Is it possible to change Rome's starting armies to make more sense?

[Ivan_Moscavich]

It has always bugged me how Rome starts out with really weird armies, and really I don't consider it historical at all given the circumstances.
They have one princpes, and a bunch of hastate, but no triarii or equites, and no socii troops to be found anywhere.

What I'd like is for either there to be one Roman army already outfitted, or have the three armies they start with partially outfitted each.

Say, one Army with the following layout;
2 Hastati
2 Socii hastate
2 Princpes
2 Socii Princpes
2 Triarii
2 Socii Triarii
1 Equites
1 Socii equites
1 soci equites extrodinare
2 slingers
2 leves

If that's way too much on the economy (or just balatantly op for turn 1)

Maybe three armies with the following layout;
1 hastate
1 socii hastate
1 princpes
1 socii princpes
1 equites
1 socii equites

The later might be better, as it doesn't include really economy draining units, but still gives rome a flexible, decent starting set of armies which more closely mirror what they should be using.

I could do it myself if I knew where to look and spent a short time reading on how to use the psf editor, provided it's no more complicated than editing lua scripting for something like Hearts of Iron.

[FlashHeart07]

I suppose this would be for the AI only since armies with these units for the player would make it too easy. Also cav will put an Extreme pressure on your economy due to their high upkeep.

[Daergar]

I'll just point out that the most viable starting strategy for me personally is to disband everything Rome starts with. The upkeep on what you suggest, while I'm sure makes a lot of sense, would cripple your starting economy.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

I suppose this would be for the AI only since armies with these units for the player would make it too easy. Also cav will put an Extreme pressure on your economy due to their high upkeep.

It would make fighting against rome early on a lot more appealing from a historical perspective, and it wouldn't make it that easy. You'd have a lot less cash to work with, so your options would be to either keep your army and grow the economy slowly, or to disband some of the army and work on your economy.

The second option I tend to like better, about the types of starting armies I mean. And you could swap out one or both cav for slingers/leves in the roster.

It's just odd to see Rome with one of the weakest starting armys of the major nations as far as variety goes. Heck, Epirus starts with an elephant (albeit a very expensive mercenary elephant)!
Athens and Sparta both start with a bread and butter army of a few hoplites, a pike, and some ranged units.

I'll just point out that the most viable starting strategy for me personally is to disband everything Rome starts with. The upkeep on what you suggest, while I'm sure makes a lot of sense, would cripple your starting economy.

I often do that too, though, sometimes it makes it TOO easy because then by turn ten you're already sitting on a great starting economy, and that makes the early game far to easy for my tastes.
Personally, I think having a substantial army and being forced to keep it, making you conquer to slowly get your economy back into viable shape would be much more difficult.

Sure, you can conquer a few nations, but you've got one effective army, and with that 300 income per turn, you're not going to be building many structures early on!


I do agree that this wouldn't be for everyone, but even just a revised Roman starting army set would be a welcome change. Even if it's just 1 hastate, principes, and trarii per army instead of one army with 7 hastate.