Which units get upgrade decisions?

[kvnrthr]

Playing as the Ptolemies and got the upgraded heavy infantry, but it feels underwhelming since it is worse than the phalanx except for siege value. Is this the extent of the generic heavy infantry upgrade or might there be more? I think in the manual it said the Romans get two upgrades.

Also curious in general which units get upgrades at all. Does the phalanx get improved?

[loki100]

phalanxes no, everything else can be upgraded as the various options come up. Rome has a different upgrade path to everyone else.

I think with the Phalanx the logic is it is as effective as it can be, The upgraded HI then give you a choice as to which is your main unit, or use both as they have some advantages. You'll tend to find upgraded HI translates as imitation legions to FoG2

[rbodleyscott]

Historically, once they discovered that their phalanxes tended to be defeated by Roman legions, several of the Hellenistic kingdoms tried “upgrading” some or all of their heavy infantry to imitation legionaries. However, they soon found that these too could not stand up against real Roman legions.

As far as I am aware, the only imitation legionaries to be considered good enough to be permanently inducted into the Roman army as legionaries after the absorption of their state were the Galatian imitation legionaries that became the legio XXII Deiotariana. And they were the survivors of three imitation legions that were merged into one after their defeat by Pharnaces of Pontus, but then went on to be part of Julius Caesar’s army that defeated Pharnaces at Zela.

They were the exception.

[Pocus]

In Empires, the Phalanx can't be used in city assault reliably

[loki100]

Historically, once they discovered that their phalanxes tended to be defeated by Roman legions, several of the Hellenistic kingdoms tried “upgrading” some or all of their heavy infantry to imitation legionaries. However, they soon found that these too could not stand up against real Roman legions.

As far as I am aware, the only imitation legionaries to be considered good enough to be permanently inducted into the Roman army as legionaries after the absorption of their state were the Galatian imitation legionaries that became the legio XXII Deiotariana. And they were the survivors of three imitation legions that were merged into one after their defeat by Pharnaces of Pontus, but then went on to be part of Julius Caesar’s army that defeated Pharnaces at Zela.

They were the exception.

Fully agree (would never be so silly as to do otherwise ). But wonder if the flawed reworking of the legion was less a difficulty in copying and more that by the time most of these states made that conversion they probably lacked the resources to field a well trained/led army regardless of notional formation.

There were plenty of third rate legions raised during the civil wars, so that supports a view that the formation needs a lot of time and training to get right.

or in other words, within an Empires game, say a Hellenistic power picks up the improved HI, there is no reason why they can't be well trained, even if they never quite match the full competence of the Roman version?

[rbodleyscott]

Historically, once they discovered that their phalanxes tended to be defeated by Roman legions, several of the Hellenistic kingdoms tried “upgrading” some or all of their heavy infantry to imitation legionaries. However, they soon found that these too could not stand up against real Roman legions.

As far as I am aware, the only imitation legionaries to be considered good enough to be permanently inducted into the Roman army as legionaries after the absorption of their state were the Galatian imitation legionaries that became the legio XXII Deiotariana. And they were the survivors of three imitation legions that were merged into one after their defeat by Pharnaces of Pontus, but then went on to be part of Julius Caesar’s army that defeated Pharnaces at Zela.

They were the exception.

Fully agree (would never be so silly as to do otherwise ). But wonder if the flawed reworking of the legion was less a difficulty in copying and more that by the time most of these states made that conversion they probably lacked the resources to field a well trained/led army regardless of notional formation.

There were plenty of third rate legions raised during the civil wars, so that supports a view that the formation needs a lot of time and training to get right.

or in other words, within an Empires game, say a Hellenistic power picks up the improved HI, there is no reason why they can't be well trained, even if they never quite match the full competence of the Roman version?

I fully agree. After all, this game deals with what ifs such as what would have happened if Roman expansion had not been as complete as it was historically. There seems little doubt that the Hellenistic states, had they survived, would have fully switched over to legions in time.

[Geffalrus]

I fully agree. After all, this game deals with what ifs such as what would have happened if Roman expansion had not been as complete as it was historically. There seems little doubt that the Hellenistic states, had they survived, would have fully switched over to legions in time.

Fully disagree. If the Hellenistic states had survived due to fending the Romans off militarily, there would have been no incentive to adopt Roman military equipment en masse. At best, they would have equipped some specialist units in Roman gear that would have operated in support of the phalanx (like what we see in the Daphne Parade with the Seleucid military). The major rearmaments we - do - see are the Pontics and Ptolemies. The Pontus rearmament was a desperation maneuver, and worked about as well as one would expect of such a reckless scheme. The Ptolemies were.........surviving, but not exactly prospering militarily. As the Battle of Raphia and it's preparations clearly demonstrated, the Ptolemaic military was crumbling in peacetime. Without the use of foreign military training staff and the induction of Egyptians into the phalanx rolls, they would have been unable to stand up to the more experienced Seleucid army. In other words, their phalanx tradition was collapsing on its own regardless of Roman involvement. Meanwhile, neither Epirus, nor Macedon, two states who got worked over by the Roman military decades earlier, dropped the phalanx in favor of Roman equipment.

The Roman Legion had some advantages, while the Hellenistic phalanx had others. The real weakness of the Hellenistic kingdoms was not the weapons they used, but rather the socio-political system that supported the military. The Roman Republic was consistently able to survive defeats in war and go on to outlast their opponents and attain ultimate victory. Antigonid Macedon had to sue for peace after one defeat. Antiochus III had to surrender territory and his elephant herd after one defeat. Part of the issue was how Hellenistic kingship worked, part of it was the social system that restricted the phalanx to only military citizen settlers, and part of it was geography.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

[loki100]

certainly in-game, I am building mixed legion-phalanx HI lines with the Hellenistic factions. The only time I go purely for improved HI is if I'm sure the army will mostly fight in bad terrain - in my Epirus game I have one army that tends to stay and fight defensive wars in the Balkans so its got no pikes but a legion HI and Thracian stuff etc.

This seems to work well both in Empires battles and if exported to FoG2

[kvnrthr]

Thanks for the reply. The upgraded HI seems to be a better multi purpose unit than the phalanx since it contributes to sieges, though not as good as legions in either role. Since I have a lot of resources in my playthrough I can afford to get both phalanxes and a lot of regular/mercenary for sieges,

Could be an interesting "what-if" decision to get better imitation legions closer to Roman quality for other factions, but it should be made difficult, rare, and resource intensive. Otherwise everyone would just immediately go for legions.