Overpowered barbarian units and stupid levy troop simulation

[ooji]

I've recently started playing as Rome and I am just surprised by the sheer amount of heavy armored infantry that the barbarians have. If I'm not mistaken, barbarians around the time of early Roman republic were mostly lightly armed, some even naked. Only the few elite Gallic nobles afforded heavy armor and swords. Just taking a look at the stats, these barbarians have the same armor, defence and offence abilities as early roman legion!! That, I think is a bit absurd, considering how strong Romans were compared to barbarians. I am playing on medium/medium difficulty by the way. Unless I flank, my legions get beaten by barbarian troops. I guess this is an attempt to make it harder for Rome to expand, but I don't think this is very historical at all. Barbarians did not wear heavy armor and only afforded spears. Funny thing is, on one of the heavy spearmen description, it said that these spearmen were armed lightly when the fact is, they are armed to the teeth in the mod.
The combination of that and the fact that nearly full stack army forms everytime you siege is making it very difficult for me to expand. My guess is that the reason these full stack of armies appear after 1 turn of siege is to simulate levy troops from the city. Well, these troops are neither levy nor lightly armed. After beating 2 full stacks of enemy army, my besieging army gets weakened considerably. Then I have to deal with another full stack? What the heck?

[Spartan999]

I am pretty sure you got that opposite. Celts were known to have good armor and weapons.

I am also certain Iberians had good armor and weapons. I am not certain about the germans.

Also you can make it easier on yourself by changing the garrison script to less garrison script.

[ooji]

Well Romans were known for having the best heavy infantry at its time right? Correctly used in the legionary formation, they were unbeatable. Yet, these Gallic and Iberian heavy spearmen could easily beat my legions unless I flank them. Could you provide me with information on how to reduce the garrison on the script?

[onmy6]

Well Romans were known for having the best heavy infantry at its time right? Correctly used in the legionary formation, they were unbeatable. Yet, these Gallic and Iberian heavy spearmen could easily beat my legions unless I flank them. Could you provide me with information on how to reduce the garrison on the script?

Well actually no they weren't unbeatable not against cavalry units anyway, against infantry they could wheel very efficiently against a flanking tactic by the enemy, but against cavalry they could not, Rome history is littered with examples through out, where cavalry thrashed them through the dreaded cav flank attack they just could not manoeuvre quickly enough to counter it

[Spartan999]

Well Romans were known for having the best heavy infantry at its time right? Correctly used in the legionary formation, they were unbeatable. Yet, these Gallic and Iberian heavy spearmen could easily beat my legions unless I flank them. Could you provide me with information on how to reduce the garrison on the script?

Go to the launcher file in RS 2.6 file and click preference editor and press Other RS 2 para put garrison script to less

[High Fist]

Best infantry because of their discipline and tactics. They weren't invincible. In pure brute force, the Barbs were generally more than a match for the Romans. The Romans didn't win every single battle they've ever fought against the barbarians, the Spanish inflicted huge casualties on the Romans for example.

Polybians hadn't amazing armour either. It was fairly light for movement's sake. They relied on their shield as much as anything else. The Arverni apparently invented chainmail and iron wasn't so rare in barbarian lands.

The garrisons that pop up when you siege a city are to simulate the AI actually responding to your siege, because the AI isn't very good at that by itself. The player is good at it though, so it makes it more difficult. It's easy to avoid with spies or siege equipment though.

[ooji]

Best infantry because of their discipline and tactics. They weren't invincible. In pure brute force, the Barbs were generally more than a match for the Romans. The Romans didn't win every single battle they've ever fought against the barbarians, the Spanish inflicted huge casualties on the Romans for example.

Shouldn't the mod take account of discipline and tactics then? As far as troop morals go, those heavy barbarian spearmen have about the same level of morality if not more. Tactics..I can only think of quincunx formation. And that's only for flexible movement during battles. As far as fighting goes, legions beat barbarians. Period. Historically, during a fight vs Macedon, Roman flanks got beat by hypaspists, but roman main force pushed through the macedonian battle lines. I don't see that happening in the mod. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Romans fought fair and square and still beat their enemies. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that such brute fighting style was their specialty. Yet, in RS2, my legions melt down to those barbarians. The only reason Germans, Picts, and Iberians held so well vs Romans is because of their hit and run tactics. Their major confrontations vs Romans didn't end too well so they had to rely on skirmishing. As far as cavalry fight goes, I agree, legions weren't too good vs cavalry. But as far as infantry is concerned, I seriously think that barbarians need nerf or legions need buff.

[dvk901]

Shouldn't the mod take account of discipline and tactics then? As far as troop morals go, those heavy barbarian spearmen have about the same level of morality if not more. Tactics..I can only think of quincunx formation. And that's only for flexible movement during battles. As far as fighting goes, legions beat barbarians. Period. Historically, during a fight vs Macedon, Roman flanks got beat by hypaspists, but roman main force pushed through the macedonian battle lines. I don't see that happening in the mod. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Romans fought fair and square and still beat their enemies. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that such brute fighting style was their specialty. Yet, in RS2, my legions melt down to those barbarians. The only reason Germans, Picts, and Iberians held so well vs Romans is because of their hit and run tactics. Their major confrontations vs Romans didn't end too well so they had to rely on skirmishing. As far as cavalry fight goes, I agree, legions weren't too good vs cavalry. But as far as infantry is concerned, I seriously think that barbarians need nerf or legions need buff.

Also, it is a 'fantasy' that Barbarian armies were, man for man, inferior to Romans. They were bigger, often stronger people, and they were well armed and armored. (Often, Roman merchants saw to that.) You might also consider that the Celts overwhelmed the Romans in 390BC, sacking Rome to boot. The reason was not because Roman soldiers were inferior, but Roman tactics. And this remains the story and key of Roman success throughout their history...the ability to learn new tactics, copy new ideas where necessary, and beat opponents with 'smarts'...not brute force.

ur-Lord Tedric is quite right when it comes to the problem of portraying the advantages of different military 'styles' in RTW. We have only stats and various formations or special abilities to work with...or basic unit sizes. We used these to make the game a challenge, yes. But I believe, a fairly accurate one.

As far as the appearance of garrison armies or levy armies, we have Caesar's invasion of Gaul as a good example of the resistance one would encounter upon invading Celtic territory. Hundreds of thousands of men showed up to oppose him. He lost a lot of men, and only won because he outsmarted his enemy.

[Decius101]

Also, it is a 'fantasy' that Barbarian armies were, man for man, inferior to Romans. They were bigger, often stronger people, and they were well armed and armored. (Often, Roman merchants saw to that.) You might also consider that the Celts overwhelmed the Romans in 390BC, sacking Rome to boot. The reason was not because Roman soldiers were inferior, but Roman tactics. And this remains the story and key of Roman success throughout their history...the ability to learn new tactics, copy new ideas where necessary, and beat opponents with 'smarts'...not brute force.

ur-Lord Tedric is quite right when it comes to the problem of portraying the advantages of different military 'styles' in RTW. We have only stats and various formations or special abilities to work with...or basic unit sizes. We used these to make the game a challenge, yes. But I believe, a fairly accurate one.

As far as the appearance of garrison armies or levy armies, we have Caesar's invasion of Gaul as a good example of the resistance one would encounter upon invading Celtic territory. Hundreds of thousands of men showed up to oppose him. He lost a lot of men, and only won because he outsmarted his enemy.

Still, I don't think Roman Legions would fair so well against Barbarians in dense forests. They have a heavy Shield and can't seem to move as quickly because of all the armor, Germanic warriors are usually lightly armored, some were more heavily armored but they also had a huge long sword while all a Roman Legionnaire could do was use his sword in a stabbing motion, if he didn't use it in a stabbing motion then he would be exposed to attack by the Germanic Warriors long sword. The reach advantage would also be massive with the German in a 1 on 1 fight because of how long the sword is. As individual warriors, Romans are hard to beat but not unstoppable, in formation in open field they are VERY HARD to defeat.

[nz61287n]

Shouldn't the mod take account of discipline and tactics then? As far as troop morals go, those heavy barbarian spearmen have about the same level of morality if not more. Tactics..I can only think of quincunx formation. And that's only for flexible movement during battles. As far as fighting goes, legions beat barbarians. Period. Historically, during a fight vs Macedon, Roman flanks got beat by hypaspists, but roman main force pushed through the macedonian battle lines. I don't see that happening in the mod. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Romans fought fair and square and still beat their enemies. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that such brute fighting style was their specialty. Yet, in RS2, my legions melt down to those barbarians. The only reason Germans, Picts, and Iberians held so well vs Romans is because of their hit and run tactics. Their major confrontations vs Romans didn't end too well so they had to rely on skirmishing. As far as cavalry fight goes, I agree, legions weren't too good vs cavalry. But as far as infantry is concerned, I seriously think that barbarians need nerf or legions need buff.

You might want to check out the Teaching Company's courses on Rome and Ancient warfare (they are really good introductions to these issues and debates). In terms of the balance of units in this mod, I personally don't have any complaints (the attention that the mod pays to detail and history blew me away when I first played it). You should keep in mind the fact that the quality of the Legions through history can vary widely and even within the same time period some were better than others. The quality of your Legions is for the most part dependent on how you use them and your tactics, call it a crisis of leadership (not overpowered Barbarians).

[ur-Lord Tedric]

ooji,

You are forgetting something that every game of this type has to consider.....

Many 'barbarian' units are 'individually buffed' per man because they have to account for a different scale. Many of the barbarian armies that the Romans faced outnumbered them to a great degree. That cannot be simulated well in games with restricted numbers of units and restrictions on unit sizes. Even with some 'civilised' armies there must be compromises.

A Roman maniple (120 men) could oppose a Greek phalangite-syntagma of 256 pikemen, but we do it at a scale of 100 v 120 (Large). So, for the barbarians, their individual stats are higher, simply so that one unit of barbarians can oppose a Roman unit with some degree of opposition that makes sense.

Note: the Quincunx formation is not a 'tactic'; it's a deployment formation. Tactics are the movements and how you use your forces on the battlefield (including flank attacks, feigned retreats, using skirmishers, etc). Drill and formations aid and enable tactics.

In short, yes the Roman soldier often 'individually' (normally as part of a coherent formation) could beat equivalent numbers of his foe - but sometimes lost because killing one just made room for the next and the barbarians could wear them down. That can't be replicated easily.

If the engine were re-configured, then Roman units of, say, 80 (looking like a century) could face-off against barbarian ones of 250 or so.

[ooji]

Also, it is a 'fantasy' that Barbarian armies were, man for man, inferior to Romans. They were bigger, often stronger people, and they were well armed and armored. (Often, Roman merchants saw to that.) You might also consider that the Celts overwhelmed the Romans in 390BC, sacking Rome to boot. The reason was not because Roman soldiers were inferior, but Roman tactics. And this remains the story and key of Roman success throughout their history...the ability to learn new tactics, copy new ideas where necessary, and beat opponents with 'smarts'...not brute force.

Well I understand that individual barbarian troops were superior to Roman soldiers physically. However, barbarians lacked the discipline and formation of Romans. 1v1, a Roman solider could not beat a barbarian, but as a group, Romans were superior. As soon as the frontal soldier got tired, he went to the back of the line allowing a fresh soldier behind him to fight the tired barbarian. This way, Romans could continously show fresh and ready front line vs increasingly tired barbarians. In a battle against Boudicca, heavily outnumbered Roman legion retreated to a forest line so they could face barbarians one to one. At that point, it wasn't so much of tactics as it was brute force. Romans simply sticked to their formation and killed the barbarians with very light casualties.
I realize this cannot be simulated in current Rome 1 engine, so why not buff the legion stats instead? At this point where the mod is finalized, I suspect it's highly unlikely that any change will be made, but for future ones, isn't there a way to reduce a unit size to less than 80? Roman troops could have unit size of 40 while barbarians have unit size of 240 to take account of the scale for example.

[SD_Man]

Well I understand that individual barbarian troops were superior to Roman soldiers physically. However, barbarians lacked the discipline and formation of Romans. 1v1, a Roman solider could not beat a barbarian, but as a group, Romans were superior. As soon as the frontal soldier got tired, he went to the back of the line allowing a fresh soldier behind him to fight the tired barbarian. This way, Romans could continously show fresh and ready front line vs increasingly tired barbarians. In a battle against Boudicca, heavily outnumbered Roman legion retreated to a forest line so they could face barbarians one to one. At that point, it wasn't so much of tactics as it was brute force. Romans simply sticked to their formation and killed the barbarians with very light casualties.
I realize this cannot be simulated in current Rome 1 engine, so why not buff the legion stats instead? At this point where the mod is finalized, I suspect it's highly unlikely that any change will be made, but for future ones, isn't there a way to reduce a unit size to less than 80? Roman troops could have unit size of 40 while barbarians have unit size of 240 to take account of the scale for example.

And youre saying that the Celts didnt do the same? "Learn from thy enemies" and the Celts were good at that, unlike the Romans who would constantly make the same arrogant mistakes. Also the Celts, atop of their chainmail armor and iron swords, were very skilled in the arts of war. Don't confuse the Celts with the other "barbarians," whom by the way actually deserve more credit than has been done. The Germanians especially are known for knowing when to fight, but they also know when to run.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

.................. As soon as the frontal soldier got tired, he went to the back of the line allowing a fresh soldier behind him to fight the tired barbarian. This way, Romans could continously show fresh and ready front line vs increasingly tired barbarians..................

There is, by the way, no evidence to support the above statement - anywhere!

I have, in fact, argued that such a drill might possibly be feasible myself. However, you may be interested to know that the Italian gentlemen who came up with this idea not so long ago managed to completely split the Italian re-enactment community by implementing it! Funnily enough this same gentlemen then went on to advise HBO/BBC and that's why you may have seen it......

How the Romans actually implemented replacing centuries/ranks, let alone the entire 'manipular tactics' issue is suitable for much debate - for there is no actual ancient source.

[ooji]

And youre saying that the Celts didnt do the same? "Learn from thy enemies" and the Celts were good at that, unlike the Romans who would constantly make the same arrogant mistakes. Also the Celts, atop of their chainmail armor and iron swords, were very skilled in the arts of war. Don't confuse the Celts with the other "barbarians," whom by the way actually deserve more credit than has been done. The Germanians especially are known for knowing when to fight, but they also know when to run.

So far, I haven't seen a documentary proving that barbarians (including Celts) ever organized themselves to fight in a similar fashion as Romans during early republic period. How do you suppose Roman legions beat numerically superior barbarians over and over again? Until much later on, Celts relied on levying from the local populace in times of war. Such levies were farmers and herders who were relatively inexperienced in war. Only the nobles afforded high quality armor and weapons and equipped their small group of bodyguards in the same fashion. Those bodyguards were full time employed and very experienced warriors, yes. But the mainstay of Celtic army? Not so much. Romans were actually quite adaptable and easily learned from their mistakes. I guess knowing when to fight and when to run would be summarized in one word: skirmishing. Germans couldn't face Romans face to face in an open field. Simple as that. Romans were superior.

[High Fist]

True dat, but the Romans could never conquer Germania itself. Damn forests.

Anyway, you guys need to focus your argument a bit here; it's getting very broad and you're both throwing in all manner of different peoples. What are you arguing about anyway? That Roman infantry was better than barbarian infantry?

Answer to that is fairly obvious.

[SD_Man]

True dat, but the Romans could never conquer Germania itself. Damn forests.

Anyway, you guys need to focus your argument a bit here; it's getting very broad and you're both throwing in all manner of different peoples. What are you arguing about anyway? That Roman infantry was better than barbarian infantry?

Answer to that is fairly obvious.

Hmmm this is true, his problem is that the CAI keeps spamming super troops. What difficulty is this on? It can explain why the AI is spending so much money on these elite troops rather than spreading it out. I know hard mode adds money bonuses, does this make the AI less sensitive to "smart spending"? If this occurs on both difficulties than all you can blame is the engine, or the RS2 team for making these campains super tense and unforgiving. Im at a lost.

[onmy6]

Your dead right High Fist although I am enjoying the debate as a relative spectator, good points from one and all.

[ooji]

I am playing on medium/medium difficulty by the way

Like SD_Man said, I keep facing full stacks of heavy spearmen armies over and over again. Garrison troops appearing after 1 turn doesn't help either. I guess the point I'm wondering is, is it possible to for the modding team to make barbarians lightly armored? I don't like the fact that their heavy spearmen have the same stats as my legions. It especially matters during siege warfare on the walls.

[dvk901]

Like SD_Man said, I keep facing full stacks of heavy spearmen armies over and over again. Garrison troops appearing after 1 turn doesn't help either. I guess the point I'm wondering is, is it possible to for the modding team to make barbarians lightly armored? I don't like the fact that their heavy spearmen have the same stats as my legions. It especially matters during siege warfare on the walls.

It is true that not all Barbarian warriors were heavily armored....basically, the wealthier men bought it, or the others 'lifted' it from the dead. It is also true that during our time period, the Barbarian armies depended on brute force to overcome a Roman army. It was a known issue that if the Romans withstood the first assault...which was intended to overwhelm them with numbers and bodies....then the Barbs were likely in trouble, because the superior tactics and leadership of the Romans would then remain in place, and would be used to chop the enemy to pieces. However, as I said earlier, there is no way to accurately portray this in RTW with just unit sizes and stats to work with.

The alternative proposed.....which is to 'buff' Roman stats to actually MAKE them superior, or reduce Barb stats to do the same.....is unacceptable. There is no point to a campaign where the player just wins every battle easily and runs over all opponents when in fact this was not the case. Heck, as it is, the player wins nearly every battle anyways. So an additional advantage just makes it all the easier. RS2 is not about creating the Vanilla RTW\Rome2 experience of winning for winning's sake, and making everybody happy about themselves because they won. It is supposed to be hard. It is meant to be a challenge. And in the process of playing you will lose men and be forced to retrain\resupply armies. Sometimes, you may not be able to do that fast enough, and levy armies will show up to greet you for coming into their lands and bothering them. Then you may lose an army altogether, or have to retreat, and next time, bring a couple armies.

I guess what I'm saying is that RS2 isn't just a 'pretty' version of the Vanilla play style. All those who worked on and created RS2 had had enough of the too easy campaigns. We wanted a game where it was possible to lose....and at the very least, where great effort and planning and tactical decisions were required to win. Making ANY faction statistically better than another just defeats that purpose.