Default Elite level for Roman Legions for transferred battles to FOG2

[ironduke1955]

Anyone know why Roman Legions translate one star of experience to a Elite level in the FOG 2 battle simulator, all the Roman Legions I fight are translated to elite makes battles nigh on unwinnable.

[loki100]

the basic value is amended for (a) differences in command competence, (b) differences in effectiveness

even +1 on the command values can make a real difference

[rbodleyscott]

FOGE Legions without any experience bonus default to Superior in FOG2.

the basic value is amended for (a) differences in command competence, (b) differences in effectiveness

even +1 on the command values can make a real difference

In addition to what loki has said, it is also worth noting that general skill for this purpose is not based on the average of the general's attack and defence rating, but on whichever one of these applies. The general that is strategically attacking uses his Attack rating, and the general that is strategically defending uses his Defence rating.

Thus if your general (whose rating is 1:1) is attacking, and the enemy general's rating is 0:2, the general skill is 1 in favour of the enemy, and their troop quality ratings will be adjusted accordingly. (Enemy quality adjusted up moderately, your quality adjusted down moderately).

Say your general is a 2:0 and is defending (so is rated as skill 0 for this battle) against an enemy general also with rating 2:0, (who is attacking, so is rated as skill 2 for this battle). Despite both the generals having exactly the same skill ratings, because your general is using his defence rating (0) and the enemy general is using his attack rating (2), the general skill is in fact 2 in favour of the enemy for this battle, and the troop quality ratings will be adjusted even more in their favour (or, sometimes, some of your units will arrive late instead).

[ironduke1955]

I don't normally field inferior commanders, but from memory Roman Commanders were political appointee's, not necessarily the most able. And if Roman Legions start at superior and no lower that's a false starting position, Roman Legions could be very green indeed especially in the earlier days of the Republic. So this seems to be a artificial boost to the Roman faction all very well if you like playing Romans a pain if you don't.

And I may be wrong but the rounding up seems to apply when fighting the Roman AI, I don't remember having Elite Romans from anything other than 4 star units.

[rbodleyscott]

And I may be wrong but the rounding up seems to apply when fighting the Roman AI, I don't remember having Elite Romans from anything other than 4 star units.

The conversion process from Empires to FOG2 is exactly the same for player and AI units and generals.

[Demetrios_of_Messene]

I do not have an issue with the current set-up and I understand the reasoning behind it.

However, I would much prefer if generals had a less profound effect on unit quality. Instead of affecting all units, I would prefer if the generals skills would negatively affect only a percentage of units under their command (only when exporting to FOG2, I do not want to tamper with the gameplay balance of Empires).Generals skills could have bigger effect on other parameters like available sub-generals or chance of catching the enemy split.

Historically, good troops were good troops regardless of their commanding officer (The ten thousand are a perfect example, though outside our time frame. Within our time frame: a) silver shields were elite no matter who commanded them, though they usually had good commanders, b) roman legions usually comprised a well performing army regardless who led them, who would in fact frequently be a rotating person as the senate did not trust long term duties- wonder why? c) veteran mercenary armies normally had their own leader and maintain high discipline no matter who was their employer/ supreme commander)

[FrenchDude]

I think that the current system is fine personnally. I think that the commander’s ability doesn’t only represent the effectiveness of his manœuvers on the battlefield, but also other aspects of war such as logistics management, troops marching and foraging in the countryside for days before the battle, and plenty of operationnal level decisions made by the leader. There’s a lot of abstraction there, and even if the troops are of high quality, bad decisions can lead to a severe decrease in the efficiency of the fighting force. Just look at the Battle of the Teutoburg forest where good quality legionnaires were ambushed and slaughtered by German tribesmen led by a competent general. Or battles during the Caesar/Pompée civil war, where legionnaires who were sometimes of equal value performed drastically differently because of the leadership and the different strategic decisions made by the leaders before the actual battles took place. The key word here is abstraction, I think

I do think that Roman Legions in the beginning should translate to « Average » quality in FOG2 because some troops they were fighting such as the phalangites used by Pyrrhus were professionals fighters too, and they proved to be an equal match for the romans and trained to a decent level. The romans were not the only ones to have an almost « professional » army, and in the days of the Republic they had citizen soldiers who were decently trained but not exactly « professional » like the imperial legionnaires

[rbodleyscott]

I think that the current system is fine personnally. I think that the commander’s ability doesn’t only represent the effectiveness of his manœuvers on the battlefield, but also other aspects of war such as logistics management, troops marching and foraging in the countryside for days before the battle, and plenty of operationnal level decisions made by the leader. There’s a lot of abstraction there, and even if the troops are of high quality, bad decisions can lead to a severe decrease in the efficiency of the fighting force. Just look at the Battle of the Teutoburg forest where good quality legionnaires were ambushed and slaughtered by German tribesmen led by a competent general. Or battles during the Caesar/Pompée civil war, where legionnaires who were sometimes of equal value performed drastically differently because of the leadership and the different strategic decisions made by the leaders before the actual battles took place. The key word here is abstraction, I think

I do think that Roman Legions in the beginning should translate to « Average » quality in FOG2 because some troops they were fighting such as the phalangites used by Pyrrhus were professionals fighters too, and they proved to be an equal match for the romans and trained to a decent level. The romans were not the only ones to have an almost « professional » army, and in the days of the Republic they had citizen soldiers who were decently trained but not exactly « professional » like the imperial legionnaires

I agree that non-veteran pre-Marian republican Roman legionaries could more accurately be rated "Above Average" as they are in vanilla FOG2. The reason they were done as they have been done in the Empires > FOG2 conversion database is to allow the Roman legions to be distinguished from allied alae. However, tweaking both these units is possible with the system and we could look into doing so.

Note that part of the uprating of Republican legions is to abstractly represent the effects of their manipular system, line replacement etc. within each unit (each of which represents 4 maniples in chequerboard). So instead of non-veteran Roman legions being Superior (Quality 200) and non-veteran allied alae being Above Average (quality 150), they could be quality 150 and 125 respectively - although both these would appear in game as "Above Average", as each verbal description covers a range of values. The alae could be Average (quality 100), to distinguish them more clearly, but that would not take into account the benefits of the manipular system - compared with, for example, Spanish scutarii who used similar weaponry but not the manipular system.

[FrenchDude]

I agree that non-veteran pre-Marian republican Roman legionaries could more accurately be rated "Above Average" as they are in vanilla FOG2. The reason they were done as they have been done in the Empires > FOG2 conversion database is to allow the Roman legions to be distinguished from allied alae. However, tweaking both these units is possible with the system and we could look into doing so.

Note that part of the uprating of Republican legions is to abstractly represent the effects of their manipular system, line replacement etc. within each unit (each of which represents 4 maniples in chequerboard). So instead of non-veteran Roman legions being Superior (Quality 200) and non-veteran allied alae being Above Average (quality 150), they could be quality 150 and 125 respectively - although both these would appear in game as "Above Average", as each verbal description covers a range of values. The alae could be Average (quality 100), to distinguish them more clearly, but that would not take into account the benefits of the manipular system - compared with, for example, Spanish scutarii who used similar weaponry but not the manipular system.

I didn’t know that each verbal description covered a range of values, interesting ! 150/125 for regular Roman/Alae Legions could be more historically accurate and balanced game-wise In my opinion !

About the benefits of the manipular system : Is the manipular system a reason big enough to justify the gap in quality between Alae Legions and other Italian infantry ? Wouldn’t their discipline/training be the main thing here ? I don’t know if they had the same discipline/training as Roman regular legions however. And equipment wise, the Alae’s equipment was probably quite similar to other Italian infantry during the early republican period. I think I do not have your historical knowledge, and you made extensive research for FOGII so you probably have good reasons to consider that the manipular system is a big factor.

But your post made me think of an occasion during which Roman legionnaries thought each other using the manipular system and the fighting style of the Scutarii : The battle of Ilerda, where Caesarean Roman legionnaries fought Pompeian Roman Legionnaries. Caesar’s legionnaries fought their former comrades in the « traditional » Roman manner, with the manipular system. However, Pompeian troops, who where stationed in Hispania for some time and grew accustomed to the Iberian fighting techniques, were fighting in a more loose formation, using hit and run tactics on the battlefield, just like the Scutarii and Caetrii they were usually fighting. During a part of the battle, when Caesarean legionnaires tried to occupy a hill between the city and the Pompeians fortified position outside of the town, Pompeian soldiers made a sortie and fought Caesar’s cohorts head on in a loose « Iberian-Style » fighting formation. It wasn’t on some rough terrain, and yet Pompeian Legionnaires managed to gain the upper hand against experienced Caesarean Legionnaires that were fighting using the manipular system. They had to receive reinforcements in order to push back their foe and go back to a status quo.

So here we have troops both armed in the Roman manner, with two different fighting styles and te manipular system didn’t lead to a major victory but to a very costly draw, with Caesar loosing around 700 men, and Pompee’s general losing around 200.
My opinion is that the manipular system enables versatility and initiative, and that is an advantage against more rigid phalanx like formation used by citizen Italian/Greek hoplites on uneven ground. However, the main advantage of the Roman Legion was probably their above average training and discipline (for a citizen army), even during the Republican era, which made this mainly citizen army superior to many of their neighbours

It’s just my opinion, I’m just a random French dude on the internet lol, I have some sources but I don’t know how valid my vision of things is

Cheers !

[rbodleyscott]

My opinion is that the manipular system enables versatility and initiative, and that is an advantage against more rigid phalanx like formation used by citizen Italian/Greek hoplites on uneven ground. However, the main advantage of the Roman Legion was probably their above average training and discipline (for a citizen army), even during the Republican era, which made this mainly citizen army superior to many of their neighbours.

I agree. This would all be abstracted into the "Above Average" rating.

[Pocus]

There will be some tweaks for 1.05 on legionnaire quality, thanks to this discussion and Richard input.

[melm]

There will be some tweaks for 1.05 on legionnaire quality, thanks to this discussion and Richard input.

Will 1.05 patch get released skipping 1.04?

[PJL1973]

There will be some tweaks for 1.05 on legionnaire quality, thanks to this discussion and Richard input.

Will 1.05 patch get released skipping 1.04?

I can see it now - it's a new marketing strategy, instead of going up by .01, version releases will go up by .02 to make people think the patch will be twice as big as usual....

[kokkorhekkus]

Yes , the problem is the same with Usurper's roman army ! It's a bit boring to stop a roman game because of repetitive great elite armies by usurpers with suddenly apparitions....Civil wars ? OK , but please not with Elite Armies each time ! For other faction the only method i know to counterbalancing this fact is : many many skirmishers , and avoid clash of arms before many losses by these skirmishers, cavalry to break the roman cohort lines from left an right front and isolate one or two cohorts in the center for 2 or three charges and flanking ,-)

[Pocus]

1.05 will have the early units slightly lower in quality when exported to FOG II.