Do you think units's stat between faction should be more balance?

[[N2]Kami]

When I play RTW, Carthage for example, my basic infantry unit was Iberian Infantry ATT 7, DEF 8, and basic infantry unit of my rival, Roman, was Hastati ATT 7, DEF 11. So when 2 side clash, my Iberian infantry was completely crushed by Roman's side without breaking a sweat. And I find that rather sucks. Even Libyan spearman was defeated by Hastati.

I know that Roman was a dominating force in that era and their man was equipped better than most of us but do you think unit stat should be more balance for better gameplay? I know each faction have their unique line up with strength and weakness but do you guys think it's gonna be too late for AI to have Scared band and elephant when Roman can spam Hastati and ****ed them up within 10 turn?

[Prof]

Nah. This is exactly, what is so cool about this era...every nation behaves totally different on the battlefield.

If they were all balanced, they would basically all be clones of each other again and there would be no need to use different tactics for different factions. And this is what I loved about the original Rome and hated about every other TW game that followed it.

Also in the case of carthage, making the infantry stronger would make the faction pretty imbalanced, because of their advantage to use elephants.

[Harvester of Sorrow]

No they shouldn't be balanced. This would make battles very bland and would negate the use of different tactics for each faction.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

but CA has done right that if not wrong , they balanced all factions , all gameplay , all the map , removing even sieges and distribuiting them in a even way to all places to have similar stats, and similar faction balances so that Rome is not the overconquering power it was inhistory .

Also weirdigly one of the CA members stated that the reason why Rome could expand was just because of a series of lucky shots or fortunate circumstances ...

just WOW .. that honestly explains the level researches done and the level of historicity to expect form that game .

[HusKatten]

but CA has done right that if not wrong , they balanced all factions , all gameplay , all the map , removing even sieges and distribuiting them in a even way to all places to have similar stats, and similar faction balances so that Rome is not the overconquering power it was inhistory .

Also weirdigly one of the CA members stated that the reason why Rome could expand was just because of a series of lucky shots or fortunate circumstances ...

just WOW .. that honestly explains the level researches done and the level of historicity to expect form that game .

Wasn't it so that the Romans rarely had the urge to expand, but it was rather their continually approaching enemies that "made them have to" expand? I've read something about this in a legit history book. But history is never 100% correct of course, there may be many explanations for roman expansion.

OnTopic: Particularly the Romans should be a force to be reconed with, and as their "specialty" lies with its infantry, it would be sad if all other factions had infantry that could cope with the roman ones. Tactics should be more emphasized than unit stats and should be different for each faction that you happen to play as, or against.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Wasn't it so that the Romans rarely had the urge to expand, but it was rather their continually approaching enemies that "made them have to" expand? I've read something about this in a legit history book. But history is never 100% correct of course, there may be many explanations for roman expansion.

OnTopic: Particularly the Romans should be a force to be reconed with, and as their "specialty" lies with its infantry, it would be sad if all other factions had infantry that could cope with the roman ones. Tactics should be more emphasized than unit stats and should be different for each faction that you happen to play as, or against.

Not really , what made romans expand is a mixture of elements , and a big factor was the cursus honorum of the local governors and generals , in pursue for glory conquering new distant lands brought fame , power , richness ,glory and all rest to the general and to Rome.
The highrly competitive nature of the roman world persist still today in the modern western way of life.
You see a decrease of the need and will of expansion when all the power gets in the hands of one single emperor ... Infact Rome was extremely aggressive when a republic and become more defensive when an empire.

[HusKatten]

Not really , what made romans expand is a mixture of elements , and a big factor was the cursus honorum of the local governors and generals , in pursue for glory conquering new distant lands brought fame , power , richness ,glory and all rest to the general and to Rome.
The highrly competitive nature of the roman world persist still today in the modern western way of life.
You see a decrease of the need and will of expansion when all the power gets in the hands of one single emperor ... Infact Rome was extremely aggressive when a republic and become more defensive when an empire.

That's very interesting, thanks.

[The Juggernaut]

Wasn't it so that the Romans rarely had the urge to expand, but it was rather their continually approaching enemies that "made them have to" expand? I've read something about this in a legit history book. But history is never 100% correct of course, there may be many explanations for roman expansion.

OnTopic: Particularly the Romans should be a force to be reconed with, and as their "specialty" lies with its infantry, it would be sad if all other factions had infantry that could cope with the roman ones. Tactics should be more emphasized than unit stats and should be different for each faction that you happen to play as, or against.

You're right, to an extent. The early Republic expanded largely as an effort either to increase their own standing amongst their neighbors or as a defensive effort. The First Punic War is really the first example of Roman aggression without a true "defensive" objective.

And consider that the Roman army for much of it's existence was not a professional force, but instead a citizen soldiery. The legions of the late Republic after the Marian Reforms should crush everything in front of them, but the same shouldn't be said of hastati.

[Eofor]

Units should be balanced not just by their stats but by abilities and cost as well.

[Prof]

Units should be balanced not just by their stats but by abilities and cost as well.

I hope you are trolling.

[Eofor]

I hope you are trolling.

...Seriously?

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Not sure if this is anything to go on, boys, but James Russell back at the Eurogamer Expo last year said that the unit skill will be balanced with cost. So basically, you're getting as good as you can put money into. More money, better units. In my own translation of this, each faction will have high quality units IF you can afford to recruit them.

@Kami, I fully understand your concerns. It is a real problem since the basic infantry of any faction is way weaker than Rome's basic infantry. Of course, unless you're a Greek City State, the hoplite units can stack up nicely. The thing is, the Romans WERE good and the BEST of their time since they conquered most of these other peoples. However, I personally feel there should be more balance, yet not too much to make every faction the same.

Like the Egyptians who were shown in the Battle of the Nile. If you had a quick peek at the Egyptian infantry, you would notice that they had some good stats on them. So it will vary, and I do believe the general balance between factions will be better this time round more than Rome 1, but we will have to see. I want Rome's infantry to be generally better, but not too much. The correct use of the terrain, nice flanking manoeuvre and stamina status should be enough to decimate a basic Roman infantry with another basic infantry unit from any faction.

No cohesion for a Roman unit means they are pretty much *********...and that's the truth.

[Eofor]

The thing is, the Romans WERE good and the BEST of their time since they conquered most of these other peoples.

That's because the Romans either had a more advanced state infrastructure with which to support their armies or because they were facing people exhausted by decades of warfare. It wasn't because Roman legionaries were ubermenschen who could tell ten lesser men with each thrust of the gladius.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

That's because the Romans either had more advanced infrastructure to support their armies or because they were facing people exhausted by decades of warfare. It wasn't because Roman legionaries were ubermenschen who could tell ten lesser men with each thrust of the gladius.

You are right. They weren't no superhumans or anything. They had tactics, they had cohesion, they had an advanced mind set. You are also correct there too when you said they fought against people who were exhausted after decades of warfare. The Greek City-States were all worn out by the time Rome came along. However, the Romans did show that they could counter the phalanx formations and typical hoplite-style of warfare. In terms of fighting fashion, the Romans had the best.

[Eofor]

In terms of fighting fashion, the Romans had the best.

Except that's also false because they lost Carrhae and Teutoburg for a reason.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Except that's also false because they lost Carrhae and Teutoburg for a reason.

You can't be serious by judging an entire army because of an ambush they did not suspect? Look at American troops in Vietnam. Entire squads were wiped out in an ambush, yet they won every battle in that war.
The Spartans would've been wiped out if they were in the Teutoberg forest at that point as well. An ambush can catch everybody off guard. Also, you have to remember, the Romans at Teutoberg were not carrying their weapons on them. All they knew was that they were in conquered territory that belonged to them. Their weapons were in the supply trains they were taking with them.

[RGA]

Roman infantry was not that über. If they were, surely they would not suffer such defeats as in Cimbrian war or against Spartacus. Sure, they were better trained and equipped than most enemies they faced. But in battles, it was down to generalship, morale, supply and luck that actually decided victory rather than just martial prowess. In game, everything is simplified to stats. So yeah, I'm OK with the game being balanced.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Roman infantry was not that über. If they were, surely they would not suffer such defeats as in Cimbrian war or against Spartacus. Sure, they were better trained and equipped than most enemies they faced. But in battles, it was down to generalship, morale, supply and luck that actually decided victory rather than just martial prowess. In game, everything is simplified to stats. So yeah, I'm OK with the game being balanced.

The Cimbrian wars were Pre-Marian, and Roman Legions at that point with the Cimbri and Teutones weren't ran by the best of the best Roman Generals, instead, politicians. It was when Marius himself came up to Rome from Numidia (I think). He changed things up, brought in a new system, next thing you know, he defeated a force of 120,000+ Cimbri and suffered less than a 1000 casualties himself. He did another battle with similar results to the Teutones I believe.

Some of the slaves who legged it with Spartacus were from the Cimbri tribe. It is about generals, but the Roman soldier in general was a superb soldier. It had everything it needed to be the best, it just needed someone who knew what he was doing. Marius proved this.

[Eofor]

he defeated a force of 120,000+ Cimbri and suffered less than a 1000 casualties himself.

I really hope you aren't taking primary sources at face value when it comes to battle casualties.

[Ariovist]

The Cimbrian wars were Pre-Marian, and Roman Legions at that point with the Cimbri and Teutones weren't ran by the best of the best Roman Generals, instead, politicians. It was when Marius himself came up to Rome from Numidia (I think). He changed things up, brought in a new system, next thing you know, he defeated a force of 120,000+ Cimbri and suffered less than a 1000 casualties himself. He did another battle with similar results to the Teutones I believe.

Some of the slaves who legged it with Spartacus were from the Cimbri tribe. It is about generals, but the Roman soldier in general was a superb soldier. It had everything it needed to be the best, it just needed someone who knew what he was doing. Marius proved this.

Silly Wikipedia numbers again?
These numbers were simply impossible as all of Germania must have been empty after the Cimbri, Teutoni and Ambroni left if you take this numbers seriously.

Also concerning Teutoburg Forest:
Do you really believe the roman soldiers packed their weapons and shields away and took a walk through the countryside???