Slitherine

Shouldn't Romans be weak for the first battles and start growing stronger after each battle after they begin learning how to fight. I think Romans should be very easy to rout early and become stone walls later only to be destroyed by more mobile armies. How is the weakness of the early republican armies shown in this game?

Searry wrote:Shouldn't Romans be weak for the first battles and start growing stronger after each battle after they begin learning how to fight. I think Romans should be very easy to rout early and become stone walls later only to be destroyed by more mobile armies. How is the weakness of the early republican armies shown in this game?

They weren't that weak, otherwise they would never have conquered their neighbours. Although effectively a citizen militia, they did train regularly. However, they are rated lower in the game than the post-Marian legions. It is true they they would get better with experience, but they do so in the campaigns.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Searry wrote:Shouldn't Romans be weak for the first battles and start growing stronger after each battle after they begin learning how to fight. I think Romans should be very easy to rout early and become stone walls later only to be destroyed by more mobile armies. How is the weakness of the early republican armies shown in this game?

They weren't that weak, otherwise they would never have conquered their neighbours, although are rated lower the the post_Marian legions. It is true they they would get better with experience, but they do so in the campaigns.

Well against the Carthaginians they didn't do that well for decades.

Searry wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Searry wrote:Shouldn't Romans be weak for the first battles and start growing stronger after each battle after they begin learning how to fight. I think Romans should be very easy to rout early and become stone walls later only to be destroyed by more mobile armies. How is the weakness of the early republican armies shown in this game?

They weren't that weak, otherwise they would never have conquered their neighbours, although are rated lower the the post_Marian legions. It is true they they would get better with experience, but they do so in the campaigns.

Well against the Carthaginians they didn't do that well for decades.

As I say, they are rated lower than post-Marian legions.

As I say, they are rated lower than post-Marian legions.

Good to hear. Maybe we can make the what ifs true in this game.

Romans were never weak.. They sometimes suffered due to incompetent leadership, due to Consul elections happening every year.. Yet even when they were led by a consul without any experience, Legions on itself were quite tenacious force. At Trebia for example, Roman Infantry fought through Hannibal army and saved themselves, and Legions even almost repeated the feat at Cannae.. Overall, Legions were extremely tough. Look at Wars with Epirote king Pyrrhus - his veteran army fought Romans in major battles, every time it was a close call, with very heavy casualties on both sides.. Roman system was good for heavy pounding, exchanging blows from the front. Hannibal knew that, which was why he was so sucessful against them as he used the same thing against them.

Of great interest is how the socii contingents are represented. will they be mirror images of the roman legions?

fogman wrote:Of great interest is how the socii contingents are represented. will they be mirror images of the roman legions?

Opinions differ as to how much, if at all, they differed from the Roman legions, apart from having more cavalry. We have a range of quality for the legionaries, however, which would allow most theories to be accommodated.

It is a fairly safe bet that the Latin allies at least fought as normal legions.

However, we also have two qualities of italian medium foot if anyone subscribes to the idea that some of the other socii may have used their traditional tactics.