Romans shouldn't have uber units

[Lansa]

The Romans weren't unbeatable because of the individual strength of their soldiers. Sure, they were well-trained and well disciplined, but one-on-one Gallic swordsmen would probably have been a match for them, as the mercs under Hannibal showed.

Rather, what made Rome strong was its near infinite supply of manpower from the human reservoir that was Italy.

So please, CA, instead of making the most basic legionary stronger individually than a Hypaspist or an elite Gallic swordsman, reflect Rome's strength through making their units cheap, and quick to recruit.

That would more accurately reflect the historical advantage they had. The 2nd Punic War proved that their strength lay in numbers and not in tactics or individual soldiers. Super-duper Urban cohorts and Praetorian cavalry shouldn't have existed in RTW, so don't let them in RTW2. Heck, the game admitted the Urbans were basically a police force.

[SonOfCrusader76]

No - Rome were better because of their discipline and organisation, not numbers. Remember the Battle of Watling Street? The Romans were completely outnumbered there.

[Sol Invictus]

The Romans were beaten many times by many different opponents in the Republican Era for varius reasons and I agree that they weren't super-soldiers. They were a civilian militia that were hastily called up when needed and they made for competent soldiers but no more. Generally, if they were under competent leadership and under favorable conditions they would win and the reverse was also true.

Once they became a professional military force I would say that they were better than the majority of their opponents but again they couldn't just clean the floor up against most of them. All things being equal they would most probably win but leadership and general situation could greatly influence the outcome. I would say Watling Street and Cannae would be the two extremes.

[AqD]

The Romans were beaten many times by many different opponents in the Republican Era for varius reasons and I agree that they weren't super-soldiers. They were a civilian militia that were hastily called up when needed and they made for competent soldiers but no more. Generally, if they were under competent leadership and under favorable conditions they would win and the reverse was also true.

Once they became a professional military force I would say that they were better than the majority of their opponents but again they couldn't just clean the floor up against most of them. All things being equal they would most probably win but leadership and general situation could greatly influence the outcome. I would say Watling Street and Cannae would be the two extremes.

I'd say experiences should matter much more than in previous TW games.

While a professional soldier is trained better initially, a citizen troop could achieve the same or higher quality by years of actual fighting in battles. Other than upgrading/recruiting better troops, the player should be able to train his troops by fighting in a lot of battles, or lose the experiences by letting them sit idle.

[Sir Pignans]

No - Rome were better because of their discipline and organisation, not numbers. Remember the Battle of Watling Street? The Romans were completely outnumbered there.

Numbers were hugely important for the Romans, all those times Hannibal destroyed an army the Romans simply raised a new one. It was a very effective, and utilized, resource.

[Intranetusa]

No - Rome were better because of their discipline and organisation, not numbers. Remember the Battle of Watling Street? The Romans were completely outnumbered there.

Depends on which war. The large pool of Roman manpower certainly helped them bounce back from huge casualties during the Punic Wars.

[SomaaTheLion]

As the OP said discipline and organisation were the secrets of their success. Better equipment and armour also played a huge role, remember those naked barbarians in Rome 1 ?? :p

[Waiting for Rome 2 -_-]

Maybe so,but great battles were not fought one-on-one.Romans were the strongest at the time,they conquered half of Europe because their armies were superior to every single nation they conquered(including Gaule and Carthage).

[General Maximus]

I am mixed at this. Rome is disciplined, but barbarians should also have a chance to win.

I am with others here. And about German Berserkers, they kicked butts of everyone!

[Pheidippides]

The multiplicity of advanced Roman units was unnecessary. I could understand wanting to show off different shiny armor models, but there were too many variations on the Legion/Urban/Praetorian Cohorts and Legion/Praetorian Cavalry. I'd favor making the Urban Cohort and upgrade of the town levy available in core Roman cities that get large enough and maybe capping the number of Praetorian units.

[Theo]

Over the past few games CA has been gradually improving the multiplayer experience, and balance. Although total war games still have a very long way to go in terms of having a playable multiplayer, I think we can safely assume CA will try not to give any one faction an instant-win unit like the uber-cohorts in the first rome.

[SonOfCrusader76]

Over the past few games CA has been gradually improving the multiplayer experience, and balance. Although total war games still have a very long way to go in terms of having a playable multiplayer, I think we can safely assume CA will try not to give any one faction an instant-win unit like the uber-cohorts in the first rome.

Hmmm... yes... while ruining some aspects of singleplayer.

[yesyesokfine]

They must strike some balance between realism and fun. It wouldn't be fun to play against someone who picked Rome all the time because they are the strongest.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

They must strike some balance between realism and fun. It wouldn't be fun to play against someone who picked Rome all the time because they are the strongest.

Well actually Rome lost against Armenia, Parthia, Egypt, Britons (of course, since CA are British) and tied with Germania, Seleucids and Pontus, but yeah they pretty much kicked everyone else's asses in multiplayer.

[underworld965]

Over the past few games CA has been gradually improving the multiplayer experience, and balance. Although total war games still have a very long way to go in terms of having a playable multiplayer, I think we can safely assume CA will try not to give any one faction an instant-win unit like the uber-cohorts in the first rome.

They must strike some balance between realism and fun. It wouldn't be fun to play against someone who picked Rome all the time because they are the strongest.

The legions extra strength will be balanced by cost. I'd say barbarian units are better in "1 on 1" duels, but as a unit a legion would smash the unorganized charge of a barbarian warband (even in ambushes such as teutoburg forest the legions inflicted horrific losses on the german tribes). The legions had superior armor and weaponry to the barbarian tribes, so the legions often came out on top. I personally think the legions should get boosted stats, but comparatively cost much more as you must pay for arms and armor for each soldier, while barbarian units should cost comparatively less to maintain and recruit. The open field of battle wouldn't be where the barbarians shine against the Romans; the wooded areas where ambushes and traps can be created will be the chosen battlegrounds of the tribes. In MP the cost of the Legions should allow anyone facing the roman troops to field more men, giving way to many more strategic options such as flanking, mass and economy of force, and a whole host of other things as the outnumbered Roman general attempts to defend on all sides.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

The legions extra strength will be balanced by cost. I'd say barbarian units are better in "1 on 1" duels, but as a unit a legion would smash the unorganized charge of a barbarian warband (even in ambushes such as teutoburg forest the legions inflicted horrific losses on the german tribes). The legions had superior armor and weaponry to the barbarian tribes, so the legions often came out on top. I personally think the legions should get boosted stats, but comparatively cost much more as you must pay for arms and armor for each soldier, while barbarian units should cost comparatively less to maintain and recruit. The open field of battle wouldn't be where the barbarians shine against the Romans; the wooded areas where ambushes and traps can be created will be the chosen battlegrounds of the tribes. In MP the cost of the Legions should allow anyone facing the roman troops to field more men, giving way to many more strategic options such as flanking, mass and economy of force, and a whole host of other things as the outnumbered Roman general attempts to defend on all sides.

Total stereotyped Roman fanboy post, are you American or something? If you knew your history you would know that it was the Romans that were doing the outnumbering with their unlimited manpower and there were no barbarian hordes, in fact the "barbarians" were often more civilized than the Romans.

[Ahiga]

Total stereotyped Roman fanboy post, are you American or something? If you knew your history you would know that it was the Romans that were doing the outnumbering with their unlimited manpower and there were no barbarian hordes, in fact the "barbarians" were often more civilized than the Romans.

Ignorant Roman Chauvinism is an abundant vice on the internet but I think we are in store for a greater amount of it in the days leading up to Rome 2's release. With nothing to do but twiddle our thumbs it's naturally going to be a circle-jerk of Roman Chauvenism. Because having an accurate, level-headed and realistic view of ancient warriors is much less appealing than essentializing it into an RPG/Fighting game kind of dynamic.

Once the game releases you'll still have it, but it'll start to become irrelevant white noise - the most ardent nationalists are also usually inept, lazy, and worthless judging from what I saw of the Total War and what I am seeing of the Mount and Blade modding scene. They'll just throw up their product of super-charged romans using the same cannibalized open source models and textures over and over and over and over, project after project repeating the same stale fantasy of the super-powered legionary.

The great works have been those with broad interest and ambition, who are very interested in the Romans but realize the actual history of the true legionary and auxilia is more respectful to their legacy than the propagandist fantasies of the imperial aristocracy. Great works like Roma Surrectum, Europa Barbarorum, and Rome Total Realism are what last long in the memory and interest of players. Not "Buff to Roman Legionaries #329". They are able to both respect, appreciate and recognize the virtues of the Roman army but do so with a level head. And whenever someone starts going off about how these warriors or those soldiers were "Special Forces of their day", "the absolute best of their day", "Unstoppable", "Elite (applied to the entire corps)", "Modern day Spartans", then you know their authority should be thrown right out the window because they're hyperboling and talking in the unprofessional manner of one of those empty-headed bimbos on the 24/7 news channels. Reminded me for some reason of the first coliseum battle in Gladiator, where the slaves are the Carthaginians and the Romans are black female chariot archers.

So yeah we'll still have the whining topics of "Y U NO MAKE THE LEGIONARY LIK A SPARTAN?!?!", but it'll only continue along by the momentum of an internet argument rather than having any potency in itself.

[Cathal]

are you American or something?....

Nice... Because there aren't ignorant people in every country. Sounds like someone else is being more stereotypical.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Nice... Because there aren't ignorant people in every country. Sounds like someone else is being more stereotypical.

Conclusion generally based on that the most fantical Roman fanboys seems to post whilst it's night time on the east shore of the Atlantic and it's daytime in America.

[underworld965]

Total stereotyped Roman fanboy post, are you American or something? If you knew your history you would know that it was the Romans that were doing the outnumbering with their unlimited manpower and there were no barbarian hordes, in fact the "barbarians" were often more civilized than the Romans.

My goodness you must have missed the whole point of my post! The fact that you would assume I'm american because of a post does nothing but show your own prejudices. You couldn't even be bothered to respond in a polite manner, you acted as if I insulted you or something.

"In MP the cost of the Legions should allow anyone facing the roman troops to field more men, giving way to many more strategic options such as flanking, mass and economy of force, and a whole host of other things as the outnumbered Roman general attempts to defend on all sides."

Either you can't read, or you just instantly jumped to conclusions without bothering to actually read through my post. I said in multiplayer the roman units cost would be larger than the barbarian units, and to counter balance this the barbarians would be cheaper and thus able to field more units. If, as you suggest, the roman units should outnumber the barbarians, the mutliplayer would throw any semblance of accuracy out the window as the legionaries would have to be ridiculously cheap; which would be absurd. Considering every unit is professionally paid, armed, and armored in stark contrast to the barbarian units, the Roman units must be reflectively more expensive to recruit and maintain.

As to your comment about the "civilized" nature of the barbarian tribes, well, I'm not entirely sure how you define civilization then. Oxfords dictionary defines civilization as the stage of human social development and organization which is considered most advanced; if you believe the various tribes were more advanced then the Romans (spoiler alert:they weren't) then your post is nonsense. There is a reason Europe descended into the dark ages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. If you are referring to civilized in the manner of culture/social morales, well we can argue back and forth all day on how evil roman's "slave" society and culture was, but bear in mind most other societies of the time had slaves (the romans themselves adopted many of their customs, such as the arena, from other cultures). Frankly, in my opinion, any way you look at it, the Romans were more civilized: they had laws, the were technologically advanced, and for sometime they were ruled by a democracy of sorts. The Romans were an organized and advanced culture, more so then any gallic, germanic, or slavic "barbarian" tribe I am aware of.