Legionary Cohorts

[jukeness]

Can only the city of Rome create legionary cohorts?

[Warhammster]

No

[nvm]

Wait, are you talking about First Cohorts? These can only be recruited only in Rome. In BI, you can recruit them anywhere, if you have the last level of barracks.

[jukeness]

Yeah sorry i meant First Cohort.

[Warhammster]

Wait, are you talking about First Cohorts? These can only be recruited only in Rome. In BI, you can recruit them anywhere, if you have the last level of barracks.

That's funny considering that Urbans and Praetorians may be recruited anywhere

[Delta21]

I always thought that was weird.

[nvm]

Invasionary Cohort

[leseras]

Its weird regarding the first cohort thing. I rather spend money on urban cohorts

[Axeman]

And considering legionary cohorts were historically spread throughout the empire..

[|Sith| Max]

well while leseras is right, quality is better, i would like that this principle only heavily applies in the multiplayer. in the time it takes you to make one unit of urbs, you can make two legionary cohorts, which i believe, with some nice att and def upgrades, could surround that unit of urbs you would normally get and get the drop on them. not to mention more dudes means more armor piercing pila...

[Delta21]

well while leseras is right, quality is better, i would like that this principle only heavily applies in the multiplayer. in the time it takes you to make one unit of urbs, you can make two legionary cohorts, which i believe, with some nice att and def upgrades, could surround that unit of urbs you would normally get and get the drop on them. not to mention more dudes means more armor piercing pila...

not necessarily more dudes...more units of dudes(because they get the same amount of ammo no matter what the unit size. E.g.: it takes 2 shots for a unit of full principes to waste all their pila, while half of that unit would use them in 4 shots)

[|Sith| Max]

not necessarily more dudes...more units of dudes(because they get the same amount of ammo no matter what the unit size. E.g.: it takes 2 shots for a unit of full principes to waste all their pila, while half of that unit would use them in 4 shots)

ah mate you misunderstood what i was saying. two units still have more pila with them than one unit so i am still right. cheerio.

[Dave Strider]

No, every soldier has 3 Pila in the game

for standard Legions, that is 480 Pila
First legions is 720 Pila

This is the settings I use(unit size = huge)

[Plant]

well while leseras is right, quality is better, i would like that this principle only heavily applies in the multiplayer. in the time it takes you to make one unit of urbs, you can make two legionary cohorts, which i believe, with some nice att and def upgrades, could surround that unit of urbs you would normally get and get the drop on them. not to mention more dudes means more armor piercing pila...

not necessarily more dudes...more units of dudes(because they get the same amount of ammo no matter what the unit size. E.g.: it takes 2 shots for a unit of full principes to waste all their pila, while half of that unit would use them in 4 shots)

Isn't that exactly what he said, but in a different way? More dudes= more unit of dudes. It's exactly the same.

No, every soldier has 3 Pila in the game

Don't you mean 2 Pila? Otherwise it's incorrect and your mathematics don't work out anyways? Ammo is shared across the enitre unit. So, it's possible to throw all your ammo, even if there is only one man left.

[Delta21]

Isn't that exactly what he said, but in a different way? More dudes= more unit of dudes. It's exactly the same.

Let's say the unit scale is huge: 1 urban cohort unit of 80 soldiers will have only 160 pila while 4 "wounded" urban cohort units of 20 soldiers each(totaling 80 soldiers as well) will have 640 pila. See the difference?(the ammo quantity in a battalion isn't conditioned by the number of soldiers, it is always constat[it does vary between different unit scales though]). I am pretty sure you knew this already but I'm just saying that it is not "exactly the same" thing to say that more unit of dudes= more dudes or more dudes= more units of dudes(especially when talking about ammo in this game...more units always = more ammo). You can have 40 units of 2 soldiers or you could have 1 unit of 80 soldiers...or 8 units of 10 soldiers...or 4 units of 20 soldiers...or 2 units of 15 soldiers and 2 units of 25 soldiers...etc.

[Plant]

Well Delta21, you'll have to take it in context of what was written. He was comparing 2 units of legionary cohorts with a single Urban cohort. So in his case more dudes is from more units of dudes which hence "more dudes = more units of dudes. It's exactly the same." I'm not saying that they are the same as, I am saying that you both have the same intent of purpose.

Let's say the unit scale is huge: 1 urban cohort unit of 80 soldiers will have only 160 pila while 4 "wounded" urban cohort units of 20 soldiers each(totaling 80 soldiers as well) will have 640 pila. See the difference?(the ammo quantity in a battalion isn't conditioned by the number of soldiers, it is always constat[it does vary between different unit scales though]). I am pretty sure you knew this already but I'm just saying that it is not "exactly the same" thing to say that more unit of dudes= more dudes or more dudes= more units of dudes(especially when talking about ammo in this game...more units always = more ammo). You can have 40 units of 2 soldiers or you could have 1 unit of 80 soldiers...or 8 units of 10 soldiers...or 4 units of 20 soldiers...or 2 units of 15 soldiers and 2 units of 25 soldiers...etc.

I think my explanation is more concise and easier to follow;

Ammo is shared across the entire unit. So, it's possible to throw all your ammo, even if there is only one man left.

[Delta21]

Lol...don't even try to interpret his word into your favor...he specifically said "more dudes mean more armor piercing pila" which I explained why it isn't true.

"Ammo is shared across the entire unit. So, it's possible to throw all your ammo, even if there is only one man left."
While your explanation is shorter and easier to follow for you(because you are its creator, lul) it is definitely more vague than mine. "Shared across" is definitely the most vague word combo and think of this, "So, it's possible to throw all your ammo, even if there is only one man left" doesn't say a single thing about the ammo amount in a unit(which i was discussing) just like your previous sentence. Sure...one man can deplete the ammo supply of an entire unit, but what affects that ammo supply? is it the ammo supply that only one man would receive in a full unit? will he deplete it in 2 shots? 6 shots? 80 shots? See?....vague.

[Plant]

Lol...don't even try to interpret his word into your favor...he specifically said "more dudes mean more armor piercing pila" which I explained why it isn't true.

Replace "more dudes" with "more unit of dudes". Then it is exactly the same. I'm sure Max knows that ammo is shared across a unit. You both have the same intent of meaning especially when taken in context that he was comparing a singular unit with two. It's rather disingenuous of you to misinterpret his and my meaning.

"Ammo is shared across the entire unit. So, it's possible to throw all your ammo, even if there is only one man left."
While your explanation is shorter and easier to follow for you(because you are its creator, lul) it is definitely more vague than mine. "Shared across" is definitely the most vague word combo and think of this, "So, it's possible to throw all your ammo, even if there is only one man left" doesn't say a single thing about the ammo amount in a unit(which i was discussing) just like your previous sentence. Sure...one man can deplete the ammo supply of an entire unit, but what affects that ammo supply? is it the ammo supply that only one man would receive in a full unit? will he deplete it in 2 shots? 6 shots? 80 shots? See?....vague

I think you are being rather hard to follow with your poor sentence structure. Both times. Sometimes brevity has greater conveyance.

[Entropy Judge]

Lol...don't even try to interpret his word into your favor...he specifically said "more dudes mean more armor piercing pila" which I explained why it isn't true.

And your argument contradicting him is unbalanced. While it's true that 4 *units* will have more pila than 2 units, the individual soldiers only carry 2 pila apiece (noted in the unit_descr.txt file). Four units of soldiers have access to a greater ammo capacity, which I don't think anyone is disagreeing with.

"Ammo is shared across the entire unit. So, it's possible to throw all your ammo, even if there is only one man left."
While your explanation is shorter and easier to follow for you(because you are its creator, lul) it is definitely more vague than mine.

I think his is a bit better than yours. Of course, I am looking at it from the perspective of someone who already knows what he's talking about, which may be some of what's causing your disagreements - Plant is talking about it in terms that someone who's familiar with the game understands, you're talking about it in terms that someone who hasn't played the game should be able to understand.

"Shared across" is definitely the most vague word combo and think of this, "So, it's possible to throw all your ammo, even if there is only one man left" doesn't say a single thing about the ammo amount in a unit(which i was discussing) just like your previous sentence.

"Shared across" isn't at all vague. Ammo is shared. How is it shared? It's shared across the entire unit. The sentence is perfectly clear.

Sure...one man can deplete the ammo supply of an entire unit, but what affects that ammo supply? is it the ammo supply that only one man would receive in a full unit? will he deplete it in 2 shots? 6 shots? 80 shots? See?....vague.

[/quote]
This part actually starts confusing me. It really looks like you're trying to be confusing (I don't think you are - that's just what it looks like when I try to read it, as I wouldn't write that way). What Plant wrote amounts to this:
"Because a unit has the ammo capacity it would have at full strength even if understrength, and ammo is shared throughout the unit, it is possible for a unit of one soldier to throw the ammo capacity of the entire unit."

And I find it rather funny that three people who all know what they're talking about have written (essentially) the same thing three (almost completely) different ways.

[Delta21]

"Because a unit has the ammo capacity it would have at full strength even if understrength, and ammo is shared throughout the unit, it is possible for a unit of one soldier to throw the ammo capacity of the entire unit." this explanation is MUCH better than his. Don't try to credit him for a poorly expressed idea, I would rather have him not write at all if he can't explain things properly...not to mention that your explanation had fully comprised all the aspects of the problem(ammo amount, ammo "sharing across"(lul), and the lack of inter dependability between soldier numbers and ammo) while his was just a poor description.

And your argument contradicting him is unbalanced. While it's true that 4 *units* will have more pila than 2 units, the individual soldiers only carry 2 pila apiece (noted in the unit_descr.txt file). Four units of soldiers have access to a greater ammo capacity, which I don't think anyone is disagreeing with.

Erm...as far as I know the number of ammo in a unit never depended on the number of soldiers in a unit: e.g. a fully staffed unit of say..principes will indeed deplete their pila supply in 2 throws, whilst a unit that was "wounded" and has only half of the "full" unit numbers will only manage to deplete the entire ammo supply in 4 throws.

"Shared across" isn't at all vague. Ammo is shared. How is it shared? It's shared across the entire unit. The sentence is perfectly clear.

You just used the same words that you were trying to define in your explanation. How is that trying to prove me that that group of words isn't vague?

"Replace "more dudes" with "more unit of dudes" " - seriously? That say something completely different. Besides...why would I do that(replace the words)? I am trying to stick as much to the original context as possible, while you are modifying it for favorable interpretation. Oh and...."more dudes" = 2 words , "more unit of dudes" = 4 words...sometimes brevity has greater conveyance