[PSA] Public Service Announcement: Rome

[TheRazaman]

Rome's infantry DOES NOT beat every other faction's infantry heads-up in melee combat. This is almost never a sign of a bug or imbalance, so stop posting about it. Click for a superficial, yet germane, examination of Roman infantry tactics and read — if reading is too cumbersome, look at the pretty pictures. Thanks!

[BroskiDerpman]

The developers state this in their Roman preview.

[TheRazaman]

The developers state this in their Roman preview.

And yet people keep posting about it, miraculous! It's almost as if people don't bother to read or do any of their own fact-finding a posteriori almost as though they're, wait for it, hold, HOLD... lazy! Who'da thunk it?!

[BooBooLovesAll]

I see they keep the Traiani in the back... with the hasti in the front. Don't the hasti get their asses kicked pretty easily when faced with a hopilite?

[TheRazaman]

I see they keep the Traiani in the back... with the hasti in the front. Don't the hasti get their asses kicked pretty easily when faced with a hopilite?

Yes, yes they do get beaten by hoplite's heads-up. However, it is the strength of the Roman formation that eventually allowed them to conquer their enemies in battle. The formation is called triplex acies or "triple line." If you look at that wiki article, you'll see some illustrations of it. Simplistically broken down into steps:

1. Velites attack the enemy, who send out their own skirmishers to fight.
2. Velites retreat behind the Hastati who charge at the enemy, tossing their pilum before engaging.
3. The Hastati fatigue and the commander orders his Principes into battle, once these engage the Hastati can now safely retreat.
4. The Principes fatigue (usually this didn't happen and Rome won the battle by this point) and retreat behind the line of Triarii.
5. The Triarii face a now extremely tired and battle-worn enemy and typically win.
6. The Equites have been covering the flanks the entire time and will run down the defeated.

That's a very general and idealized description of Roman battles, which ofc had to adapt to all sorts of battlefield variables.
Historically battles of legion vs phalanx were very drawn out, bloody affairs. The hoplite phalanx is a very powerful formation. In the game, as in life, you want to attack a hoplite phalanx in the flanks/rear.

Maybe I should make a Rome tutorial with screenshots vs varying factions. Rome's adaptability was one of her greatest strengths.

[BooBooLovesAll]

Yes, yes they do get beaten by hoplite's heads-up. However, it is the strength of the Roman formation that eventually allowed them to conquer their enemies in battle. The formation is called triplex acies or "triple line." If you look at that wiki article, you'll see some illustrations of it. Simplistically broken down into steps:

1. Velites attack the enemy, who send out their own skirmishers to fight.
2. Velites retreat behind the Hastati who charge at the enemy, tossing their pilum before engaging.
3. The Hastati fatigue and the commander orders his Principes into battle, once these engage the Hastati can now safely retreat.
4. The Principes fatigue (usually this didn't happen and Rome won the battle by this point) and retreat behind the line of Triarii.
5. The Triarii face a now extremely tired and battle-worn enemy and typically win.
6. The Equites have been covering the flanks the entire time and will run down the defeated.

That's a very general and idealized description of Roman battles, which ofc had to adapt to all sorts of battlefield variables.
Historically battles of legion vs phalanx were very drawn out, bloody affairs. The hoplite phalanx is a very powerful formation. In the game, as in life, you want to attack a hoplite phalanx in the flanks/rear.

Maybe I should make a Rome tutorial with screenshots vs varying factions. Rome's adaptability was one of her greatest strengths.

Do it.

[Richard III]

I'm a little confused as to the thread's purpose... but, if it persuades you to do a Roman Tactics tutorial then I am all for it!

[meerkatology]

1 man vs 1 man, no.
1 army vs 1 army , most likely yes.

the strength of the roman army compared to many other armies at the time was the OVERALL quality not individually. barbarians had champions that are probably better single combatants than a legionary. but the rest of their army are poorly equipped/trained levies. while the roman army is composed mostly of uniformally well trained and armored legionaries - even the auxiliaries are often times heavily armored.

add this on top of their superior logistics, tactics, organizations etc etc, and there you go.

also remember, most of the time they were fighting in the enemie's homeland, and still winning, that says something. it's like USA fighting in vietnam... o wait.. i guess the romans really were better for their time ;p

back on topic, the strength of roman units are pretty accurately represented in DEI imo. they do NOT own everyone else, they are generally on par or slightly weaker than elite units of other factions in direct combat just go test praetorians vs spartan hoplites. but they are very flexible, and have some tools to deal with every situation. testudo vs city walls/HAs. shieldwall, good stamina, pila. etc and this again is quite historically fitting.

[TheRazaman]

Do it.

This weekend I'll have a video or two up. Since you were the very first person to express interest, is there a particular faction/scenario you would like to see?

I'm a little confused as to the thread's purpose... but, if it persuades you to do a Roman Tactics tutorial then I am all for it!

It was exasperation with a touch of frivolity. I'd seen one too many posts about people complaining their Roman army/unit lost to faction xyz heads-up while expressing that it must be a bug or balance issue. But I came off that, and it did so inspire me; stay tuned!

...the strength of the roman army compared to many other armies at the time was the OVERALL quality not individually.

Exactly! The average height of the roman infantryman during the Punic War era (264 -146 BC) was 5'1" (155cm). By comparison, the Gauls, Britons and Germans averaged about 5'6" (168cm). The Gauls laughed at the small stature of the Romans — until they got into hand to hand combat with them that is.

[Goffredo85]

And yet they managed to conquer all of the mediterranean basin and govern it for hundreds of years...

[KaHzModAn]

And yet they managed to conquer all of the mediterranean basin and govern it for hundreds of years...

Yes, but it doesnt mean they had the strongest one on one infantry !
They had great tactics, which was available because they had a professionnal disciplined army, and great logistics,
not because they were the strongest men in the world

[Goffredo85]

Yes, but it doesnt mean they had the strongest one on one infantry !
They had great tactics, which was available because they had a professionnal disciplined army, and great logistics,
not because they were the strongest men in the world

It is like saying that a panther tank was many times superior to a sherman one...it is true but guess who won the war. After all it is economy, tactics, trained armies, and logistics that win wars. And there are many other things that are needed to keep your conquests...Besides many of the aspect you mentioned cannot be represented within the game engine. You could for example made germanic melee infantry to be the best one in-game, yet in reality many germanic tribes would have never aimed to estabilish a proper empire, they probably wouldn't even have the skills to do it. How could you represent something like this in the game? And finally, i don't think that a youtube like classific of "who's the deadliest ancient warrior" could be so easily made, especially when we actually know so little of how things went on an ancient battlefield.

[peoplescavalry]

The main difference I think has nothing to do with equipment tactics etc but morale. The soldiers could have been serving together for years and the tight bonding and comradeship would have been incredible.whilst the vast majority of the enemies of ROME would be more cosmopolitan. If you know the men either side of you better than yourself, you will not let them down.

[Jin-]

Nazis also won on multiple fronts at the same time because of their good commanders and tactics. Numbers don't mean all (German vs UK, NL, Belgium, France) or the battle skill - (where Germans were superior anyway)

[Richard III]

TheRazaman, you seem to be knowledgeable about the Romans.

Did the each line of the Triple acies fight as a single line with no gaps, or did they maintain small or even large gaps between cohorts (Individual units, in Rome's case). I can't seem to find the right answer.

[tungri_centurio]

here is a good video on the topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWAkNNWo920

[BooBooLovesAll]

here is a good video on the topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWAkNNWo920

Good video.

How were the tactics in the marious reforms?

[TheRazaman]

For those of you interested I started up the Roman Tutorial thread in the Strategy Guides and Gameplay subforum. You can find it here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...my-for-DeI-1-0

BooBoo and Richard III your questions should have been answered with what I've currently put up.
A mod can close this thread.

[BooBooLovesAll]

Thanks.