Late Roman - Kinda bad?

[Southern Hunter]

Late in the Empire the Romans had to cope with cavalry armies and new tactics, so they developed this new kind of infantry with darts, bows, etc.

Playing a long campaign with these late Romans, I am struggling to see their attraction. It seems I am constantly outclassed by cavalry armies with a lot more skirmishers, and the flexibility of large cavalry forces.

In WRG tabletop (I know, this was a long time ago), this was my favourite army, but I am struggling to like it here. What can you suggest?

[MVP7]

The late Roman heavy infantry is pretty underwhelming even though the lists have some other nice units. The Legions are great at defense but the AI never charges them, running out the clock instead. Their inability to shoot back also makes them very vulnerable to skirmishers which kinda defeats the entire concept of defensive infantry heavy army with a lot of integral ranged weapons. There are no objectives to hold and it's always the player who has to take the initiative to actually win the battle so the cavalry heavy AI armies usually have a big advantage.

I made a small mod that allows the Romans to use their integrated bows for ranged attacks. Even that won't make them as practically effective as their impact foot predecessors but I think it improves their dynamic a bit.

[devoncop]

Late in the Empire the Romans had to cope with cavalry armies and new tactics, so they developed this new kind of infantry with darts, bows, etc.

Playing a long campaign with these late Romans, I am struggling to see their attraction. It seems I am constantly outclassed by cavalry armies with a lot more skirmishers, and the flexibility of large cavalry forces.

In WRG tabletop (I know, this was a long time ago), this was my favourite army, but I am struggling to like it here. What can you suggest?

Odd...I am not finding that. The Legions have incredible resilience and unlike earlier Roman armies the medium infantry options are decent and the auxiliary bows are not too bad either. They also have at least a reasonable number of skirmish options.

[MVP7]

Late in the Empire the Romans had to cope with cavalry armies and new tactics, so they developed this new kind of infantry with darts, bows, etc.

Playing a long campaign with these late Romans, I am struggling to see their attraction. It seems I am constantly outclassed by cavalry armies with a lot more skirmishers, and the flexibility of large cavalry forces.

In WRG tabletop (I know, this was a long time ago), this was my favourite army, but I am struggling to like it here. What can you suggest?

Odd...I am not finding that. The Legions have incredible resilience and unlike earlier Roman armies the medium infantry options are decent and the auxiliary bows are not too bad either. They also have at least a reasonable number of skirmish options.

Are you referring to the early imperial or late imperial armies? The late imperial infantry is resilient in theory but in practice it's easy to ignore and work around. They are challenging to play against but since there are no game modes that require holding ground they usually don't get to benefit from their defensive abilities (especially against cavalry).

The Auxiliary archers are nice but not available in large enough numbers to have a decisive role against cavalry/skirmisher armies (plus they are already available in the more focused early imperial lists). The Roman imperial light foot selection is not good, their availability is one of the lowest in the game. Their light cavalry selection is decent but not numerous enough to have a decisive impact. Most of the late enemies of Rome can easily outmatch and overwhelm the Roman skirmishers. The Auxilia Palatina are great but they tend to have a more of an auxiliary role in battles. The late-late imperial lists with more cavalry are more practical but they still feel like they lack a real strength or a trick that would raise them above decent in open battles.

[rbodleyscott]

If your analysis is correct, the Late Roman army (in the game) is not quite as good as the Roman army in its heyday. This would certainly seem to be tenable from a historical point of view!

Although the rate of decline of the Roman army is certainly arguable, no historian could reasonably claim that the Late Imperial Roman army was better than the Early Imperial army - unlike various older sets of tabletop rules where Late Roman infantry turned into some sort of triple-armed super troops, so that the only Roman army that ever appeared in tournaments (except when used by newbs) was the Late Roman army.

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with the Late Imperial Roman army in the game, but we will no doubt see how well it does when the next Digital League allows Legions Triumphant armies.

[MVP7]

The late imperial army should definitely be less potent than the armies from Rome's best days. I have no issues with the army lists or units themselves, I think they are done very well in the game.

Apart from the infantry not being able to use their bows for ranged attacks (the fallacy of which I won't get into in this thread) the units work very much as one would expect. The "problems" of the late imperial army are largely realistic/historical. No one ever had good time fighting horse nomads and it's hard to force a more mobile force into decisive battle if they don't want one. The kinks of the AI and the battle types the game offers also makes it harder to play the late Romans to their strengths against the AI. As an enemy army they work great and I'd imagine they are hard to beat in multiplayer as well.

[nikgaukroger]

The late Roman heavy infantry is pretty underwhelming even though the lists have some other nice units. The Legions are great at defense but the AI never charges them, running out the clock instead.

Obviously don't know what armies you've been playing but I've found the AI is pretty willing to charge the Late Roman foot with Germanic types and Picts - much less so with mounted though.

[MVP7]

The late Roman heavy infantry is pretty underwhelming even though the lists have some other nice units. The Legions are great at defense but the AI never charges them, running out the clock instead.

Obviously don't know what armies you've been playing but I've found the AI is pretty willing to charge the Late Roman foot with Germanic types and Picts - much less so with mounted though.

Mainly Huns and Bosporans. I have not checked the exact POA values but as far as I know the only situation where the late imperials are better than early imperials is when defending against a charge by lancers. They are similar or worse at everything else while costing the same as comparable earlier legionaires. I have never seen cavalry frontally charge a Legio Palatina/Comitatenses unit and that includes a 7 battle campaign against Bosporans.

[nikgaukroger]

Yup, I've played a couple against Bosporans and there have only been a couple of mounted charges against the infantry - however, the Bosporans had a good chunk of infantry themselves which provided a nice target and got me a good way towards the necessary break %age Games panned out well overall IMO.

[MVP7]

Yup, I've played a couple against Bosporans and there have only been a couple of mounted charges against the infantry - however, the Bosporans had a good chunk of infantry themselves which provided a nice target and got me a good way towards the necessary break %age Games panned out well overall IMO.

I usually had most of the victory percentage from fighting the cavalry and skirmishers in bloody brawls. The Bosporan infantry usually waited untill the battle was almost over before moving and I then had to break a couple to get the percentage. I was playing the first Roman lists with the late roman infantry units. I can't remember off the top of my head what Bosporan lists I was playing against, presumably the one with most cavalry. I managed to win all the battles although it was by far the bloodiest campaign I have played.

My main issue with how the battles played out was that the Bosporan cavalry would move right in front of my infantry and just stay there rotating helplessly while it was surrounded and then flank charged over several consecutive turns. It was extremely weird dynamic for interactions between heavy infantry and cavalry. Playing like that felt more like gaming the system than using tactics to win. After the campaign I modded the Roman infantry to have the ability to shoot their bows. As a result the AI cavalry started keeping it's distance from the infantry units by falling back which gave themselves more room to maneuver and made those battles less weird.

[Delbruck]

I find in smaller size battles the Late Romans can't get enough of anything, so it is hard to compete against many armies. In some ways it reminds of a Pontic army. A little of this, a little of that, but not enough of anything to make it good. Perhaps that is realistic. Perhaps some games make the Late Romans too powerful.

[rbodleyscott]

Perhaps some games make the Late Romans too powerful.

This

[shawkhan2]

Actually there were not that many battles the Romans fought where they outnumbered the enemy. Belisarius for instance consistently won battles where he was outnumbered by ridiculous amounts, reminiscent of Alexander at Gaugamela.

[GiveWarAchance]

The OP sounds like the game does a very good job of making the late Romans historical.
I like historical armies more than balancing everything to be the same.

The Roman legionnaires in their prime are brutally powerful as I learned the hard way so maybe the waning power of the late Romans help us to get some payback.