What's wrong with the roman ?

[tonmai2541]

Seriously, the romans are just up right now. Here is why

1.the camilian period should be over already when we start the campaign, right ? Is this intentional?

2.After I found a way to mod it so that I got to polybian right away, another problem came up: the polybian units are as weak as before. By the word 'weak' I mean not being able to stand up to the world's competition for more land and money which the roman, as I understand it, should have become quite a boss already.

3.So I got curiuos and test it out. imperial guard vs some oathsworn or whatever it's called, hastati vs celticwarrior, and hastati vs tribesmen. only the last one survive, barely; they took out around 50 and mine took only 40 of them.

an outcome like this post camalian is just unacceptable, so

explanation ?

oh, I love dei though. Especialy all these ideas about reforms and stuffs like that

[antred]

Apparently the DeI team will start balancing stats with version 1.0. Up to this point they've mainly concentrated on adding new units and factions, at least I think that's what they said in some other thread.

[rjacko10]

Someone has made a submod to power up the Romans - have a look!

t's because they have 0 initiative - and initiative is OP. This problem has been talked about extensively.

I'm sure the amazing modders will balance it all soon.

[Agraza]

My romans are quite effective. I'm curious how strong they'll be if they get buffed. The morale of every celt, gaul, and african I've come up against is pathetic. My boys hold the line against twice their number while I flank them, and the show is over.

[Phil2]

My romans are quite effective. I'm curious how strong they'll be if they get buffed. The morale of every celt, gaul, and african I've come up against is pathetic. My boys hold the line against twice their number while I flank them, and the show is over.

Get about the same feeling, even though i recently lost some battles as the campaign is evolving.
Some faction i fought against are stronger than others, mainly Lusitanians, Nervians, Atrebates and i found incredibly strong Dumonii (in britania).
I simply lost a 1vs1 battle against simple Dumonii, all my legionaries beeing upgraded to 3 bronze chevrons! (no weapon/shield bonus though).
My general was 5 stars, with plenty bonuses, and had a Mars statuette as house hold member...
Was very surprised, as i used same tactics as before, and even hammering from back was uneffective!
I noticed my troops were loosing morale faster than before, so i suspect an ennemy spy or champion could have bad thing to my army.
It was a close defeat, and still can't explain what happened here...as my opponents barely get 1/2 bronze chevrons.

That's true Africans wariors morale makes me smile each battle against them.
Recently found an incredible video, where 1000 Spartians won against...20 000 eastern spearmen!!
Don't think it was using DEI though...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gCGrovLF7Y

[EpicFrench]

It really relies on a lot of things, firstly how you play Romans, they fought as one and formation was very important in Roma Armies !

Secondly, the difficulty you playin', it can give huge bonuses to AI.

If you have some throwing troops use them from behind, and then after charge with some troops in the back of enemy army !

[Damocles]

Seriously, the romans are just up right now. Here is why

1.the camilian period should be over already when we start the campaign, right ? Is this intentional?

2.After I found a way to mod it so that I got to polybian right away, another problem came up: the polybian units are as weak as before. By the word 'weak' I mean not being able to stand up to the world's competition for more land and money which the roman, as I understand it, should have become quite a boss already.

3.So I got curiuos and test it out. imperial guard vs some oathsworn or whatever it's called, hastati vs celticwarrior, and hastati vs tribesmen. only the last one survive, barely; they took out around 50 and mine took only 40 of them.

an outcome like this post camalian is just unacceptable, so

explanation ?

oh, I love dei though. Especialy all these ideas about reforms and stuffs like that

There's been a couple recent threads on this issue. I think the DeI team is aware of changes that need to be made. Or at least, one or two of them is.

My romans are quite effective. I'm curious how strong they'll be if they get buffed. The morale of every celt, gaul, and african I've come up against is pathetic. My boys hold the line against twice their number while I flank them, and the show is over.

Someone's always gotta be that guy.

Yes, Mr. Tactical Genius, we're well aware of flanking. That's a separate topic, and the source of several threads that have been raised recently. All of DeI troops are extremely resistant to breaking, which means you can use any crappy levy unit as a hammer, while waltzing the rest of your troops around to hit the AI in the rear...as the rear attack has some hard coded morale hits to it which can trigger a rout.

However, if you simply have a legionary and some Gallic tribesman duke it out, the legionaries will get destroyed. (This is owing to barbarians having significant initiative/deadliness advantages).

Your tactic of abusing the hammer and anvil could be successfully completed with any army, and is indeed, how I trudged through a Caesar in Gaul campaign against various druid chanting phalanx/shield walling Gauls (nearly whole armies of Carnute Cingetos, which were supposed to be a semi-fantastic rare elite unit).

[Wittman]

Believe it or not,in all my dei campaings,i never fought againts Rome,not once!(and i played a lot of campaigns)
They always get destroyed by some random faction and thats that,Massilia destroyed them in my carthaginian campaign.Can this issue be fixed or?

[Phil2]

Believe it or not,in all my dei campaings,i never fought againts Rome,not once!(and i played a lot of campaigns)
They always get destroyed by some random faction and thats that,Massilia destroyed them in my carthaginian campaign.Can this issue be fixed or?

In the sub-mod for DEI, there is a major faction mod wich will keep them alive, i think.

[Damocles]

What Rome really needs aside from the revised unit roster, is an increased unit recruitment cap in the home province of Italia. The seemingly endless manpower they were able to call upon from these territories, exhibiting a level of mobilization far higher than their most dangerous foes of the 3rd Century (Carthage, the Gauls and Epirus), was the principal reason for their success, along with their ability to learn from failure.

[Agraza]

1 on 1 battles are irrelevant. Use tactics. If the AI is being beaten regularly, changes may be needed to elevate their income so they can develop more significant manpower when the player isn't involved. The roman's advantage was in manpower, equipment, and good logistics allowing them to project power afield. None of that is "romans were big strong men fighting everyone 1 on 1". I don't want every country choice to be homogenous. Rome should play to its strengths, and that should be movement speed, replenishment rate, and equipment.

Rome lost plenty. Their ability to recover was significant. Your armies should get curbstomped from time to time. It gives you someone to hate and makes the campaign worth remembering.

[antred]

1 on 1 battles are irrelevant. Use tactics. If the AI is being beaten regularly, changes may be needed to elevate their income so they can develop more significant manpower when the player isn't involved. The roman's advantage was in manpower, equipment, and good logistics allowing them to project power afield. None of that is "romans were big strong men fighting everyone 1 on 1".

No, but it certainly wasn't "Romans are pathetic weaklings that get trounced by just about everyone in a 1-on-1" either. Sadly, at the moment that's exactly what it's like, though.

P.S. And by 1-on-1, I mean unit vs unit, not man vs man.

[Menulo]

its a general problem with sword units. they are just really kinda since they have no initiative so in a 1v1 with any spear units they wil struggle immensely. i replaced most of my hoplite's with thorax legionaires as athens, only to find that they are just worse in most ways. they struggle 1v1 against garison spearmen since its 3 vs 0 initiative, its really pointless to have swordsmen as your frontline. they are really only usefull as a flanking units, but since i have cavalry and elephants i dont really need that...

i give the roman and greek legionaires shield wall, this does help a bit i feel.

[antred]

i give the roman and greek legionaires shield wall, this does help a bit i feel.

Don't get me started on those silly phalanx / shield wall formation buttons. There shouldn't be the frickin' button for that since it should be the default in the first place. What exactly is a shield wall if not a closely packed unit that uses its shields for protection, and how would that differ from the way the Romans fought? Same thing with spear / pike units.

[Mithridates II the Great]

I played as Rome in my last campaign but it was weird .

My cohort and main army was torn apart by Iceni in melee although I used them to defend not to attack .

The other weird thing was Iceni chariots that were more like tanks . They could cross 300 first cohort units with no casualties , even when I attacked them they remained 23/23 .

[Agraza]

Shield Wall was virtually a monopoly in infantry tactics in this period, but they're not all the same. The romans used several variations of it, including the famous Testudo. But they rarely ever used overlapping shields side to side since the scutum wasn't designed for that. Overlapping side to side tends to go hand in hand with spears since you need the reach to be able to use that kind of inflexible protection. The romans more often used their shields actively in the melee, blocking various thrusts and bashing their opponents with it. They considered the gaps an opportunity rather than a weakness.

They also used the overlapping nature of the phalanx against its users by pinning shields together with pila. Pila were very strong javelins of the era. They were extremely well designed to penetrate wooden shields, and given the proximity at which they were used, the defender had no time to extricate the pilum. So they now had a very unwieldy shield(s) or none.

[Petar]

Been playing a campaign with Rome for quite a while. First of all the Triarii seem to be the best defensive unit in the game. They have brutal stats! The Roman heavy sword infantry also have very good stats. After I upgrade their armour and weapons and once they get more experienced there is nothing that can stand before them. Same goes with some of the Hellenic hoplites - their stats seem so buffed that any other infantry (especially the Eastern ones) feel like ragged gypsies in comparison.
While I have completely different experience from the OP, my wish for improved balance is the same. Stats wise the units from different cultures should have similar stats if similarly equipped. As history shows, battle tactics and formations should be what makes the real difference.

[EpicFrench]

Balance is discussed with the team, they will do their best to balance the units !

[Cavalier]

Are you by any chance playing on a difficulty above Normal? I find Normal to be the best balance when playing DeI, and especially as the Romans.

[Sir Walter]

Playing through a Rome campaign and so far I've been quite happy with the combat balance. Hastati can't just unrealistically smash through a unit of tough barbarians like back in good old Rome 1, but if you reinforce them with a second rank of principes then they can hold out and wear them down till you manoeuvre decisively to overwhelm the enemy - and isn't the objective to force players to actually use tactics to win anyway?