Why do Roman units have relatively low upkeep despite their superior armor and skills?

[ooji]

Just curious. Is that an attempt by the team to make Rome stronger? Even levy units of other factions cost only 40 or 50 less than the upkeep cost of principles, why is that?

[seleucid empire]

I believe they were historical reasons: Rome did have the ability to raise armies quickly and keep them in the field. I suspect it is also to make AI Rome expand better.

However I personally hate the stacks of camilian triarii and allied elite infantry they send at you


EDIT: oh you were asking about upkeep. Hmm maybe someone else can answer that

[Regi12]

Well, it is kinda ridiculous having tiny factions able to field multiple full stacks that can go toe-to-toe and outnumber Rome's armies. Maybe it is sort of a counterweight to that?

[Boriak]

I think it was mentioned somewhere that the lower upkeep simulates a large population pool from which Rome could draw troops from. In the early game, yearly report says that a census of Roman population yielded around 300,000 people. If a fifth of that is adult males, it still means 60,000 potential troops. Include Latin 'allies' and no wonder Hannibal was the only one that managed to deplete their manpower.

[Ownager]

Do you have any references? Tell me why roman units are overpowered than their upkeep shows. Tell me why this is historically inaccurate. Give me sources who say otherwise.

[athanaric]

Do you have any references? Tell me why roman units are overpowered than their upkeep shows. Tell me why this is historically inaccurate. Give me sources who say otherwise.

No need to go all academic here, it's well known that the cost and upkeep of Roman units is lower than that of their equivalents. Same thing with Parthian and Armenian units: Parthian armoured HAs are cheaper than Armenian ones despite being identical stat wise (they're even slightly superior because they have a banner bearer).

It's basically one of these classical faction bonuses that you'll get in many RTS games; personally I don't like them much because they're very abstract.

[Ownager]

Heeey, it's what Entropy would have done. Facts. Hard cold facts. And maybe some stats. And a layer of history. With gameplay gravy and personal experience for dessert.

[Entropy Judge]

Heeey, it's what Entropy would have done. Facts. Hard cold facts. And maybe some stats. And a layer of history. With gameplay gravy and personal experience for dessert.

My issue was that you appeared to be claiming that the Romans were unfairly buffed by their stats relative to other factions' 'elites,' not cost/upkeep - which, IIRC old topics on the subject, is supposed to show the Roman proclivity for taking hideous losses and throwing more men at the problem (particularly the examples of Pyrrhos and Hannibal in Italy, where despite carving up multiple Roman armies, the Romans simply built more and said "Thank you, may I have another?" Most civilizations of the time would have started suing for peace, instead of just picking themselves up and getting ready for another go.)

[athanaric]

My issue was that you appeared to be claiming that the Romans were unfairly buffed by their stats relative to other factions' 'elites,' not cost/upkeep - which, IIRC old topics on the subject, is supposed to show the Roman proclivity for taking hideous losses and throwing more men at the problem (particularly the examples of Pyrrhos and Hannibal in Italy, where despite carving up multiple Roman armies, the Romans simply built more and said "Thank you, may I have another?" Most civilizations of the time would have started suing for peace, instead of just picking themselves up and getting ready for another go.)

Which may be explained by - apart from reasons related to Roman attitudes and to their political system - the relatively high population of the Italian peninsula, which in turn is enabled by its greater degree of fertility compared to the rest of the Med. Basically, it combines the advantages of Germania (better soil, more humid climate) and Greece (mild winters, large variety of suitable crops).

Yes. It does seem unfair when using your regular units, you can crush most enemy elites.

You can do that with the other faction as well, though. The difference is that Rome's mid tier units cost less (and they have the strongest tech tree in the game), adding insult to injury.

Their only weakness is cavalry after Marian reforms.

They're also not very great in terms of missile units, mid-tier spearmen, high lethality infantry, and AP melee infantry. Although that is offset by their good access to the Celtic, Greek, Germanic, and North African rosters even before the Marian reforms.

[Ownager]

Yes. It does seem unfair when using your regular units, you can crush most enemy elites. Rome focused to much on the middle section. With few elites and few low class units, all of their medium units can trump elites in a good match. Their only weakness is cavalry after Marian reforms. Atleast I added some personal experience dessert.

[ooji]

Do you have any references? Tell me why roman units are overpowered than their upkeep shows. Tell me why this is historically inaccurate. Give me sources who say otherwise.

No one said they were overpowered buddy. Like Athanaric said, Roman units seem to have relatively low upkeep costs compared to other factions' units of similar skill. And it was a question, not a statement

[Ownager]

Which would make them over powered. It was actually a joke. See above.

[ooji]

I wouldn't say overpowered. It gives a slight economic advantage to Rome, but nothing that would make it overpowered. Anyhow, does anyone know what could be the reasons Roman units have lower upkeep costs? Could it be Roman military organization that made it less costly?

[Ownager]

I do remember that Hastati were farmers who went back tot heir fields after their service. I think recruiting soldiers only part-time might help. Maybe?

[Boriak]

I think that after the Second Punic War Rome had to maintain an army all-year round to pursue their external politics. That's why Marius switched to a professional army.

[Ownager]

But it was a long time from the end of the second Punic war to the Marian reforms. 95 years I think.

[athanaric]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_reforms

Before we start the guessing game

@ Boriak. I think you're confusing the Punic Wars with the Cimbri invasion here.

[Boriak]

@ Boriak. I think you're confusing the Punic Wars with the Cimbri invasion here.

No, I'm quite familiar with the two. I was refering to the fact that the Second Punic War was a war of huge proportions and that while it did exhaust the Roman manpower significantly, it also gave Rome the dominant status in the Mediterranean and any dominant force is constantly contested. Makedonia, Greece, Seleukids, Iberia, Rome fought them all. There was no long-term peace time in the 1st Century BC for them. I would assume that it made their military machine very well developed and the men fighting devoted 100% to training and fighting. The fact that Marius finally said "Fine, everyone who's a soldier, gets to be paid to be a soldier" was not something that came out of nowhere. It was a long time in the making.

[Ownager]

202 to 107. That's a long time.

[athanaric]

Well yeah, if you see it that way. However I think that socioeconomic factors (the agricultural crisis and its ramifications) are more important.