Roman strenght?

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
Post Reply
Searry
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:53 pm

Roman strenght?

Post by Searry » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:31 pm

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?

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22419
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Roman strenght?

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:41 pm

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.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Searry
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:53 pm

Re: Roman strenght?

Post by Searry » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:43 pm

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.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22419
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Roman strenght?

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:58 pm

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.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Searry
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:53 pm

Re: Roman strenght?

Post by Searry » Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:03 pm

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.

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: Roman strenght?

Post by JaM2013 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:18 pm

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.
Image

fogman
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1477
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:29 pm

Re: Roman strenght?

Post by fogman » Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:15 am

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

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22419
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Roman strenght?

Post by rbodleyscott » Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:44 am

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.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”