Cataphract legions only 1 pilum, marian legions less hp than principes

[meerkatology]

marian legions 50 hp, principes 65.
all legions above principe have the same moral

all legions 2 pila but cataphract legions only 1 pilum while being more expensive

also late triari are worse than early triari

just wondering, are these intended?

[shawn858]

I can't speak for the triarii but historically the roman legions during the time of the empire phased out the use of two pila in favor of one

[yukishiro1]

Late roman forces probably weren't superior to early roman ones. This plays with our normal ideas about game balance and evolution, but I'm not sure those ideas are all that important. And even if the individual units are a little worse, you can field far greater numbers of them by that time. So it sort of makes up for it.

[antred]

Late roman forces probably weren't superior to early roman ones.

Is there any evidence to suggest they were inferior, though?

[AnimaMea]

Is there any evidence to suggest they were inferior, though?

I remember a user posting a few months back that chainmail is actually more protective than lorica segmentata, but is far more expensive and time-consuming to produce; i should imagine that standardisation of equipment meant that, while armour could often be a little weaker, it could be produced more quickly and issued far more widely...while a principe might be better armoured than a legionary, the legionary is better armoured than hastati etc, and the majority of your men are better off, even if the quality of their equipment doesn't quite match that of your best soldiers pre-reform

[antred]

I remember a user posting a few months back that chainmail is actually more protective than lorica segmentata, but is far more expensive and time-consuming to produce; i should imagine that standardisation of equipment meant that, while armour could often be a little weaker, it could be produced more quickly and issued far more widely...while a principe might be better armoured than a legionary, the legionary is better armoured than hastati etc, and the majority of your men are better off, even if the quality of their equipment doesn't quite match that of your best soldiers pre-reform

Well, ironically late-game Roman units in the game have generally better armor than their early counterparts but suffer from lower melee defense and sometimes melee attack ratings. But I was actually thinking of how late Triarii are all-around worse than early Triarii, and I was wondering what that was based on. Is there any reason to assume that late Triarii were less skilled than early Triarii?

[JObadiah]

Well, ironically late-game Roman units in the game have generally better armor than their early counterparts but suffer from lower melee defense and sometimes melee attack ratings. But I was actually thinking of how late Triarii are all-around worse than early Triarii, and I was wondering what that was based on. Is there any reason to assume that late Triarii were less skilled than early Triarii?

Late Triarii are slightly better than early Triarii. +2 attack, same base defense, same armor, but -2 defense and +2 armor because of the different shield (I guess the idea is that they're using sturdier but less maneuverable shields than early Triarii).

[ALganhar]

I remember a user posting a few months back that chainmail is actually more protective than lorica segmentata, but is far more expensive and time-consuming to produce; i should imagine that standardisation of equipment meant that, while armour could often be a little weaker, it could be produced more quickly and issued far more widely...while a principe might be better armoured than a legionary, the legionary is better armoured than hastati etc, and the majority of your men are better off, even if the quality of their equipment doesn't quite match that of your best soldiers pre-reform

Pretty much likely, Maille (the correct term for chainmail) is riveted, each link is manually riveted using 1 - 3 rivets for every link depending on the quality. A Maille shirt would likely use somewhere in the region of 30,000 links (assuming about 6mm links), so yes, it is VERY time consuming, I have made a maille shirt so have some knowledge of the time involved... though Roman period smiths were more skilled than I am so faster, it still gives me a good idea off the effort involved. Lorica segmenta lacked most of the finely sloped surfaces of later plate armours, specifically the late medieval period, so considering the skill of the smiths at the time was almost certainly *faster* to make than maille, though whether it was cheaper I cant say.

I also cant say whether the protection differed for certain, Maille would likely be worse vs blunt trauma even with a gambeson or similar, and definately worse against a fine pointed stabbing weapon that can force the links apart (take a look at the gladius some time!). Against slashing weapons it might be superior, but so long as the metal quality of the Lorica Segmenta was good I would say it was probably the superior armour. But that is only probably, Maille is more comfortable than Lorica Segmenta though, and it allows better movement, though both are tiring to wear for extended periods. If I was given a choice, I would go for maille, but then I have fought in Maille often, and only work Segmenta twice, so am not used to the armour.

Few thoughts that might add some light...

[Klierowski]

But are the late units using lorica sagmentata cheaper than those early with did use chainmail ?

[JObadiah]

marian legions 50 hp, principes 65.
all legions above principe have the same moral

all legions 2 pila but cataphract legions only 1 pilum while being more expensive

also late triari are worse than early triari

just wondering, are these intended?

I'm not seeing such huge differences in hp. principes have 65 hp; legionaries and legionary cohorts have 63 hp (and are superior to principes in every other way).

[jantspo]

It makes sense when you think about it.

Prinicipes payed for their own armor, so they would likely buy the best they could afford from the best armor makers they could, Marian's legions would likely have been supplied by whoever could produce the quantity they needed, and mass production usually results in inferior quality.

Principes were also not recruits, they were veterans in the prime of their life. Legionnaires would have been anyone from people who wanted to serve to people who just didn't see another way of moving ahead in Roman society.

I've never understood the assumption that Legionnaires were inherently better than Polybian legions. It was logistics, manpower, and standardization, more than anything else. Instead of having 3 distinct groups of heavy infantry, each with different equipment, they made 1 group with standardized equipment.

[antred]

I've never understood the assumption that Legionnaires were inherently better than Polybian legions. It was logistics, manpower, and standardization, more than anything else. Instead of having 3 distinct groups of heavy infantry, each with different equipment, they made 1 group with standardized equipment.

How about the fact that they were professional soldiers that trained year around.

[meerkatology]

Late legions were fully professional soldiers that trained 24/7 and war was their life.
principes were regular richer citizens they did not train as much as the legionaries.

lorica segmenta was superior defensively than the mail, just look at it, mail does very little in preventing blunt trauma and also sharp pointy things like arrows pierced mail easier than it would to solid strips of metal in segmenta.
mail however, is more flexible, but also heavier than segmenta.

comitatenses in the later empire when rome was on its downfall reverted back to mail instead of segmenta because they no longer had the facilities to produce it. mail was less complex to make although possibly more expensive.

[juanplay]

Late legions were fully professional soldiers that trained 24/7 and war was their life.
principes were regular richer citizens they did not train as much as the legionaries.

lorica segmenta was superior defensively than the mail, just look at it, mail does very little in preventing blunt trauma and also sharp pointy things like arrows pierced mail easier than it would to solid strips of metal in segmenta.
mail however, is more flexible, but also heavier than segmenta.


comitatenses in the later empire when rome was on its downfall reverted back to mail instead of segmenta because they no longer had the facilities to produce it. mail was less complex to make although possibly more expensive.

If anything the late roman army could deploy more heavily armoured troops, one example would be the cataphracts and the clibanarium the empire used constantly fron end of the thrid century, also you have to remember that in wasnt until diocletian`s time when the empire finally had a network of "factories" exclusively dedicated to make armor and weapons.

[meerkatology]

If anything the late roman army could deploy more heavily armoured troops, one example would be the cataphracts and the clibanarium the empire used constantly fron end of the thrid century, also you have to remember that in wasnt until diocletian`s time when the empire finally had a network of "factories" exclusively dedicated to make armor and weapons.

we cant compare cavalry armor to infantry because cavalry gets hit in different places, infantry gets hit by overhead slashs on the shoulder quite often thats why armor almost invariably has lots of shoulder protection on infantry, cavalry on the otherhand never gets hit by overhead attacks over the shoulder since they are taller, they also need to fight on horseback and likely needs more flexiblity, scale mail is generally better for that purpose and offered more "pointy" object protection compared to chain mail, thats why cataphracts used scale mail and they also had multiple layers of padding for extra blunt protection. its also easier to cover the whole body with scale mail since the cavalry had a larger surface to cover.

infantry needed higher quality protection in smaller more vital/exposed areas since thier shield and formations protected the rest of thier body reasonably well. so simply can't compare cavalry and infantry armor using the same standards.

late late empire also focused much more on cavalry for its mobility and overall shift in the meta game. infantry was no longer rome's elite unit and was 2nd classes to the scholari and likely didn't even get the best equipment anyway. they just got equiped with whatever was most convenient.

[Tripledot]

How about the fact that they were professional soldiers that trained year around.

This is modeled by the Combat Tactics tech tree. Comparing base stats does not account for the considerable bonuses that tech gives.

[antred]

This is modeled by the Combat Tactics tech tree. Comparing base stats does not account for the considerable bonuses that tech gives.

Good point.

[meerkatology]

This is modeled by the Combat Tactics tech tree. Comparing base stats does not account for the considerable bonuses that tech gives.

they give the same bonuses to all units, ie. if u dont get reforms ur premarian units still get the same bonuses i dont see how this affects the argument at hand

[caprera]

How about the fact that they were professional soldiers that trained year around.

This is a bit too modern interpretation of the "Professional Roman soldiers". Legionaries were "worse" as you could say on the average because they were trained to be good standard soldiers with good standardized weaponry and equipment.
They had to be reliable and capable yes, but most of all available in numbers and rapidly in case of need. Logistic, when for other armies it didn't even exists, did the rest for the success of a said campaign.

So a single nobleman, in the Republic years, someone that had the money to really train every day for all the year couldn't give a F.... about the average legionary in the Empire years. Same goes for Gauls, Easterners and Greeks.

[JObadiah]

This is a bit too modern interpretation of the "Professional Roman soldiers". Legionaries were "worse" as you could say on the average because they were trained to be good standard soldiers with good standardized weaponry and equipment.
They had to be reliable and capable yes, but most of all available in numbers and rapidly in case of need. Logistic, when for other armies it didn't even exists, did the rest for the success of a said campaign.

So a single nobleman, in the Republic years, someone that had the money to really train every day for all the year couldn't give a F.... about the average legionary in the Empire years. Same goes for Gauls, Easterners and Greeks.

Perhaps overstated, but yes, the professional Roman army did not train to fight 24/7. They spent almost all their time either marching or building stuff. They would have been in magnificent physical condition, but not necessarily the best or even bravest sword-fighters ever. Even modern infantrymen aren't especially great marksmen, on average, simply because for the most part, they don't have to be, and they're really busy doing stuff other than target shooting.