New units add suggestion

[Dux Limitis]

For we known,,roman army had big change in 3 century crisis,so I suggest add the late legionaries to replace roman legionaries in 3 century's roman army list,untill the comitatenses appears ,and add the catafractarii(cataphact with bow)to late rome and Byzantine army list.Also needs to add the ballistarii(late roman crossbowmen) and onager for 3-5 centry's roman army.Ballistarii is very improtant to late roman army ,and romay army didn't only have ballista,the have onager too.Most important thing is,please divide the hastati and principes,mixed them is really unhistorical.More units needs to add to the game,not just these roman army units,I hope my advice can be noticed.

[Dux Limitis]

@rbodleyscott

[MVP7]

How would 3-4th century legionaries be different from the current later legionaries and what source would indicate that crossbows were used in any meaningful numbers by the late Roman military? Byzantine Lancers already have 50% bows. Artillery in the game (at least for the current time periods) is not modeled to a degree where it would make much sense to have different artillery types beyond the current Light and Heavy Artillery.

As far as I know the mixing of hastati and principes is based on the in-game unit sizes being so large that it would make no sense to have separate individual units for hastati and principes. A standard sized 480 man unit has 2 maniples of hastati and 2 maniples of principes.

[Dux Limitis]

How would 3-4th century legionaries be different from the current later legionaries and what source would indicate that crossbows were used in any meaningful numbers by the late Roman military? Byzantine Lancers already have 50% bows. Artillery in the game (at least for the current time periods) is not modeled to a degree where it would make much sense to have different artillery types beyond the current Light and Heavy Artillery.

As far as I know the mixing of hastati and principes is based on the in-game unit sizes being so large that it would make no sense to have separate individual units for hastati and principes. A standard sized 480 man unit has 2 maniples of hastati and 2 maniples of principes.

Different is they started to use the spatha(long sword) and elliptical shields like cavalrys,and restart to equipment the chain armor.As for corssbowmen,the Notitia Dignitatum had record many ballistariis(crossbowmen) in late roman army,and I think ballista and onager is different,not just all simply in heavy artillery type.

[rbodleyscott]

How would 3-4th century legionaries be different from the current later legionaries and what source would indicate that crossbows were used in any meaningful numbers by the late Roman military? Byzantine Lancers already have 50% bows. Artillery in the game (at least for the current time periods) is not modeled to a degree where it would make much sense to have different artillery types beyond the current Light and Heavy Artillery.

As far as I know the mixing of hastati and principes is based on the in-game unit sizes being so large that it would make no sense to have separate individual units for hastati and principes. A standard sized 480 man unit has 2 maniples of hastati and 2 maniples of principes.

Different is they started to use the spatha(long sword) and elliptical shields like cavalrys,and restart to equipment the chain armor.

Which would not affect classification under the rules.

Edited for clarity: NOTE: The game does fully cover the late 3rd century and subsequent changes to Roman infantry. What we are discussing here are the legions of the middle part of the 3rd century.

As for crossbowmen,the Notitia Dignitatum had record many ballistariis(crossbowmen) in late roman army,and I think ballista and onager is different,not just all simply in heavy artillery type.

ballistarii means "ballista-users". The standard Roman light artillery bolt-shooters were ballistae (which were, of course, giant crossbows, but not crossbows in the usual sense of a weapon carried and used by one man).

The legiones ballistarii were therefore more likely dedicated artillery units (using carro-ballista etc.) rather than crossbowmen. There is no evidence that there were significant numbers of crossbowmen.

[Dux Limitis]

How would 3-4th century legionaries be different from the current later legionaries and what source would indicate that crossbows were used in any meaningful numbers by the late Roman military? Byzantine Lancers already have 50% bows. Artillery in the game (at least for the current time periods) is not modeled to a degree where it would make much sense to have different artillery types beyond the current Light and Heavy Artillery.

As far as I know the mixing of hastati and principes is based on the in-game unit sizes being so large that it would make no sense to have separate individual units for hastati and principes. A standard sized 480 man unit has 2 maniples of hastati and 2 maniples of principes.

Different is they started to use the spatha(long sword) and elliptical shields like cavalrys,and restart to equipment the chain armor.

Which would not affect classification under the rules.

As for crossbowmen,the Notitia Dignitatum had record many ballistariis(crossbowmen) in late roman army,and I think ballista and onager is different,not just all simply in heavy artillery type.

ballistarii means "ballista-users". The standard Roman light artillery bolt-shooters were ballistae (which were, of course, giant crossbows, but not crossbows in the usual sense of a weapon carried and used by one man).

The legiones ballistarii were therefore more likely dedicated artillery units (using carro-ballista etc.) rather than crossbowmen. There is no evidence that there were significant numbers of crossbowmen.

Nope,in Notitia Dignitatum it's lists many comitatenses,legio,and pseudocomitatenses under the title of 'ballistarii',they're too many,so they're not artillery.Most important is the ballista users called ballistarius,not ballistarii.And as I know,wiki says they use the manuballistae(means the hand ballista,that's roman crossbow).So there're many signs to indicate they're crossbowmen,not artillery units.

[Dux Limitis]

How would 3-4th century legionaries be different from the current later legionaries and what source would indicate that crossbows were used in any meaningful numbers by the late Roman military? Byzantine Lancers already have 50% bows. Artillery in the game (at least for the current time periods) is not modeled to a degree where it would make much sense to have different artillery types beyond the current Light and Heavy Artillery.

As far as I know the mixing of hastati and principes is based on the in-game unit sizes being so large that it would make no sense to have separate individual units for hastati and principes. A standard sized 480 man unit has 2 maniples of hastati and 2 maniples of principes.

Different is they started to use the spatha(long sword) and elliptical shields like cavalrys,and restart to equipment the chain armor.

Which would not affect classification under the rules.

No,you can set their aggressivity because they use the spatha(long sword),and set their protection down because they requipment the chain armor and don't continue to use their large sheild.

[Dux Limitis]

How would 3-4th century legionaries be different from the current later legionaries and what source would indicate that crossbows were used in any meaningful numbers by the late Roman military? Byzantine Lancers already have 50% bows. Artillery in the game (at least for the current time periods) is not modeled to a degree where it would make much sense to have different artillery types beyond the current Light and Heavy Artillery.

As far as I know the mixing of hastati and principes is based on the in-game unit sizes being so large that it would make no sense to have separate individual units for hastati and principes. A standard sized 480 man unit has 2 maniples of hastati and 2 maniples of principes.

Different is they started to use the spatha(long sword) and elliptical shields like cavalrys,and restart to equipment the chain armor.

Which would not affect classification under the rules.

As for crossbowmen,the Notitia Dignitatum had record many ballistariis(crossbowmen) in late roman army,and I think ballista and onager is different,not just all simply in heavy artillery type.

ballistarii means "ballista-users". The standard Roman light artillery bolt-shooters were ballistae (which were, of course, giant crossbows, but not crossbows in the usual sense of a weapon carried and used by one man).

The legiones ballistarii were therefore more likely dedicated artillery units (using carro-ballista etc.) rather than crossbowmen. There is no evidence that there were significant numbers of crossbowmen.

And a roman historian who live in late rome,Ammianus Marcellinus,record a weapon names arcuballista in his <Res Gestae>,same as manuballista.And units who use these two weapons called 'ballitarii',In emperor Julianus Apostata's army they're already being a important part.

[MVP7]

Isn't ballistarius just a singular form of plural ballistarii? In any case, those ballistarii are generally believed to be ballista units with little to no evidence that crossbows would have been widespread in Roman military. Here's one view on the subject: http://lukeuedasarson.com/Balistarii.html

[Jafele]

Nope,in Notitia Dignitatum it's lists many comitatenses,legio,and pseudocomitatenses under the title of 'ballistarii',they're too many,so they're not artillery.Most important is the ballista users called ballistarius,not ballistarii.And as I know,wiki says they use the manuballistae(means the hand ballista,that's roman crossbow).So there're many signs to indicate they're crossbowmen,not artillery units.

Very true.

[Dux Limitis]

Isn't ballistarius just a singular form of plural ballistarii? In any case, those ballistarii are generally believed to be ballista units with little to no evidence that crossbows would have been widespread in Roman military. Here's one view on the subject: http://lukeuedasarson.com/Balistarii.html

In the western empire,the manuballistae（crossbow） is very widespread,you can see many of them in <Notitia Dignitatum>'s 'Numeri Reliqui:II Pedites' chapter,it's notes many ballistariis,as we know,'pedites' means infantry,not artillery,and roman army really has many crossbowmen indeed.

[Jafele]

https://tastesofhistory.blogspot.com/20 ... ssbow.html

Furthermore, later the word "arcuballistae" means hand-held crossbow (at least in medieval France).

Original text http://thelatinlibrary.com/vegetius2.html:

...sagittis et arcubus, erant funditores, qui ad fundas uel fustibalos lapides iaciebant, erant tragularii, qui ad manuballistas uel arcuballistas dirigebant sagittas.

A spanish eleventh century ballesta, probably very similar to roman archuballistae:

beato burgo 1086.jpeg (15.77 KiB) Viewed 5631 times

[rbodleyscott]

Isn't ballistarius just a singular form of plural ballistarii? In any case, those ballistarii are generally believed to be ballista units with little to no evidence that crossbows would have been widespread in Roman military. Here's one view on the subject: http://lukeuedasarson.com/Balistarii.html

This.

Clearly there is scope for controversy, but we take the same view as Luke Ueda-Sarson.

Those who disagree can easily mod the army lists to suit their interpretation. Crossbows are coded in the game scripts, you would just have to add the units to the squads file and the armylist.txt file. There aren't currently any crossbowmen models, but you could use archers as jomni has done in the Silk Road mod.

The same applies to the 3rd century legionaries. We don't feel that their modest change of equipment requires different classification from the earlier legions, but if you do, you can easily add modded units to the squads file and armylist file.

With regard to the issue of cataphracts with bows, there is one single unit of "Equites sagittarii clibanarii" in the Notitia. This cannot be taken as implying that the other cataphract and clibanarii units had bows - in fact it could be taken as suggesting the opposite, since why bother to mention the bows for that unit if they all had bows? It may even be a Medieval copyist's error.

Incidentally, the interpretation of the tactical/equipment difference (if any) between catafractarii and clibanarii has been much discussed over the years. I myself wrote an article specifically on that subject in the Journal of the Society of Ancients as far back as 1981.

Once again, if you disagree with the representation in the game, it is easy to produce modded cataphract units with bow capability by editing the squads and armylist files.

[Witan]

Different is they started to use the spatha(long sword) and elliptical shields like cavalrys,and restart to equipment the chain armor.

Which would not affect classification under the rules.

I would be interested if there is a chance to see a more detailed classification of armor, weapons etc. in a possible Field of Glory 2?
For me, Field of Glory 2 is currently the best historical battle simulation PC game, at least I do not know anything that comes closer for the time period.
Of course, many things still follow simplified mechanics, but i have the hope that with Field of Glory 3 this could change.

[Jafele]

We shouldn´t discard "Equites sagitarii clibanarii" could have been crossbowmen on horseback ("qui ad manuballistas uel arcuballistas dirigebant sagittas"), as shown in the last image. Indeed, "sagita" was the most common missile for both crossbow and bow during the Midde Ages.

[rbodleyscott]

We shouldn´t discard "Equites sagitarii clibanarii" could have been crossbowmen on horseback ("qui ad manuballistas uel arcuballistas dirigebant sagittas"), as shown in the last image. Indeed, "sagita" was the most common missile for both crossbow and bow during the Midde Ages.

It is vanishingly unlikely that the Equites Sagitarii Clibanarii were armed with crossbows. The equipment of 11th century Spanish cavalry is not relevant to the 4th/5th century Roman army.

[rbodleyscott]

And why the Hun and vandal don't have infantry in game?

They both do. The Hunnic (Western) 376-454 AD, Hunnic (Sabir) 463-558 AD, and Early Vandal (German Foot Tribes 260-495 AD) lists have infantry.

The African Vandal list does not have infantry because it is based on the armies that fought against Belisarius's invasion. These were entirely cavalry. Obviously they had infantry (dismounted cavalry) when they were operating as a fleet, but this game is about land battles, not sea battles.

Please don't regard Total War: Rome as the arbiter of historical accuracy!

[Dux Limitis]

And why the Hun and vandal don't have infantry in game?

They both do. The Hunnic (Western) 376-454 AD, Hunnic (Sabir) 463-558 AD, and Early Vandal (German Foot Tribes 260-495 AD) lists have infantry.

The African Vandal list does not have infantry because it is based on the armies that fought against Belisarius's invasion. These were entirely cavalry. Obviously they had infantry (dismounted cavalry) when they were operating as a fleet, but this game is about land battles, not sea battles.

Please don't regard Total War: Rome as the arbiter of historical accuracy!

If one day I can see late legionaries and ballistarii are been add in the game's late roman army list,I'll be personally very grateful,because these two units did exist in the roman army and the arcuballistae really did been record.And you already add the early legionaries in game(Legions Triumphant dlc),why didn't add the late legionaries that time?If I say the late legionaries are more difference than the early legionaries from the current origin legionaries in game.Maybe Total War is not the arbiter of historical accuracy,but these two units really did exist.

[ianiow]

I don't think anyone should try reasoning a troop type based on what Total War is doing. The reason I like FOG so much is the historical accuracy (or best guess thereof) and the designers of FOG really know their stuff. That said I would like to see some of the mono troop type armies get a little leeway in the lists. I am contemplating joining Nijis' campaign game as the African Vandals and most of the battles will involve raiding sicily, iberia, greek islands etc by sea. Where does the 100% cavalry lancer list fit in with these campaign battles? Will I have to use an earlier foot Vandal list for my pirate raids?

[MikeC_81]

Different is they started to use the spatha(long sword) and elliptical shields like cavalrys,and restart to equipment the chain armor.

Which would not affect classification under the rules.

I would be interested if there is a chance to see a more detailed classification of armor, weapons etc. in a possible Field of Glory 2?
For me, Field of Glory 2 is currently the best historical battle simulation PC game, at least I do not know anything that comes closer for the time period.
Of course, many things still follow simplified mechanics, but i have the hope that with Field of Glory 3 this could change.

The issue is that it is already difficult to know how different systems interacted with each other without assuming or guessing at the effects of minutia like variations in armour or weapons. Any historical wargame automatically functions as kind of a thesis for how the developer thinks ancient warfare worked. We can see that there are already tons of disagreements in interpretation over any number of issues and that is only with FoG2's simplified system for troop quality and equipment and the interactions found within them. Any additional variation introduced into the system would merely be an additional layer of guesswork on top of what is already, primarily guesswork.

Recent developments in experimental archaeology both by amateurs and historians, the resurgence of European medieval martial arts using old texts, along with enthusiastic reenactors who often wear full weight replica gear have really helped to shed some light on certain issues. Take for example a look in the Pike Phalanx thread where someone has linked a book on a guy who has actually done the work of making Pikes and "training" some folks to see what was and was not possible with them.

One of the common themes emerging across multiple historical periods is just how little minor variations in armour and weapons have in the overall grand scheme of things. Take for example Dux's argument for some sort of intermediary Legionaire due to the changes in the sword, shield and armour. Let's start with lorica segmentata vs lorica hamata. We know first of all that lorica segementata was not universally distributed and that wearing it rendered the individual Legionary near total immunity to missile weapons to the protected portions of his body but in all other respects, lorica hamata or just regular old riveted chainmail of any period prior to mass production of high-quality steel offered just as a good protection against all manner of cutting weapons employed by potential opponents at the time. You can go on youtube and find videos of people trying to damage chainmail (the historically accurate riveted kind, not the non-historical butted mail crap). It is hilariously difficult to accomplish and most individuals would probably be incapacitated by the concussive force before the armour fails.

Similarly, the switch from the rectangular curved scutum to the more flat, lightweight, and easy to carry oval style shields is of little consequence in game terms. Remember, FoG2 is designed around armies fighting contemporaries and trying to get that right rather than creating some "realistic" time travel battle simulator between forces that never met each other. The rectangular scutum did offer superior protection but it is important to remember why it was developed. It came into existence around the time of the Punic Wars in which the Roman Republic essentially engaged in a period of constant non-stop warfare vs other organized states and civil wars that lasted a staggering 300 years. The curved scutum was likely developed due to the constant need for Legionaries to fight pitched battles against other heavy infantry formations. Their armour rating is reflected as such. Hastati/Principes have "above average"armour vs most of their contemporaries which had only protected status despite the fact most opponents also had chainmail or Linen armour and shields. Incidentally, Linen armour is also a real thing and is also very difficult to defeat at times. In fact, it offers a level protection that chainmail only marginally improves on in many cases. I would hazard a guess that if you stripped Marius's Legions of all their lorica hamata and made them wear Linothorax instead that the result probably would be the same in the Cimbrian war. Throughout history, it far less often for equipment, rather than training, morale, systems, strategies, and luck to be the primary driver of battlefield victories. The change from the heavy scutum to the lighter flat version may have been simply because the Legionaries were often never given the chance to fight in pitched battles and mobility became more of a premium.

In any case, for there to be a need to create a mid-Empire Legionary unit based solely on equipment change would mean that there is something out of step with their "armoured" rating vs their Warband opponents which typically have only protected rating. I think we can all agree even if the mid-Empire Legionary was not as well equipped for pitched battle as the 1st or 2nd Century counterparts, its "armoured" rating is still consistent with the level of protection it affords vis a vis its opponents (not that there were all that many). This is an arguable point but the proponent of such an idea should clearly indicate the specific examples in the comparative differences in gear between a mid-Empie Legionary and his opponent rather than pointing out a change in gear between said Legionary and his predecessor.

Now if you or anyone else wanted to create a more "universal" wargame system which could accommodate anachronistic matchups throughout history, I would agree that you would then need to take that sort of thing into consideration. However, coming up with reasonable values for all the variations of armour and weapons and their interactions with each other vis a vis the fighting style of the disparate armies in history would be a monumental task. It would largely be guesswork when dealing with such matters since, naturally, sources for anachronistic matchups don't exist.....and thus ironically erasing any gains in "realism" originally sought after by those who typically want to introduce such minutiae into games .