Rome starts with Principes in its starting army now but cannot recruit them? How does this make sense?

[auboy]

Also I feel like I am cheating starting out with an army that now rivals the Seleucids? What gives?

[Summary]

Can you please be more elaborate? Starting out with an army that rivals the Seleucids in what way? Also if you play it rightly you can have your first for principes by turn 7.

[auboy]

Can you please be more elaborate? Starting out with an army that rivals the Seleucids in what way? Also if you play it rightly you can have your first for principes by turn 7.

Yes as others have said it does not make sense for nations to start with units they cannot recruit yet or have tech for. Rivals the Seleucids in size now.

[Cope]

I think he means that sometimes starting armies out-tech what you are currently able to build. For instance if you play as Macedon you start out with a unit of Thessalonian cavalry which you cannot recruit until much later in the game.

[quaz601]

it is weird but I think its for gameplay balancing purposes making a submod that makes all units available at the start would be nice but would take a ton of editing since now late era units are unlocked by scripts this would still be historical and unit caps would still be in place

[Dresden]

I added the Principes unit to one Roman army to represent them having a small core of elite nobles in the force.

[Dresden]

I think it makes sense. You can get Principes fairly quickly. Why does it matter if they have one existing unit slightly before you can recruit it?

[spirroouu]

Doesn't every faction get a few more "advanced" units in their starting army? Such as the Arche getting horse archers that are unique units that can't be recruited anywhere else?

[Cope]

Ofc you also get your generals bodyguard, which for many factions requires the lvl IV barracks to acquire. No-one really ever comments on that.

[auboy]

Hmm maybe there could be a sub mod where starting generals and units cannot be upgraded before the tech is researched. Maybe they start as hastati or something on par with other standard starting units...

[Purplzhazy]

Roman's armies should have Hastati, Principes and Triarii at the start of the game.

[antred]

Roman's armies should have Hastati, Principes and Triarii at the start of the game.

I agree. Principes and Triarii should be available from the get-go. They certainly had them in 278 B.C. in real life.

[Lieutenant Sharpe]

I agree. Principes and Triarii should be available from the get-go. They certainly had them in 278 B.C. in real life.

For balancing reasons if every polybian unit is available at the very beginning then other nations would require this also. Eastern heavy cataphracts, Carthaginian elephants, spartan hoplites, other elite units. I do wish that nations would start with more infrastructure and unit availability but that also defeats the purpose of constructing buildings. It's a trade off and up to the modders to choose how to approach this.

[Baldos]

Roman's armies should have Hastati, Principes and Triarii at the start of the game.

I agree .....there is historical evidence that the polybian reforms happened by "early 3rd century BC" see The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy pp 26-33.

[Summary]

It's a case of the glass half full or half empty. I see it as a bonus to have an elite unit and try not to focus on the negative that those can't be recruited right off the bat. Also makes no sense for generals to be hastati considering they were wealthier and therefore had access to better weaponry and armour than the core army.

[cerebral]

I had waited for AoR introduction to play as Rome and just recently started a campaign after a hiatus from the game. I believe Principes and Triarii are unlocked at the 2nd level barracks correct? Which is rapidly accessed through very little research. In this sense, I don't mind. As such having an early unit of them, etc, doesn't break the immersion or anything for me. The wealthy and such would have access at an earlier point to better equipment etc than the "standardization" of the whole. Not being able to recruit Principe/Triarii right away is np for me in that sense, needing a commitment on the players part to make it a standardized norm that appears in all armies. Til then having a unit or two sprinkled in is alright, it sort of represents the transition to me. As for the dates, ie: "historically principle were available blah blah blah" is alright with me cuz the game doesn't accurately represent real-world timelines. Game starts at what? 272 BC? The Marian reforms were in 107 BC if I remember correctly? That's 165 years or 660 turns (4 turns per year). Yeah....... Anyone had a campaign that went to 660 turns?

I can never take arguments of chronological accuracy all that seriously when it comes to this game. It wasn't built that way.

[Summary]

Well most people feel that Romans should start with all three maniples ranks as it is historically accurate. If you ever played a Spartan campaign, you will realise that the first Spartan hoplite you recruit is only after you build the level 3 barracks. Kind of makes no sense because Spartan hoplites existed in 400 BC as well.

Pretty much for the first 30 turns or thereabouts the Spartan campaign involves early expansion using purely Perioikoi and Helot armies with the exception of you generals bodyguard.

Within this time I find myself as the sole undisputed power in all of Ancient Greece, Magna Graecia, Thracia and Southern Gaul. So pretty much a huge chunk out of my early campaigning sans Spartan units.

[Cope]

Well most people feel that Romans should start with all three maniples ranks as it is historically accurate. If you ever played a Spartan campaign, you will realise that the first Spartan hoplite you recruit is only after you build the level 3 barracks. Kind of makes no sense because Spartan hoplites existed in 400 BC as well.

Pretty much for the first 30 turns or thereabouts the Spartan campaign involves early expansion using purely Perioikoi and Helot armies with the exception of you generals bodyguard.

Within this time I find myself as the sole undisputed power in all of Ancient Greece, Magna Graecia, Thracia and Southern Gaul. So pretty much a huge chunk out of my early campaigning sans Spartan units.

You conquer the whole of Greece, Magna Graecia, Thracia and Southern Gaul in 30 turns using Sparta?

In any event the obvious problem is balance. I don't think it's fair that people should be able to get elite Spartan hoplites from the start of the game. As Lt. Sharpe said, that would defeat the whole purpose of buildings, technology etc and therefore undermine the very nature of Total War itself. The only way it would be possible is if they (Spartan Hoplites) were nerfed to create wider game balance, but then people would complain that they are underpowered. I haven't actually played a Spartan campaign (ever surprisingly) but I'm pretty sure that they can get standard hoplites from the start anyway. Is it really such a big deal that the unit doesn't have the word 'Spartan' in front of it?

One of the things I find most intriguing about all Total War games is how passionate people get about an integar in the bottom right of the screen that has literally no effect on game play whatsoever. Of course I understand it has an influence on historical immersion, but I think generally speaking it should be taken a lot less seriously because at the end of the day its a video game and there is only so much that can be done to cater for all requirements regarding unit recruitment, turns per year, campaign length and so on. Some historical sacrifices have to be made along the way to make a game with Rome II's time and map span playable.

On another note, lots of people seem to want hoplites to be exceptionally good but from what little I know about the period they were past their heyday by this time period anyway, as were the Spartans in general. That being said I assume that for 1.0 Greek spears and pikes will be better balanced in battles to reflect - inasmuch as the game will allow - how they operated in real life.

[Summary]

Ummm i don't get any Spartan units. I'm not taking about the elites. Yes i understand the whole defeats the purpose of building upgrades. But my point is while i can live with the fact that Spartans are not available for recruitment till about 30 turns, why are some roman fan boys crying for principes so badly.

Also conquering alot of land doesn't highlight a balance issue. When you play your diplomacy cards right confederations are easy to form.

And yes the word Spartan in front of a unit does make a big difference because if you read your history right, in the Spartan society, all Spartan male citizens were warriors and hence always available as a standing army. If course at this time period their numbers were dwindling but that doesn't mean they fought wars and battles with an army comprised entirely of perioikoi and slaves. i.e all non Spartan citizen army.

Nobody mentioned the integer of stats and balance here, you are the first to surface that thought and it can be clearly sensed from your writing that you are strongly in favour of leaving hoplites unaddressed. That is not the subject of the thread so i will not discuss further into it.

My point is when Spartan campaign can go 30 turns using slaves and merchant as their core and only army, why so much hurt over waiting 7 turns to recruit principes?

[FlashHeart07]

Ummm i don't get any Spartan units. I'm not taking about the elites. Yes i understand the whole defeats the purpose of building upgrades. But my point is while i can live with the fact that Spartans are not available for recruitment till about 30 turns, why are some roman fan boys crying for principes so badly.

Also conquering alot of land doesn't highlight a balance issue. When you play your diplomacy cards right confederations are easy to form.

And yes the word Spartan in front of a unit does make a big difference because if you read your history right, in the Spartan society, all Spartan male citizens were warriors and hence always available as a standing army. If course at this time period their numbers were dwindling but that doesn't mean they fought wars and battles with an army comprised entirely of perioikoi and slaves. i.e all non Spartan citizen army.

Nobody mentioned the integer of stats and balance here, you are the first to surface that thought and it can be clearly sensed from your writing that you are strongly in favour of leaving hoplites unaddressed. That is not the subject of the thread so i will not discuss further into it.

My point is when Spartan campaign can go 30 turns using slaves and merchant as their core and only army, why so much hurt over waiting 7 turns to recruit principes?

I get it Summary you want units of different strength and quality somewhat like the romans with hastati < principes < triarii but for the spartans and they should be called spartans. So you would be able from the start to recruit spartan soldiers but with little battle experience and when progressing through the game you would be able to recruit stronger and more experienced spartan troops? Or at least something like that. All units including hoplites will be balanced for version 1.0 so dont worry

You of all people with the countless threads you and I have answered should know how people complain about minor issues your suggestion is noted and I agree that it does seem odd that no core spartan units is available.