Roman Units very underrated?

[Kiyan_the_Great]

Hey guys, im kind of new to europa barbarorum, i love what you guys have done with all factions, awesome job.
but i get very frustrated when i easily destroy a unit of legions with a unit of pahlavane zerehbaran cataphracts, seems like its just way too easy to win the romans, am i missing something? because as far as ive read cataphract charges did not effect romans as bad, i could be wrong, and today a unit of naked fanatics easily killed a unit of imperial legionaries, am i missing something? is that supposed to happen, in custom battles i find roman units relatively weak compared to the rtw vanilla, is that accurate, considering they wwere a super power,
now im not for roman bias, i just want to know whats going on,
thank you guys

[ISA Gunner]

First of all, welcome to the forums.
Basically, the Roman legionarys were not as physically strong as their "barbarian" counterparts. They were slightly shorter and smaller in stature because their diet consisted mainly of bread whilst meat the was main staple of a "barbarian"'diet. What won them battles though was superior armour, training and discipline. What won them wars was an almost fanatical "never surrender" attitude. The Romans would keep sending Legions after Legions until they won, regardless of casualties. So seeing one of the more powerful Celtic units crushing a legionary's skull does not surprise me. Neither does the fact that Cataphracts crush them. That is how the Parthians managed to defeat Roman armies. Break up their formation with arrows and crush them with Cataphracts and other very heavy cavalry.

[torongill]

You can't really compare cataphracts and legionaries, because at the battle of Carrhae, one of the few examples when the romans met cataphracts there were about 1000 of those facing an army of 35 000 legionaries, so this means 1 unit of cataphracts vs 17.5 units of romans What made the Roman army so strong was its versatility, training , discipline, equipment and commanders. True, one cohort of marian roman legionaries may be weaker than the naked fanatics, but you can't really expect to face an army of naked fanatics(unless having a nightmare), whereas you do expect facing an army of legionaries, right? On average the roman soldier was much better trained and equipped than the average "barbarian". Consider this - Hanibal, a clever and wise man, stripped the dead romans of their armor after the battle of lake Trasimene and had his men use it.

[-iceblade^]

You can't really compare cataphracts and legionaries, because at the battle of Carrhae, one of the few examples when the romans met cataphracts there were about 1000 of those facing an army of 35 000 legionaries, so this means 1 unit of cataphracts vs 17.5 units of romans What made the Roman army so strong was its versatility, training , discipline, equipment and commanders. True, one cohort of marian roman legionaries may be weaker than the naked fanatics, but you can't really expect to face an army of naked fanatics(unless having a nightmare), whereas you do expect facing an army of legionaries, right? On average the roman soldier was much better trained and equipped than the average "barbarian". Consider this - Hanibal, a clever and wise man, stripped the dead romans of their armor after the battle of lake Trasimene and had his men use it.

beards everywhere, lol...

i can't say for statistics, but i think the weaknesses in the individual units of the roman army are made up for by the fact that their units are cheaper, and so you can spam. also, you have a great starting location, and a great economy.

of course it goes without saying, build the best MICs you can, upgrade your blacksmiths, and also build temples to mars in your troop recruiting cities

[athanaric]

of course it goes without saying, build the best MICs you can, upgrade your blacksmiths, and also build temples to mars in your troop recruiting cities

Temples of Mars are mostly useless, because the morale bonus doesn't work. They are nice for roleplay though.

[bobbin]

The Roman gladuis is pretty ineffective against heavy armour in the game so you need to use them in combination with armour peircing units. For dealing with the cataphracts your best bet is axemen and slingers as these are available all over the eastern part of the map, you will have to accept some casualties though as the cataphracts are elite units and so should be hard to kill.

[athanaric]

Rhaetic Axemen are a very good choice for Romans and everybody else in the region, being an "ultimate AP unit" (pilum+axe).

[-iceblade^]

Temples of Mars are mostly useless, because the morale bonus doesn't work. They are nice for roleplay though.

really?

thanks for that, i'll build other temples then

[Kiyan_the_Great]

Thanks to both of you guys , this has been very enlightening, i would appreciate more answers also. i dont know much about military history, i always thought the roman legions as this military machine superior to any infantry on earth. my big question is, how do i defeat 8 units of cataphracts? when im playing as rome, keep in mind its 8 unit of cataphracts, and even more cavalry than that, but what kind of soldiers should i use, and can you explain to me what i can do with the roman faction in the battle field how to use their versatility, and how can i use the superior training and dicipline as an advantage in playing the gauls and germans?
thank you again,

[torongill]

Well the Romans really had the best infantry in the the western ancient world(can't really comment on the Asian infantry). And in a pitched battle against other infantry in the early imperial period they had no equal. But the military is not only infantry As to how do you defeat 8 squadrons of cataphracts, my first advice would be not to try your luck Still, if you really must, I suggest using everything to your advantage:
1. Find the highest ground and make your stand there(I really hope you don't attack).
2. Include as much slingers as possible in your army.
3. Include as much as possible units that have ap weapons(slinger bullets are ap. Pilums are ap).
4. Have some heavily armored spearmen, preferably with long spears, to hold the line when the cataphracts(or just cats for short) charge; if the spearmen are at "ready", meaning braced spears, the charge bonus of the cataphracts comes slashing back at them. Be ready to flank the cats with infantry and cavalry.
5. Have some elite shock infantry charge the cats when they get bogged down. Really the best I can think of are either some spearmen, general bodyguards if you have to use cavalry(their first charge will be devastating) or the elite thracian infantry. Of these I really like the thracians, their weapons have incredible lethality(0.285), combined with ap property, strong armor and a lot of defence skill(great for evading attacks). But you have to keep them away from archers, since their shields have only 1 defence.

In my view RTW doesn't really allows for the training and versatility of the roman legion to shine. There's no way to simulate the change of lines, the change of ranks in the units that kept the enemy pressed with fresh men and a lot of other stuff. Still, against the gauls use pilums as much as you can. Then charge and have units from the second line envelop the enemy. And this is a general advice that worked for everyone since Leuctra, but won't hurt a bit: use local superiority. that means even if you have less men than the enemy, find a weak spot in the enemy line and attack there with more men than the enemy has. 3:1 in your favor in that vital spot and you'll break the line and then attack the enemy in the rear. An enemy unit that is engaged in vicious combat from the front and is then charged from the rear will panic and run really quickly.
If your goal is to rout the enemy, you can do it by attacking and routing the enemy's best and then attack the weaker units, or by attacking the weakest and proceed up the chain. Historically there were times when killing the best troops of the enemy routed the rest, who had weak morale or simply no reason to stay and fight. At Leuctra the Theban general Epaminondas placed his best men and massed them on his left(contrary to custom of the age) to attack the Spartan elite, that comprised the right of the enemy phalanx. When the Spartans gave way, their allies, who were forced to the battle and had no real reason to stay and fight, ran even before being engaged.
The other way is to attack the enemy's weakest and rout them. Then they demoralize their neighbours who will be routed more easily. The more units are routed, the easier the next will be. Then you can surround the enemy best, the men who will not run, and kill them all. I tend to go that way, since if you have to destroy the enemy best first, the fight will be longer and (much) bloodier.
If you want an advice against the naked fanatics specifically, pepper them with slingers first, then as they come closer shower them with javelins from their right, unshielded side and finally hail them with pilums before charging them from the front and rear.

[athanaric]

If you want an advice against the naked fanatics specifically, pepper them with slingers first, then as they come closer shower them with javelins from their right, unshielded side and finally hail them with pilums before charging them from the front and rear.

Or just squash them. You can do that with decent units such as Legionaries, and a cavalry charge in the back if possible. Some Roman infantry from the front, combined with mercenary (Bastarnae) falxmen from the flank, should also do the trick.


@OP

If you need something fancy, try to sneak a general into the Eastern or Northern parts of Germania (don't try to get him through the Alps, though - unless you've already conquered those provinces). You fill find a type of infantry mercenaries there called Worgozez. They have everything the Romans don't have - armour piercing axes, frighten infantry, and an insane charge. Plus they fit very well with your Velites and standardbearers, visually
A slightly less cool, but even more brutal version, albeit without the AP effect, are the Galatian "Wild Men" mercs you can hire in Greece. They are essentially the same unit as the Gallic Gaesatae, so you can fight fire with fire.
Speaking of Greece, you can hire cheap Skythian HAs there. Very effective against unarmoured Gauls...

[TITANAS84]

first,the mod is good but is not balanced,romans are not good,phalanxes are killers on front also back,hoplites are very weak and spear throwers are weak.shield stats are incorrect.last,i dont think romans have problems on fronts with barbarians.

[Entropy Judge]

first,the mod is good but is not balanced,

Far, FAR moreso than Vanilla. And it is, actually.

romans are not good,

Romans are efficient, which is far better than being "good" 90% of the time. When your mainline infantry unit is only a bit worse than many factions' Elite units, and much cheaper to boot, you can make up in quantity what little you lack in quality.

phalanxes are killers on front also back,

I have no idea what you mean about Phalangites being killers when attacked from behind. If they get the spears out between them and anyone, yeah they can start killing stuff. That's what happens when you try to shove past a wall of pointy stuff.

hoplites are very weak

Hoplites are well-armoured Spearmen. They're excellent for counter-cavalry duty or for holding lines. They're not designed to kill other infantry.

and spear throwers are weak.

Javelins are actually quite powerful. You do have to remember that Shield bonuses are doubled against Missiles, which is why you attack from behind with Jav-units. Coupled with the fact that many Jav-units are now half-decent melee fighters (Thrakian Peltasts, anyone?), they're very strong.

shield stats are incorrect.

How so? And what would the 'correct' ones be?

last,i dont think romans have problems on fronts with barbarians.

Then why did Germania never get conquered? Why did it take the Romans two hundred years to conquer Iberia?

[torongill]

first,the mod is good but is not balanced,romans are not good,phalanxes are killers on front also back,hoplites are very weak and spear throwers are weak.shield stats are incorrect.last,i dont think romans have problems on fronts with barbarians.

First, the romans are good, unless you're used to having them smash through anything. Phalanxes WERE killers from the front and they're really vulnerable from the back, unless you attack them with meleed archers/slingers. Also, if you're playing with BI the shieldwall formation for hoplites lets them close with the phalangites. Shieldwalled hoplites are also great warriors. I also think the shield stats for the phalangites are incorrect, so I modified them.
If you think the Romans had no problems with the Gallic and Germanic armies, you're deeply, in fact hugely, mistaken. Let's see:
387 BC The Gauls destroy the Roman army and sack Rome itself.
225 at Faesuale, in the battle immediately before Telamon the Gallic tribes defeat the army that defends Rome.
During the Cimbrian War at the battle of Noreia the roman army was defeated. In disastrous battle at Aurasio the Roman army of the two consuls was annihilated, producing much more casualties than at Cannae. This catastrophe was one of the reasons for the Marian reforms.
Even the famous Caesar, conqueror of Gaul, suffered a defeat at Gergovia.

Thrakian Peltasts, anyone?

Thracian peltastas are the shizzle. My favorite tactics against phalangites: pin the from the front with a hoplite phalanx/heavy infantry, put thracians behind the phalanx, open a barrel of javeline whoopass on the phalangites, draw rhomphaias, kill the routed enemy. Works like a charm.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

Early Roman soldiers were less effective than later legions (imperial). The initial charge would be very powerful but then without momentum would with short stabbing swords be not too hard to take down ie short swords are great in confined spaces and impossible to stop from all angles. As for the Cahrre it did show how good Cataphracts could be but also how bad Crassus as a general if he had listened to his advisors (one of which was a very good and ended up leading what was left safely out of Parthia after the battle) he would have won the battle. The reason the Cataphracts were so deadly at Cahrre was that the troops had been told to essencially stand under a burning sun and constant arrow barrages for hours so were just to tired to fight the cataphracts.

[TITANAS84]

1)best shield have 4(except phalangites i dont know why),other light shields have 3.maybe the difference is very little.2)i play romans and my pila dont kill and its difficult go behind with them only at side but with same casualties.3)against phalanxe i lose 80% of two good unit.i make one unit root and other flank them then the root unit go behind them,i win but my remain legion are farmers in cities now.
4)and barcelona have defeats but win the champions league.the casualtes of barbarians after win are catastrophic for them.i think only germans with ambush win clearly.for my friend judge romans after defeat in teuftoburg leave the germans alone,gained some germans lands but not all.for celtiberians if you conquers south iberia and all mediteranian land u are rich.first make money and then expand if you wish.

[Dargaron]

1)best shield have 4(except phalangites i dont know why),other light shields have 3.maybe the difference is very little.2)i play romans and my pila dont kill and its difficult go behind with them only at side but with same casualties.3)against phalanxe i lose 80% of two good unit.i make one unit root and other flank them then the root unit go behind them,i win but my remain legion are farmers in cities now.
4)and barcelona have defeats but win the champions league.the casualtes of barbarians after win are catastrophic for them.i think only germans with ambush win clearly.for my friend judge romans after defeat in teuftoburg leave the germans alone,gained some germans lands but not all.for celtiberians if you conquers south iberia and all mediteranian land u are rich.first make money and then expand if you wish.

First off, when making lists like this, it helps the reader if you put each item on its own line.
1): Like
2): so.


1): Phalangites have a shield bonus of 5 because the rows of pikes actually work quite well at arrow deflection. Think about it as trying to shoot through a tree's branches.

2): You'd be amazed how sometimes, missile units just epicly fail. I fired off four vollies at a unit of Hellenic Skermishers with 7, yes SEVEN, units of Baltic Frontiersmen, and they took a grand total of 12ish casualties. Another time, three units of germanic(worse) archers halved a unit of Germanic Skirmishers in a few volleys.

3): I'm not sure what "good units" you are using on phalanxes, but I wouldn't suggest using infantry as your hammer in a hammer and anvil (Believe me, I tried that enough in my Sweboz campaign "shudder").

4): You mention casualties, do you happen to have any actual figures? (Note: the battle of Alesia does not count, anyone can defend a twelve foot tall spiked wall with a moat, from guys without seige equipment. Oh and did I mention that the walls were surrounded by caltrops?

[torongill]

1. Like I said, I too believe the phalanx should not have so much shield defence, it does not stop you from editing the corresponding number in the export_descr_unit.txt file(found in EB/Data in your RTW folder)
2. Barca is something else(when Barca loses, it's because they figure if they won all the time it wouldn't be interesting anymore) The problem is that there's no modeled effect of the pila hitting and disabling shields. If there was, trust me, there would be a real difference in the combat that follows. Still, close combat javelins were more used to soften the enemy, not kill them outright. In this aspect, EB is superior to RTW in my view. In the vanilla RTW I could rout an army of gauls simply by letting them close and give them a warm pila hail. The essence of the infantry combat in EB romani army is close quarters fighting(shield and gladius). If there was a way to effect the disabled shields, you can be sure EB would have it. Also, the lethality effect of the pila in vanilla RTW was simply rediculous. I've had up to 40 victims due to pila throwing. Not really much, you may say, but it was from a single 240 men barbarian spearmen. that is 1/6 instant kills. That's just plain impossible in real life. Mind you, if you do what the romans usually did, you will achieve kills. Always try to find the high ground. If you throw from the higher position, your pila will go farther and more importantly, will go steeper. So less pila will be intercepted by shields and more will hit and kill the soldiers. I've tested it and believe that the result is self-evident. Try it if you don't believe me.
Edit: I saw your new post. Friend, the romans were really good against almost all infantry, but in frontal combat they suffered greatly against the macedonian/seleucid phalanx. The ancient sources about the most famous battles all say that, you can read about them if you want, the names are Cynoscephalae, Magnesia and Pydna, they all state that the romans could not successfully attack a whole, unbroken phalanx. In fact they had to retreat.
At Cynoscephalae the romans won because the left macedonian flank was not ready for combat and was defeated. The macedonian right was in battle order and pushed the romans back. Then one roman commander took 20 maniples and attacked the Macedonian right(which had forced the romans against it to retreat and had advanced forward) in the back and flank, causing them to rout.
At Magnesia the phalanx held itself until the elephants placed between the phalanx units panicked and disrupted the formation.
At Pydna the Romans could not break through the macedonian phalanx and made a pre-planned retreat over rough ground(rocks, threes, earth folds, etc) and when the phalanx followed, it lost cohesion, meaning holes appeared in the wall of spears. Seeing this, the roman commander ordered his men in those breaches. Once the Romans managed to make it past the sarissa blades, it was over. The reason the roman legion cast the phalanx in obscurity was not that it was better in frontal combat. It was the flexibility of the roman legion. I'll give you an example: imagine you have not 10*242 phalangite units in your army of 20 units, but instead 1 unit of 2420 men. You can only attack, defend or do something else with the whole unit. This is the phalanx. On the other hand, the Romans will have 15 units of 162 men each. Each of them is a distinc unit which can attack, defend, maneuver and outflank on its own. What you gain is flexibility, which is one of the best, if not the single best quality of any army.

[Entropy Judge]

1)best shield have 4(except phalangites i dont know why),other light shields have 3.maybe the difference is very little.

Shields' biggest difference is against Missile fire, as it's doubled when attacked by missiles. Shields also only apply to the Front-Left arc. Phalangites have higher shield values to make up for the fact that they're sitting targets for Archers and (IIRC) tend to have less Armour than other Line troops.

2)i play romans and my pila dont kill and its difficult go behind with them only at side but with same casualties.3)

Don't kill what? Are you throwing into Shields?

against phalanxe i lose 80% of two good unit.i make one unit root and other flank them then the root unit go behind them,i win but my remain legion are farmers in cities now.

Define "Good Units." Principes are 'better' than Hastati, but Camillan Principes are Spear-armed troops, which makes them inferior against Infantry due to the combat penalty. What Phalanx are you attacking? Does it (or do you) have any XP, Armour, or Weapon upgrades?

4)and barcelona have defeats but win the champions league.

What?

the casualtes of barbarians after win are catastrophic for them.i think only germans with ambush win clearly.for my friend judge romans after defeat in teuftoburg leave the germans alone,gained some germans lands but not all.

Possibly - yet you still have to prove (or retract) your statement that the Romans didn't have trouble with Barbarians. The Germans did hold the Romans off, and if it took ambushes to win - So What?

for celtiberians if you conquers south iberia and all mediteranian land u are rich.first make money and then expand if you wish.

I cannot tell if you're referring to in-game or historically.

yes but anyone have this idea of walls?

Large Stone Walls were not common in the Roman era. Many places had wooden pallisades, but curtain walls (such as are present in the game) were fairly rare.

the fact is roman is best to front attack.better armor, better swordsmen and most discipline.

Celtic arms and armour were better than Roman ones for quite some time. Yes, Roman discipline enabled them to frequently take on otherwise superior barbarian attackers.

i am greek and my country conquered by romans.greeks fight each others and romans take advandage of this.we win battles but with heavy casualties.all we are proud of are countries.the truth they is that they was question of time the romans win.

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

[TITANAS84]

yes but anyone have this idea of walls?the fact is roman is best to front attack.better armor, better swordsmen and most discipline.i am greek and my country conquered by romans.greeks fight each others and romans take advandage of this.we win battles but with heavy casualties.all we are proud of are countries.the truth they is that they was question of time the romans win.