roman's too overpowered

[timdedarter]

roman's too overpowered
What do you guys think?

[Emperor Domitianus]

I don't think they are. In the end you must also consider that Romans were stronger and better organized than greeks. So it's reflected in the mod.

[Leonidas_I]

Yeah i like how it shows realistic things like that lets face it Rome was pretty strong,But id go Spartan's over Rome any day!

[timdedarter]

okay that true what you guys say but when fighting the germans you still win very easy i think
So must the germans not become any stronger??

[RedFox]

I think the Romans rather had an advantage in manpower than in quality. Their troops were just as good as Macedonian troops, just differently equipped for different purposes. IMO, XGM Romans have always been way too overpowered.

[Zarax]

I'll take care of that in XC... Finally teaming up with CV is starting to give fruits and soon the enemies of Rome shall rise...

[Scutarii]

Yay. I've always hated the OP Romans in XGM.

[Arlin]

I agree... I just fought a stack of them and was nearly obliterated. Triarii ripped apart my Phalangites and Principii/Triarii easily went head to head with my Hoplites (Syracusan & normal).

[DoogansQuest]

Roman troops weren't necessarily better, or even as good as the Hellenistic ones; at least not troop-for-troop. But Rome was financially and militarily swelling at an enormous rate following their war(s) with Carthage, while Greece and Macedonia were crumbling. They couldn't even afford to maintain their Companion Cavalry, and many of their citizens were migrating east, thus depleting their population. Rome was growing with rampant speed, and caught Greece at the right time, greatly reduced in strength after decades of disputes (and centuries before Alexander).

Had Alexander not died in such an untimely manner, and his successor(s) properly implemented, it's possible that Rome never would have been. He/they would easily have dismantled the Romans when the Greeks were at their height.

[aznflea]

maybe but you cant forget battles like pydna where 20 000 macedonian phalanx was slaughtered compared to around a mere 200 roman trash troops. the phalanx had serious flaws to it that the romans exploited to hell. although to be fair perseus was a trash leader.

i can only dream of a conflict between rome and alexander or a macedonia united under antigonos monopthalmus who was the most able and had the most chance of uniting hellas (might be wrong but after reading a dozen texts based on the diadochoi i came to that conclusion) but since we have xgm might as well play that dream.

romans shouldnt get the 2xp at all. that is totally bogus. you are adding more moral to an already high moral army. the hypapists who were the elites in the macedonian army have lower stats than the legionnaires. the agema is hardly any better. when the high tier units are equal to 3rd tier units its time to rethink the stats.

[Zarax]

maybe but you cant forget battles like pydna where 20 000 macedonian phalanx was slaughtered compared to around a mere 200 roman trash troops. the phalanx had serious flaws to it that the romans exploited to hell. although to be fair perseus was a trash leader.

Roman propaganda.
The phalanx actually was kicking legionary butts at Pydna, as they pushed them back to the hills.
What doomed the battle was the idiotic choice made by Perseus to not use any troops to envelope the enemy and his refusal to charge his elite cavalry.

Legionaries were afraid of the phalanx, whenever it was properly deployed it showed to be pretty much impregnable from the front, to the point that at Magnesia they refused to assault the seleucid pike square preferring to attack it from distance.

[timdedarter]

The macedonian troops are also very strong
but i like the mod very much
Thx for all the reply's

[Emperor Domitianus]

I dubt that it was only a Roman propaganda. You all well know that Roman tactic was the nest in ancient war. The palangites time was over. Was good at the time it was used. Roman army was more flexible and realible than greek ones. Even alexander would have had his butt kicked by the famous Roman generals. He was great vs Persians and Egypt which were at their end.
But against the Indo people he was defeated.
He would never had a chance vs Romans or Hannibal Carthage.

Legionaries were not afraid to attack phalangites at Magnesia for cowardy but because they were not stupid like instead greeks would have been. The fangite was good only for frontal assult and was very week on the rear and flanks so they only chance to survive was to close themselves in a square.

[gingerbill]

Rome is OP but i tihnk that's fine , the game is 'rome total war' and the roman milirary machine was very powerful .

That's why this game is great , if you want a challenge you play as a weaker nation.

[Zarax]

Alexander used hammer and anvil properly, just like Pyrrhus and Hannibal.
Over and over whenever hammer and anvil were properly implemented romans were defeated, the problem was that by the time of the macedonian wars the diadochii had bled each other dry, meaning that they couldn't field enough heavy cavalry to implement the tactic properly.

History has shown that whenever romans were at disadvantage in cavalry and facing a competent general their system showed all its flaws.

[gingerbill]

Alexander used hammer and anvil properly, just like Pyrrhus and Hannibal.
Over and over whenever hammer and anvil were properly implemented romans were defeated, the problem was that by the time of the macedonian wars the diadochii had bled each other dry, meaning that they couldn't field enough heavy cavalry to implement the tactic properly.

History has shown that whenever romans were at disadvantage in cavalry and facing a competent general their system showed all its flaws.

not really saying your wrong but problem is if the romans won a battle you would write it off as the other general being incompetent and dismiss the victory , that's not right.

great general's are defeated , sometimes by someone better . The loser is not always incompetent.

[Zarax]

not really saying your wrong but problem is if the romans won a battle you would write it off as the other general being incompetent and dismiss the victory , that's not right.

great general's are defeated , sometimes by someone better . The loser is not always incompetent.

Absolutely not, losers often were average to competent generals.

Scipio proved to be able to defeat quite good generals like Hasdrubal and Mago on fair terms in Iberia.
The problem with most legion vs phalanx battles is that from the accounts it always appears to be a severe tactical mistake from one side, be it leaving the phalanx unsupported or underestimating enemy cavalry's strenght.

Take Magnesia for example.
Anthiochius III was without doubts the best general among his generation of Diadochii, having fought and won in many scenarios.

He could have won the battle as his cataphracts were able to smash 3 legions (the entire roman left wing) from the front and rout them.
What costed him the battle is that he mindlessly pursued the routers instead of turning on the roman center (which was pinned by the phalanx).
While he was busy looting the roman camp the legions had time to reorganize themselves and counterattack while the seleucid army was deprived of its best offensive wing.

The legion's superiority was not in the strength of the legionaries but in the fact that it required a significantly lesser skilled general to command them successfully compared to combined arm tactics.

[aznflea]

Absolutely not, losers often were average to competent generals.

Scipio proved to be able to defeat quite good generals like Hasdrubal and Mago on fair terms in Iberia.
The problem with most legion vs phalanx battles is that from the accounts it always appears to be a severe tactical mistake from one side, be it leaving the phalanx unsupported or underestimating enemy cavalry's strenght.

Take Magnesia for example.
Anthiochius III was without doubts the best general among his generation of Diadochii, having fought and won in many scenarios.

He could have won the battle as his cataphracts were able to smash 3 legions (the entire roman left wing) from the front and rout them.
What costed him the battle is that he mindlessly pursued the routers instead of turning on the roman center (which was pinned by the phalanx).
While he was busy looting the roman camp the legions had time to reorganize themselves and counterattack while the seleucid army was deprived of its best offensive wing.

The legion's superiority was not in the strength of the legionaries but in the fact that it required a significantly lesser skilled general to command them successfully compared to combined arm tactics.

wow you know the last paragraph just kinda said what i wanted to say but couldnt becuase i never thought of it that way.

someone said alexander was defeated by the indo people. he wasnt defeated by indians he faced mutiny and his men wouldnt budge another step so he had to return whether he liked it or not.

[Emperor Domitianus]

wow you know the last paragraph just kinda said what i wanted to say but couldnt becuase i never thought of it that way.

someone said alexander was defeated by the indo people. he wasnt defeated by indians he faced mutiny and his men wouldnt budge another step so he had to return whether he liked it or not.

Munity because was enough for the same men. Instead Romans well know how to use reserve and how fight long wars.

[Emperor Domitianus]

Well Hannibal was a great general but :
1. He used mostly mercenaries and he was so stupid to come to italy without thinking that he woudln't have been able to sustain his mercenaries.
2. He had elephants even if most of them died.

Phyrrus was probably the most stupid.
1. He used elephants and was easier to win
2. He always had so many dead on the battlefield that it would have as a loss. Infact it's said Phyrrus victory.
3. He was counting too much on the greeks of italy and especially from Taranto.

Alexander:
1. The Macedon were stronger because better equipped than persians.
2. Persians were commander by an incompetent like Darius III. If it was Cirus the Great would probably have been different.
3. Macedons were a united people. Persia was always a some sort of confederation without any real feel of unity as strong as it was in other nations like Rome or Macedonia.

The real great was Caesar. He planned his strategy well and defeated so many enemies.
Scipio was a great too.