the game experience showed...some feel comfortable with zero turn.My guess is that people with complex mechanism of the game desire would go for the 1 turn option and the one who don't really want to get their "hands dirty" would go for an easy approach, the zero turn thing.It's just my opinion...hope I won't offend anyone...

[Kallides]

Personally I am in the middle of these solution that's why the 1 turn feature I find it more "realistic" (if I can name that this way ).But...as the game experience showed...some feel comfortable with zero turn.My guess is that people with complex mechanism of the game desire would go for the 1 turn option and the one who don't really want to get their "hands dirty" would go for an easy approach, the zero turn thing.It's just my opinion...hope I won't offend anyone...

Yeh OK I see your point in it. Me and cherryfunk already had each other in a strangelhold about this earlier. Eh never mind its whatever suits an individual best.

[Flavius Maccus Opium]

I use the legionsystem, as you call it. but I play at 0-turn recruitment. so I dont have the problem of waiting 10-20 turns for a legion

I guess you have a healthy economy, too to afford this approach, right ?

[rory o'kane]

Emperor Traian used to make good use of cohorts from other legions rather than using full legions exclusively.
I never tried to play building full legions (but I will give it a try next time).I guess I did that because of some practical reasons (sometimes you need quick an army and you can raise it fast using different cohorts than waiting 10 turn to raise a full one) and because the recruitment system of RTW is a "cohorts" based one rather than legions, obviously...
I'm thinking that many of you who use the legion "system" you do so because your wish of preserving the historical accuracy reflected in the game.I invite here in this thread both people who use the legion "system" and the ones who use the cohorts one to tell their opinions ,thoughts, advantages and disadvantages.

those cohorts to which you refer were vexillations - named after the vexillum, which is the square flag bearing the legion's title on it. Trajan wasn't the only emperor to use them - in fact, I think Vespasian used them (and i can't remember if their use goes further back than that). Basically, they're useful if you need more manpower for a campaign, but don't want to strip your frontier of a legion. so, you take a couple of cohorts of that legion. usually, they were taken from a frontier that was unthreatened - so for Trajan's Dacian wars, he used vexillations from legions in the East and the Rhine and Danuvian frontiers. luckily for the empire, during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, Rome seldom faced multiple incursions on several frontiers at once, allowing for vexillations to be used as a way of quickly shifting troops from one front to another, whilst still ensuring that some troops remained to guard their original posts.

[Flavius Maccus Opium]

those cohorts to which you refer were vexillations - named after the vexillum, which is the square flag bearing the legion's title on it. Trajan wasn't the only emperor to use them - in fact, I think Vespasian used them (and i can't remember if their use goes further back than that). Basically, they're useful if you need more manpower for a campaign, but don't want to strip your frontier of a legion. so, you take a couple of cohorts of that legion. usually, they were taken from a frontier that was unthreatened - so for Trajan's Dacian wars, he used vexillations from legions in the East and the Rhine and Danuvian frontiers. luckily for the empire, during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, Rome seldom faced multiple incursions on several frontiers at once, allowing for vexillations to be used as a way of quickly shifting troops from one front to another, whilst still ensuring that some troops remained to guard their original posts.

Your history point of view input is most appreciate !

[cherryfunk]

See thats what I do too 0 turn recruitment is the best. A lot of people say that 1 turn way is the only fair and realistic way to play and thats a lot of crap. Now lets be realistic since we all want to stick to history and the way it used to be done so lets do so. For example I want to have 1 General, three Legion Cavalry, fourteen Premigenia cohorts and two Archer units in my army. If I wanted to do that from a settlement it would take me nineteen turns(excluding the General), thats nine and a half years. Are you telling me it took Romans roughly nine years to train a new army if that was the case we would be playing a game called Gaul Total War because blah blah blah blah such and such rant rant rant...

It's possible to raise troops from multiple cities, so your hopelessly biased attempt to slander 1-turn recruitment is a FAILURE!

[Kallides]

It's possible to raise troops from multiple cities, so your hopelessly biased attempt to slander 1-turn recruitment is a FAILURE!

Ok so even doing it from 3 different settlements would take 3 game years are you telling me that is realistic. Romans raised legions in 6 month to a year maximum. And they didn't need 3 cities to do so come on lets be real legions trained together for the sole purpose of the fact that they will have to fight together too, they didn't come from three or four different places. There are some legions that were not "born" together like the 13th consists of two separate legions but that is a special case.

[cherryfunk]

Romans raised a new legion in weeks, not months. After Cannae, Rome raised 2 legions -- 40 units in the game -- in two weeks. In 0-turn recruitment it would take 2 turns to do this -- 52 weeks, fully 26 times as long as in reality. So your beloved 0-turn recruitment is hopelessly unrealistic.

The whole game is unrealistic. It's an abstraction. It ain't real.

[Kallides]

Hey man I didn't say that 0 turn was real, I said it is closer to reality then 1 turn. Am I wrong?

What are you trying to point out that it is not history and is just a game. Don't worry I am quite aware of that fact, I know I am playing it on my computer and I am not actually in Rome but thanks for clearing it up for me I do feel better about knowing that I am definitely not ruling the Empire I was suspecting that it was just a game but now I am sure of it.