Roman Underdogs?

[Robert241167]

Hi everyone

Well I've completed 16 games with the game and the sad man that I am I have compiled results.

I have won 7, lost 7 and drawn 2.

5 of the losses and both draws were all of the games I have played as Romans.

When not playing as Romans I have won 7 and lost 2.

Is anyone else seeing similar results as Romans?

The upside is that the 5 games I still have in progress my opponents are all Roman. You have been warned Ian, Keith, Deeter and Dave!

Rob

[devoncop]

Hi.

Well Ive got this excellent game today and noticed this thread with interest.
Admittedly i am only playing the AI on neutral but the first 5 battles I have played (all as Roman) i have won 4 and lost the first one when I was trying out the system.

I would not say the Romans are underpowered and apart from their less than spectacular cavalry I have found them extremely resilient.

Are you just talking multi player?

Cheers
ian

[deeter]

I find Rome to be too strong in most multiplayer games. I think this to because Rome gets (ahistoricaly) too many cavalry.

Deeter

[IainMcNeil]

The cavalry numbers are based on the historical order of battle.

[deeter]

But the generals are extra, yes?

Deeter

[ianiow]

Looking at the starter army1 battle, only the C in C gets 'extra' cavalry. The sub generals all borrow their troops from the list.

[IainMcNeil]

No, the cavalry that accompany the general are taken from the numbers. E.g. on teh table top you migth have 3 battlegroups of cavalry and a separate general, while on the PC game 2 and a 3rd with a general.

[deeter]

Not wishing to beat a dead horse, but the Romans get two BG of cav for 2,000 men in the starter list in the book. Carthage gets four BG (including the LH) for 4,000, a 2-1 advantage. That's working from 250 men per stand.

The PC OOB gives Rome five BG (including generals) for 5,000 men. Carthage gets nine BG (including generals) but the LH are only 500 each, so a total of 7,000 men, somewhat less than 2-1.

This may no seem like a big difference, but considering the Romans have 5,000 mounted in an army of 26,000 in the game when historically they should have about 2,000 for an army that size, it makes it much tougher to win on the flanks before the Roman infantry punch through the center.

I enjoy the scenario alot, regardless. But I've never beaten a human playing as Carthage and need to blame it on something.

Deeter

[IainMcNeil]

The number of men in a battlegroup has no effect on their stats. 9v5 is about 2:1

[deeter]

Good point Ian.

How about we play that scenario with you as Carthage so I can see them win this one?

Deeter

P.S. Looking at the Rise of Rome list, Romans can have 3 BG of cav and LH tops unless they bring allies. Carthage can have 7, before allies. I guess this is something for other scenarios.

[keithmartinsmith]

Its not just numbers. Most Roman cavalry are undrilled, average and often protected and most Carthaginian cavalry are drilled, usually superior and often armoured. Unless the Carthaginians general was historically with undrilled types we have made them drilled.

Keith

[CharlesRobinson]

I have done well with Romans and against them and have lost to both. I too am running about equal on losses and wins with a couple of draws. I find the battles come down more to tactics and luck of the dice than the units themselves. I have developed some good tactics for some of the battles exploting terrain and combined arms, but learned other lessons the hard way from whatching some of your guys kick my but.

[Lamachus435]

This may no seem like a big difference, but considering the Romans have 5,000 mounted in an army of 26,000 in the game when historically they should have about 2,000 for an army that size, it makes it much tougher to win on the flanks before the Roman infantry punch through the center. Deeter

Polybius claims that the standard consular army would have about 2400 horsemen, 12000 heavy infantrymen, and 4800 velites, so for an army of 26000 the Romans should have at least 3500 horsemen.

I tested Roman Legionaries (14 pts, 1500 men, Superior, Armoured, Impact Foot, Swordsmen+) vs Macedonian Pikemen (12 pts, 1500 men, Superior, Protected, Pikemen) several times and almost every time the Romans were smashed.

[CharlesRobinson]

I had done tests as well.

I did a 1200pts of Romans vs 1200pts of Gauls on an open battle field and was able to win with either army.

I did a 1200pts of Romans vs 1200pt of Parthians on open battle field and was able to win with either army.

These lists were based on the army lists in field of glory and 1/3rd of my legionaries for the battle against the Gauls were average protected.