Inconsistent armor values for some units in 1.1 update & Marian Legionaries worse than Principes

[antred]

Hi, I've noticed that some units such as the Cohors Sagittariorum Civium Romanum, despite not having a shield and clearly looking less well protected than Marian Legionaries, have more armor than the latter (54 vs 48). Is this intended or just an oversight?

Also, Marian Legionaries have, almost across the board, worse stats than Principes. Now I realize that the Marian reforms didn't magically turn the Romans into supersoldiers, so expecting Marian troops to be vastly superior to pre-Marian troops would be unrealistic, but I feel that the reforms should at least make Rome's legionaries a teeny, tiny little bit stronger, but at the very least not worse than the pre-reform troops. Otherwise why would the player even look forward to the reforms if all he gets out of them is slightly weaker (albeit more expensive) troops?

[FlashHeart07]

Some might be oversights especially considering that there is more than 1500 (If my memory serves me right) units in DeI to balance.

[Dresden]

There was just recently a post about post-Marian Romans being super overpowered I believe they receive other benefits besides armor, which isn't everything.

Anyway, most likely most of the stats are meant to be that way after balancing is done. Sometimes armor appearance won't perfectly match the numbers or the unit cards due to the amount of changes that have been made over the course of 2 years. There are some units that have not been fully balanced in terms of every single entry, they are mostly garrison and non-core troops. KAM would be able to answer better.

[antred]

Thanks for replies.

There was just recently a post about post-Marian Romans being super overpowered I believe they receive other benefits besides armor, which isn't everything.

Hidden stats? Because apart from having slightly better stamina and the ability to form testudo, Marian legionaries currently are inferior to Principes. They have exactly the same amount of armor, but Principes have 1 or 2 points higher melee defense & attack.

Anyway, most likely most of the stats are meant to be that way after balancing is done.

Hmm, but should Roman Auxilia archers really have better armor than Roman legionaries? I really hope that this is an oversight, because if it's intended then I don't quite follow the rationale behind that decision.

P.S. Despite of my criticism, your work is much appreciated. Rome 2 would long have been consigned to my dustbin if it weren't for your mod.

[KAM 2150]

Hmm I will look into it. Sometimes hand can slip and instead of one entry you pick other entry.

BTW, did you wrote down campaign values? Because you can't have armour values that does not end on 0 or 5 (40, 45,50,55, etc).

[antred]

Hmm I will look into it. Sometimes hand can slip and instead of one entry you pick other entry.

Thanks.

Sometimes hand can slip and instead of one entry you pick other entry.

Of course, I work in IT. I know all about making silly mistakes.

BTW, did you wrote down campaign values? Because you can't have armour values that does not end on 0 or 5 (40, 45,50,55, etc).

Well, the 48 armor value I mentioned was for Marian legionaries in my most highly rated legion (level 7) and with gold armor upgrades, so it wasn't the base value. The 54 armor value for the archers was from a level-0 legion, but also with gold armor upgrades.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Keep in mind the marian legionnaires are a mix of the hastati and princepes, as well as triarii.

So their stats would be averaged between all three of those.

The formations and upgraded pilla do far and away make up for the small difference in melee and defence stats though.

This was intentional.

All auxillia troops have 45 armor (with a few exceptions). This leads to aux troops being a bit better armor wise that marian legionnaires, but not imperial ones. Kind of a balance choice.

[antred]

Keep in mind the marian legionnaires are a mix of the hastati and princepes, as well as triarii.

So their stats would be averaged between all three of those.

The formations and upgraded pilla do far and away make up for the small difference in melee and defence stats though.

This was intentional.

I don't really agree with that but whatever the rationale, it's not very rewarding to finally get those reforms you've been waiting for all game and then find out that it's really a downgrade. You already lose your highly valued Triarii and the Pedites Extraordinarii, but to also have your heavy line infantry replaced with a new version that is slightly weaker is really a bit of a disappointment.

[KAM 2150]

Yes, like I expected, mystake on my part. These archers use the same armour as Marian Legionares if not even lighter (due to lack of helmets on some of them).

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Isn't 45 the standard for chainmail wearing aux units? Or is it 40 for the hamata and 5 more for units with a helmet?

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Well I'm sorry you don't agree with historical accuracy.

And it IS a buff. The pillum does far more damage and the utillity of the testudo and square formation is far more useful than 1 melee attack and 2 melee defence.

[zonks40]

The Pilum are pretty devastating, my Roman opponent in defence would slaughter my tribesmen charging his lines, they have a very high AP damage from memory.