Legitimate questioning of Rome's balance in multiplayer

[Alexandria38]

I have been playing quite a bit of multiplayer recently with default funds, and I have noticed that there is a 100% chance that SOMEONE is going to be Rome. This has led to many battles questioning how they are balanced. Now before you blow this off as a rage post, I will try to supply some statistical comparisons and actual balancing reasons as to why I think they could use a minor nerf.

First off, the Legionary Cohort, the pretty much standard troop I see everyone using. This unit is quite versatile, it has a few pila to throw, it has VERY good armor for it's price, and has the standard sword-beats spear buff, as well as good charge bonus which is paired with most sword units.
Melee attack:47
Weapon damage:35
Charge bonus:14
Melee defence:48
armor:90 (!!!)
health:60
Morale:55
Cost:700.
Now I will compare them to Thorax Swordsmen, which are around the same price range and role.

Thorax swordsmen:
Melee attack:38
Weapon damage:34
Charge bonus:18
Melee defence:57
armor:75
health:60
Morale:55
Cost:710.
These Thorax Swordsmen also have precursors like the Legionary Cohorts.

Now how about a barbarian faction? Chosen Swordsmen.
Melee attack: 34
Weapon damage: 40
Charge bonus: 27
Melee defence: 62
armor: 75
health: 55
Morale: 55
Cost: 720

So these are all very similar, and most people would agree that melee attack is the most important stat. Legionary Cohorts of which have the most, as well as much more armor, less melee defense though their armor makes up for that. And then, they are 710. If you go check your unit rosters, you will notice very few factions besides Rome gets a unit between 700 and over 1,000 cost.

So, here is one possible reason Rome feels a bit too good. Armored legionaries.
Melee attack: 58
Weapon damage: 35
Charge bonus: 15
Melee defence: 51
armor: 95
health: 60
Morale: 65
Cost: 930
This unit is slightly better than legionary cohorts, but slight enough to put them ahead of nearly all the units I just listed. Now they are still less than 1,000 to buy. Think of the Greeks and Barbarians. They go from Thorax Swordsmen at 710 which can almost fight legionary cohorts to Royal Peltasts, which are nearly double the price, but defenitely worth it if your enemy is using low tier troops (unlikely). Barbarians go from Chosen Swordsmen which again kind of maybe will win against Legionary cohorts, to Oathsworn which are again, almost double the cost at 1,340. Now don't get me wrong, Oathsworn are amazing.

Now let me finally get to my point: Each match, I see Rome come in with 6-8 legionary cohorts or plain legionaries, in addition to 3-5 ranged units (I will get to those) and ALSO decent cavalry such as legionary cav or even a praetorian cav. Their variety and amount of units is causing them to be so good. If I want to BEAT Rome's units as another faction, I have to pay a lot of money, almost 2 times as much as legionary cohorts. And there are few units on the same price range that BEAT Rome's legionaries, if any. Royal peltasts, when double teamed by legionaries, which is inevitable, will lose. Greeks having good sword units costs them numbers, while Rome has such beefy units for a decent cost. Barbarians who lack units between the 600-1,200 can't contest Rome. The sheer armor the Romans have paired with their pila and melee ability gives my opponents the ability to outnumber me, and in too many cases they have just run back when i am charging them and pelted me.

Say my composition is 2 pikemen, 4 thureos spears, 2 samnite warriors, 2 picked hoplites, 2 campanian cav and 3 archers. My general HAS to be 700 cost (Another thing with Rome, generals are cheap and you don't have to risk them to have a good unit in battle). Now that is my entire army, the Roman guy can have a cheap legatus, 8 legionary cohorts (Any one can beat a thureos spear and go even with a samnite warrior), then additionally 4 aux inf, 3 aux cav, and 3 auxiliary syrian archers. With a remainder of 110 denarii for a rank or 2.

So that is Syracuse vs Rome, 16 units vs 19. The archers and auxiliaries are almost unneccesary, the cohorts can beat any of those infantry units 1 on 1, and then they also have cav and archers.

And finally, Rome's ranged units. They get as auxiliaries: Balearic slingers (Iberians' BEST ranged units), Syrian archers (Seleucid's BEST archers, and they have 40 armor and 50 health).

So not only do they have the widest range of troops, that excel in armor and melee attack at the same time, they get other factions' best ranged units as their own. Their one weakness is elephants but then they get one of the best archer units. So here is my excessively long post to be TL;DR'd. If you read this far please put only related comments and keep it civil. Thanks.

[Shadow of the SPQR]

I don't think CA looked very deeply when making multiplayer when it comes to balance.

[Alexandria38]

Originally posted by CommodusIV:

I don't think CA looked very deeply when making multiplayer when it comes to balance.

Unfortunately it does seem that way. Between most every faction except Rome and Carthage, there is a good balance. But if you throw Rome in there (which is always thrown in there), it gets unbalanced.

I play 3v3s with my friends on my team, so odds are 1 out of the 3 opponents will be Rome. Any time any of us do substantial damage to Rome, we have taken too many losses to finish them off and like a zombie horde they have so many more units. That Syracuse army I listed is what I use, and if executed correctly and my opponent doesn't run away (which is 50% of the time) I can actually almost beat them, and I have beaten other factions with it. But Rome just gets so many units and my friends die and I get overrun or soemething lame happens.

[Prestomac]

This is where skill comes into play. You should want to play a challenge in Multiplayer. The sweet satisfaction you get after beating a Roman or Carthaginian player with a less able faction is awesome!

But I agree, it is quite unbalanced. But Rome was unbalanced in real life anyway.... so you have to play like Hannibal would. :)

[Shadow of the SPQR]

If I play a multiplayer battle, it is with an organized team... and likely a team that strives for being historically accurate.

MP public is either spammers of high end units, spammers of just plain units, or some genuinely good players with strategy I find.

[☩ GPUwavefront ☩]

Roman cavalry can be defeated by elefants + camel spearmens.
Legionaries is really trouble, but smart using of pikes + elephants, or even chariots - is key to victory. I agree with you, Rome too owerpowered. If your opponent skill equals your, and he play as roman - you WILL lose.

[☩ GPUwavefront ☩]

Ok, one more way to ♥♥♥♥ romans. Choose parthians / nomads. Full stack of horse archers + some melee cavalry. This is what really cannot be stopped. Only with other HA.

[Mithrandir]

In many games, the need for MP balance have caused a lot of problems for those who don't play vs others.

It usually tend toward giving the same abilities to all factions/characters and that's bad for replayability.

[Alexandria38]

Originally posted by Mithrandir:

In many games, the need for MP balance have caused a lot of problems for those who don't play vs others.

It usually tend toward giving the same abilities to all factions/characters and that's bad for replayability.

But is making 1 faction with no counters really the way to go?

[Salty Nobody]

Romans lack pikes, exotics (chariots and elephants), long ranged cavalry and inexpensive long ranged units. I rarely get any trouble from them because I use this to my advantage. If you have room to maneuver keep out of melee until you run out of ammo. Even in tetsudo they are not immune (especially from the rear) and actually help you out by voluntarily slowing themselves down. Units in tetsudo on the ends of the line are good targets for multidirectional cavalry smashing, and if nearby units are rushed in to help they are out of tetsudo and vulnerable to getting shot in the flanks. If there isnt room or time for any of that, use pikes. Even cheap levy pikes can hold off and inflict damage to much better roman infantry for some time while flanking units come in from the sides and rear for the kill. Just keep them out of formation as long as possible so the pilums don’t murder your guys.

[Fun-O-Matic]

Originally posted by Tactician:

Romans lack pikes, exotics (chariots and elephants), long ranged cavalry and inexpensive long ranged units. I rarely get any trouble from them because I use this to my advantage.

I agree. People tend to think that balance is a requirement in factions which is not. You play the strengths and weaknesses of each faction. If you play sword vs sword or any strength of Rome, you will lose terribly vs Rome. Because that is the strength of Rome not the non-Rome faction you chose.

Because there is no balance, you have to think more about strengths and weaknesses. Which is for me more strategy and less straightforward.

[Prestomac]

If you host a match, politely set the rules. For example you can tell your opponent he can play as Rome but he can only bring pre-marian units.

I personally love playing with a Pre-marian army and I will be uploading a video of me barely beating a Carthaginian player. Pre-marian armies are very balanced compared to other factions, and I would even go as far to say as it makes Rome UNDERPOWERED.

List of pre-marian units:

Levy Skirmishers
Velites
Balearic Slingers

Hastati
Principes
Triarii

Equites
Equites Socii
Equites Socii Extraordinaire

[Shadow of the SPQR]

Originally posted by The Brossiah:

If you host a match, politely set the rules. For example you can tell your opponent he can play as Rome but he can only bring pre-marian units.

I personally love playing with a Pre-marian army and I will be uploading a video of me barely beating a Carthaginian player. Pre-marian armies are very balanced compared to other factions, and I would even go as far to say as it makes Rome UNDERPOWERED.

List of pre-marian units:

Levy Skirmishers
Velites
Balearic Slingers

Hastati
Principes
Triarii

Equites
Equites Socii
Equites Socii Extraordinaire

Not sure why (the vigiles do the same thing) but I am irked by the lack of Roarii in the custom games section for rome.

[Alexandria38]

Originally posted by Migz - DH:

Originally posted by Cody38:

the Legionary Cohort [...] the standard sword-beats spear buff

Are you talking about the "Bonus vs. Infantry" stat?

If so, Rome's soldiers have 0 for that stat as of the Emperor Edition. The Encyclopaedia incorrectly shows a 2 there.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=329673306

If you're talking about a different stat, please let me know, and I'll delete my comment.

There is an unwritten stat that makes a soldier with a sword have a bonus versus a soldier specifically wielding a spear. I heard tale this was removed with the latest patch but I doubt it.

[Alexandria38]

Originally posted by Namayan:

Originally posted by Tactician:

Romans lack pikes, exotics (chariots and elephants), long ranged cavalry and inexpensive long ranged units. I rarely get any trouble from them because I use this to my advantage.

I agree. People tend to think that balance is a requirement in factions which is not. You play the strengths and weaknesses of each faction. If you play sword vs sword or any strength of Rome, you will lose terribly vs Rome. Because that is the strength of Rome not the non-Rome faction you chose.

Because there is no balance, you have to think more about strengths and weaknesses. Which is for me more strategy and less straightforward.

Okay, strengths and weaknesses. So this makes all factions who aren't Rome obsolete unless they have elephants, chariots or pikes because Rome was historically a sword strong faction? That would include all barbarians and greeks depending on composition.

You just proved my entire posts' point: You will lose versus Rome every time with swords or spears, in an equal skill match.

[Salty Nobody]

Not at all. Elephants and chariots are banned outright in alot of matches anyway, and the Iceni chariots I often use completely fail me against anything heavier than unarmored infantry. In my experience Thorax swords and the various mid level barbarian heavy sword units work just fine against Rome. The more expensive a unit is the better it is, and while rome has many cost options to choose from if they bring their more expensive swords they will have to bring less of them than you if you dont waste money on the rest of your army.

Op, I would highly recommend getting rid of most of the spear units in your army, spears tend to lose to swords in this game even without any bonus against infantry and thureos spears in particular suck against anything not cav or another weak spear unit. Also, switch out your pikemen for the cheaper levies. My armies also tend to be cav heavy (with any elite units I bring usually being cav) with the cheapest missile unit avalable with 150 range, which makes the weak roman general unit a liability unless they pull away forces to guard him, which is bound to leave something of theirs open to missile fire. Remember, the Romans will always either have cheap javelin units that cant hurt you unless they get too close (a liability), or expensive elite long ranged units that take money away from the rest of their army (potentially a bigger liability). Use your cav to decide the outcome of a prolonged shooting war with them, the cav will either charge home and rout them all or they will be so busy running away while your missile units shoot them in the back that they will rout without doing much damage. And if you still cant beat them, try a different faction. The Selucids, at least, are a good match for the Romans even if you never use their elephant and chariot assets.