Decimation

[Sir_Red]

Will it be in the game in any form?

I fail to see how a legionaire faced with this prospect would ever route from the battlefield. Perhaps it should be an option after battle for the cohorts that routed, and thereafter it becomes a legionary trait and morale is increased. Sure it will reduce the legion size, but the long-term benefits would be worth it!

Perhaps in order to perform decimation the general of the army has to have certain traits? like "Ruthless". Although I'm not sure if generals will have traits in Rome, just the legions themselves.

"If ever these same things happen to occur among a large group of men... the officers reject the idea of bludgeoning or slaughtering all the men involved [as is the case with a small group or an individual]. Instead they find a solution for the situation which chooses by a lottery system sometimes five, sometimes eight, sometimes twenty of these men, always calculating the number in this group with reference to the whole unit of offenders so that this group forms one-tenth of all those guilty of cowardice. And these men who are chosen by lot are bludgeoned mercilessly in the manner described above"

[August]

It's one of many things Romans did, albeit rather rare and draconian. Too minor to be represented directly - consider the discipline and morale of the legions already a direct outcome of this, and other forms of Roman military law.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Decimation should be in the game. Since Romans by nature were lacking in courage it was essential for them to fear their commander more than the enemy. Wise Crassus knew this.

[❋ Flavius Belisarius ❋]

Decimation should be in the game. Since Romans by nature were lacking in courage it was essential for them to fear their commander more than the enemy. Wise Crassus knew this.

Why did you say such a thing ?? oO

[JaM]

Lacking in Courage? where did you read this? Romans were very courageous, Pyrrhus had high appraise for them - once he said that "Alexander fought against women. I have fought against real men!" i don't think he would said such thing if they were lacking courage...

[Sir_Red]

Lacking in Courage? where did you read this? Romans were very courageous, Pyrrhus had high appraise for them - once he said that "Alexander fought against women. I have fought against real men!" i don't think he would said such thing if they were lacking courage...

Er and you don't think Pyrrhus might have been blowing his own trumpet?

[Kraut]

I fail to see how a legionaire faced with this prospect would ever route from the battlefield.

Hmmm... maybe if he considers his chance of survival on this very battlefield to be lower than the 90% survival probability he will have at decimation?

[Sir_Red]

Hmmm... maybe if he considers his chance of survival on this very battlefield to be lower than the 90% survival probability he will have at decimation?

decimation was as bad for those receiving as those giving. Beating your companions to death is pretty tough thing to be made to do, better to stay and die an honourable death in battle

[JaM]

Sir_Red : Rome developed from small city state into one of the biggest Empires... it would not if their soldiers lacked courage.. on contrary, their courage and morale was sometimes the reason of their doom... like for example at Canae..

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Decimation would be pointless in this game. If you lose a battle, you essentially lose your army. Who'd be left to do decimation on? You wouldn't perform decimation on a Legion that didn't do anything wrong.

Decimation was a punishment for failure and a means to make the soldiers fear their general more, or Centurion. The Centurion had something to do with it.

@JaM: Pyrrhus saw first hand the courage of Romans.

[Sir_Red]

Decimation would be pointless in this game. If you lose a battle, you essentially lose your army. Who'd be left to do decimation on? You wouldn't perform decimation on a Legion that didn't do anything wrong.

Decimation was a punishment for failure and a means to make the soldiers fear their general more, or Centurion. The Centurion had something to do with it.

@JaM: Pyrrhus saw first hand the courage of Romans.

No it would be on the routed troops, not those who I ordered to withdraw. How many times have you been in a TW battle and seen a load of units, crucial to holding a flank, turn and flee. It makes me so angry and in real life a precedent would be set and they would be court-marshalled or whatever. Also you can still perform decimation even if you win the battle. I just think it's better than constantly accepting routed units back with open arms, I am not a forgiving general!

[Woodrow Skillson]

Decimation was very, very rarely used, and it nearly always is referred to in a way that implies that it is seen as outdated and barbaric. Crassus took a ton of flak for using it, andthe sources don't make anyone else who used it look much better. It's effect on morale was debated even back then, as fearing your commander only went so far. Legions still retreated and routed, even when they knew decimation was a possibility.

If it was in the game, it shoudl give a short term boost with a long term negative. The soldiers initially fight better and morale goes up, but over time it loses its luster and the soldiers go back to hating the general.

[JaM]

DogSoldierSPQR: yes he did. All battles against them were tough fights, first one was won after he used elephants - beasts they never saw before... and even then they managed to badly damage his elite Phalangitai.. his victories become known as Pyrrhic for a reason.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

DogSoldierSPQR: yes he did. All battles against them were tough fights, first one was won after he used elephants - beasts they never saw before... and even then they managed to badly damage his elite Phalangitai.. his victories become known as Pyrrhic for a reason.

Exactly. I need to read up more on those times specifically but I have heard a lot about them. It was pointless fighting against the Romans and expecting submission. Even Hannibal was pi**ed off because the Romans just didn't surrender even when he was just outside causing havoc. You can't beat people who believe they are free.

No it would be on the routed troops, not those who I ordered to withdraw. How many times have you been in a TW battle and seen a load of units, crucial to holding a flank, turn and flee. It makes me so angry and in real life a precedent would be set and they would be court-marshalled or whatever. Also you can still perform decimation even if you win the battle. I just think it's better than constantly accepting routed units back with open arms, I am not a forgiving general!

You have a point. We need to see how the army system works first. Since there is a massive emphasis on armies, it maybe the case that if you're army loses it would just disband. CA wanted to emphasis the importance of armies and how vulnerable your lands would be if you lost one. I have a feeling that we won't have our armies if suffer a big defeat.

In general though, yeah decimation would only really give you a morale bonus if anything. What do you personally want to see added stats-wise?

[Sir_Red]

You have a point. We need to see how the army system works first. Since there is a massive emphasis on armies, it maybe the case that if you're army loses it would just disband. CA wanted to emphasis the importance of armies and how vulnerable your lands would be if you lost one. I have a feeling that we won't have our armies if suffer a big defeat.

In general though, yeah decimation would only really give you a morale bonus if anything. What do you personally want to see added stats-wise?

Well If in the game Roman units rarely route then it's a mechanic that will not be needed, but I can already picture it now: Me putting it on VH difficulty and within one minute an entire cohort routing, it's bloody annoying and unrealistic for Romans to route unless extreme circumstances. So I want to punish them. Perhaps Decimation can only be used once every 10 years within a legion, to serve as a reminder, the effect is that it gives units higher "morale" so that they are more likely to fight to the death, (or just drop on their own swords) rather than face the wrath of the general.

Does anyone know what the punishments were for desertion in Roman time, other than the rare occurrences of decimation? Courage is given to men with both carrot and stick, sure the legionaries loved Rome, but they must have also feared what would happen if they turned and fled....

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

DogSoldierSPQR: yes he did. All battles against them were tough fights, first one was won after he used elephants - beasts they never saw before... and even then they managed to badly damage his elite Phalangitai.. his victories become known as Pyrrhic for a reason.

The successes of Pyrrhus has been underexaggerated historically, his pezhetaroi kicked a lot of Roman ass, problem with Pyrrhus was just his lack of direction, perhaps he had ADHD.

[JaM]

i don't think armies should disintegrate just because they lost a battle.. there were many battles where losing side managed to retreat from battle and fight another day..

|Sith|Galvanized Iron : we have info about casualties both sides taken, it was not a walk in the park for Epirote Phalangitai at all.. they were not used to fight against Roman style army - greek historian mention epirote frustration, where once they defeated one maniple, second took its place immediately..

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

i don't think armies should disintegrate just because they lost a battle.. there were many battles where losing side managed to retreat from battle and fight another day..

|Sith|Galvanized Iron : we have info about casualties both sides taken, it was not a walk in the park for Epirote Phalangitai at all.. they were not used to fight against Roman style army - greek historian mention epirote frustration, where once they defeated one maniple, second took its place immediately..

I didn't say it was a walk in the park, I just said that they won all the battles, and the battles were clear victories for the Epirotes. If Rome would have had the same manpower level as a Greek kingdom then those victories would have been decisive.

[JaM]

|Sith|Galvanized Iron: not really... no. They were close victories all of them, and Epirotes took large casualties. WHile Romans took more casualties, majority of their casualties were dealt during retreat/withdrawal from battle - in first battle(Heraclea) it was after Elephant attack - as i mentioned, they never saw elephants before so it had huge impact on them. Second battle (Ascullum) was very tight, and was finally decided by cavalry flanking attack coordinated with elephants... Both battles were quite bloody. and Battle of Beneventum, which was Epirote defeat, after Romans managed to scare off his elephants which turned and broke Epirote ranks.. After this defeat he was no longer able to continue his campaign in Italy, and Romans subdued his allies Samnites

[ScytheRayne]

I don't see the point of enacting decimation upon an entire army if the battle was clearly not in their favour. But perhaps for individual units that routed earlier in the battle, with something like 50-65% of their men still standing (or running, in this case) leaving the rest of the army harder pressed as a consequence. Maybe a particularly hardline general could enact it at will, while commanders with a more noble mindset could only enact it under much more specific conditions?