Hastati is overpowerly too defensive

[Teutonic Ritterin]

1 hastati can hold a Silver Shield Swordsmen for 3 minutes,and kills 60 Silvershields.
Hastati cost 350
Silvershield cost at least more or less 1000
is Roman Soldier are so durable?

[Fiona]

Escrito originalmente por Vanilla:

Escrito originalmente por Fiona フィオナ:

It's the point of knowning when to sacrifice certain units to achieve something else I suppose. Velities are so cheap, cheaper than say Libyan Peltasts or Bactrian Peltasts, that losing a few of them is not really as big as an impact or issue. Sure archers and slingers can win you matches in the late game, peltasts have their uses, and losing some velities to keep just a few of your heavier roman men alive seems like a better trade.
Besides, by distracting enemy archers on your javelin units, you can move infantry up, cavalry to the rear or use longer ranged mercenaries to kill the archers.
But if the enemy doesn't fire at your javelin units, that means they can close in and quickily kill the enemy's archer.
Or if they can try charging cavalry, in which case, you can retreat into range of your roman pilla, or move cheap spearmen right behind your velites.

but everytime in campaign,when you got blocked by the enemy army where you want to expand,you need to has Ranged units for siege,not Melee units,so that's why my phobia of protecting even the cheapest unit takes place...

Roman units can usually testudo and tank towers shots while other units do the wall breaking and conversion of towers. And if it's pike in the streets you are worried about, that's where roman pilla and velities come in, they can do quite a number to pikemen. Melee units are as important as ranged units.

[Welsh Dragon]

Escrito originalmente por Vanilla:

The only thing I hate about rome is...Velites
all of your units are overpowerly defensive,but you only got velites as a standard ranged infantry( I almost hate using auxillary,due to the limitation) [/quote]

Thing is that's part of both the Roman playstyle and balancing. They have really good/cost effective melee sword infantry, but are weaker in other areas like cavalry and ranged. Then they can use Auxilliaries to make up for their weaknesses, but they have to conquer the right territory to gain access to them. It's what makes them Roman and in some ways replicates the historical Roman Army, where Auxilliaries more and more filled the roles that Rome's soldiers didn't.

There are mods about that give every faction every kind of unit, but using that robs the game of a certain amount of diversity, so most factions play very similarly.

Escrito originalmente por Vanilla:

but everytime in campaign,when you got blocked by the enemy army where you want to expand,you need to has Ranged units for siege,not Melee units,so that's why my phobia of protecting even the cheapest unit takes place...

Just wondering how you are using your ranged units? I tend to find ranged units (apart from Siege Weapons) least useful in sieges, because their ranged fire has little effect on the enemy soldiers protected by the walls. I tend to either smash down the walls with siege weapons and then charge infantry into the breaches, or have infantry using ladders and siege towers assault the soldiers on the walls, while battering rams take down the gates. Either way, my archers/slingers/javelin men play a small role in those battles.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Barrelz]

DId the romans not have archers in their regular army? Were Archers always Auxilliaries from distant lands? I would like to think that romans used bow and arrow (the clever people they were).

[Teutonic Ritterin]

Escrito originalmente por Welsh Dragon:

Escrito originalmente por Vanilla:

The only thing I hate about rome is...Velites
all of your units are overpowerly defensive,but you only got velites as a standard ranged infantry( I almost hate using auxillary,due to the limitation) [/quote]

Thing is that's part of both the Roman playstyle and balancing. They have really good/cost effective melee sword infantry, but are weaker in other areas like cavalry and ranged. Then they can use Auxilliaries to make up for their weaknesses, but they have to conquer the right territory to gain access to them. It's what makes them Roman and in some ways replicates the historical Roman Army, where Auxilliaries more and more filled the roles that Rome's soldiers didn't.

There are mods about that give every faction every kind of unit, but using that robs the game of a certain amount of diversity, so most factions play very similarly.

Escrito originalmente por Vanilla:

but everytime in campaign,when you got blocked by the enemy army where you want to expand,you need to has Ranged units for siege,not Melee units,so that's why my phobia of protecting even the cheapest unit takes place...

Just wondering how you are using your ranged units? I tend to find ranged units (apart from Siege Weapons) least useful in sieges, because their ranged fire has little effect on the enemy soldiers protected by the walls. I tend to either smash down the walls with siege weapons and then charge infantry into the breaches, or have infantry using ladders and siege towers assault the soldiers on the walls, while battering rams take down the gates. Either way, my archers/slingers/javelin men play a small role in those battles.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon. [/quote]

Don't Laugh,but I used Velites to bring down gates,and wooden structures with their Magical Flaming Javelins

[Barrelz]

Escrito originalmente por Vanilla:

Don't Laugh,but I used Velites to bring down gates,and wooden structures with their Magical Flaming Javelins

Thats one way of doing it.

If it works for you. Whos to say its wrong.

[Fiona]

Escrito originalmente por Both Barrelz:

Escrito originalmente por Vanilla:

Don't Laugh,but I used Velites to bring down gates,and wooden structures with their Magical Flaming Javelins

Thats one way of doing it.

If it works for you. Whos to say its wrong.

Well I would say it's inefficent but it works so sure. Okay.

[Welsh Dragon]

Escrito originalmente por Both Barrelz:

DId the romans not have archers in their regular army? Were Archers always Auxilliaries from distant lands? I would like to think that romans used bow and arrow (the clever people they were).

Basically the Roman military of the time was formed from two parts. The Legions, who were Roman Citizens and mainly served as Heavy Infantry (Hastati, Principes, Triarii pre-Marius reforms, Legionaries post-Marius reforms.) At one point you even had to own a certain amount of land to earn the right to serve in the Legion, though this was ignored and later dispensed with.

And the Auxilia who were formed from non-citizens, and soldiers provided by allies, subjugated states and mercenaries, and which fulfilled other roles in the military including many ranged and cavalry roles. (The Socii units also would probably fall into this as they were from the non-Roman autonomous tribes and city-states of the Italian Peninsula, who were basically in a permanent military alliance with Rome.)

Archers fall into the Auxilliary category, because most Roman citizens didn't do archery and didn't fight as archers (as far as we know.) Archery isn't something you can just pick up quickly, it takes years of training and practice to learn the skills and build up the right kind of strengths, not to mention to make and maintain the bows and arrows. So it may well have been more cost effective, quicker and had better results to use mercenaries and conquered populaces with a tradition of archery than try to build one from scratch.

Rome was very cany about making use of the strengths of the people it conquered to augment their own strengths, and at the same time quite set in their ways of how a Roman should fight.

The Roman military, fighting style and equipment evolved over time as they faced new enemies and absorbed new cultures knowledge and techniques. So if you want archers you need to use mercenaries or conquer places which had a tradition of archery (Crete, Thracia, Syria, Germania, etc) much like the Romans did.

Rome II represents all this through the Legion and Auxilliary recruitment system, which whilst maybe not as complex (and thus historically accurate) as it could be, does a pretty decent job in my view.

Basically what I'm saying is, yes they could have given bows to a bunch of citizens if they wanted, but as far as we know they didn't at this point in history, and it's questionable how effective they would have been if they had.

*

Escrito originalmente por Vanilla:

Don't Laugh,but I used Velites to bring down gates,and wooden structures with their Magical Flaming Javelins

Not going to laugh. It's a legitimate strategy, and as others have said if it works for you then use it.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Barrelz]

Escrito originalmente por Welsh Dragon:

Escrito originalmente por Both Barrelz:

DId the romans not have archers in their regular army? Were Archers always Auxilliaries from distant lands? I would like to think that romans used bow and arrow (the clever people they were).

Basically the Roman military of the time was formed from two parts. The Legions, who were Roman Citizens and mainly served as Heavy Infantry (Hastati, Principes, Triarii pre-Marius reforms, Legionaries post-Marius reforms.) At one point you even had to own a certain amount of land to earn the right to serve in the Legion, though this was ignored and later dispensed with.

And the Auxilia who were formed from non-citizens, and soldiers provided by allies, subjugated states and mercenaries, and which fulfilled other roles in the military including many ranged and cavalry roles. (The Socii units also would probably fall into this as they were from the non-Roman autonomous tribes and city-states of the Italian Peninsula, who were basically in a permanent military alliance with Rome.)

Archers fall into the Auxilliary category, because most Roman citizens didn't do archery and didn't fight as archers (as far as we know.) Archery isn't something you can just pick up quickly, it takes years of training and practice to learn the skills and build up the right kind of strengths, not to mention to make and maintain the bows and arrows. So it may well have been more cost effective, quicker and had better results to use mercenaries and conquered populaces with a tradition of archery than try to build one from scratch.

Rome was very cany about making use of the strengths of the people it conquered to augment their own strengths, and at the same time quite set in their ways of how a Roman should fight.

The Roman military, fighting style and equipment evolved over time as they faced new enemies and absorbed new cultures knowledge and techniques. So if you want archers you need to use mercenaries or conquer places which had a tradition of archery (Crete, Thracia, Syria, Germania, etc) much like the Romans did.

Rome II represents all this through the Legion and Auxilliary recruitment system, which whilst maybe not as complex (and thus historically accurate) as it could be, does a pretty decent job in my view.

Basically what I'm saying is, yes they could have given bows to a bunch of citizens if they wanted, but as far as we know they didn't at this point in history, and it's questionable how effective they would have been if they had.

*

Escrito originalmente por Vanilla:

Don't Laugh,but I used Velites to bring down gates,and wooden structures with their Magical Flaming Javelins

Not going to laugh. It's a legitimate strategy, and as others have said if it works for you then use it.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

That cleared that up and was rather interesting at same time. Thank you.

[Welsh Dragon]

Escrito originalmente por Both Barrelz:

That cleared that up and was rather interesting at same time. Thank you.

You're welcome. Glad I could help.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Kaya]

Rome is just bad ass, accept it

[Teutonic Ritterin]

can rome just has a Sagitarii (Auxillary Archer),They even has Auxillary Infantry,the unit who will replace the job for Triarii in late game

[SIX]

Rome is OP simple as that

[Welsh Dragon]

Escrito originalmente por Vanilla:

can rome just has a Sagitarii (Auxillary Archer),They even has Auxillary Infantry,the unit who will replace the job for Triarii in late game

That's essentially what they have. Auxiliary Cretan Archers, Auxiliary Dacian Bowmen, Auxiliary Syrian Archers etc are all Sagittarii:

From about 218 BC onwards, the archers of the Roman army of the mid-Republic were virtually all mercenaries from the island of Crete, which boasted a long specialist tradition. During the late Republic (88-30 BC) and the Augustan period, Crete was gradually eclipsed by men from other, much more populous, regions subjugated by the Romans with strong archery traditions. These included Thrace, Anatolia and above all, Syria. Of the 32 sagittarii units attested in the mid-2nd century, 13 have Syrian names, 7 Thracian, 5 from Anatolia, 1 from Crete and the remaining 6 of other or uncertain origin.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxilia#Archers

From what I've read Rome didn't really start fielding Archers in larger numbers (full units) until they had conquered Crete, so it makes sense that Rome in the game has to do something similar.

Also most bows in the ancient world, especially in the west, weren't as effective as say a Welsh Longbow would be in later history, so until they gained access to better bows/bowmen they were probably viewed as an inferior weapon of war by Rome. (Which would explain why early Rome didn't really use them much.)

That said, if you do a search for "Roman Archer" or something you'll probably find some mods that add them as you aren't the only one who has queried this. Hope that helps.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Teutonic Ritterin]

well,if anyone know a mod that allows you to recruit all auxillary units in auxillary barracks in italia,tell me the mod.

~Archers is life.Archer is love~nya

[Teutonic Ritterin]

I can't Conquer greece,nor German,all of my army is campaigning in Carthage,and the greece has been a valuable trade partners for a long time...