Oh yes, both bloody good points. We'll see. Could also be some EU Cav type mechanic of having so many provide a bonus.
I hope the game will distinguish between heavy infantry
- Thread starter Martynios
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Was not many light cavalry units during that time considered to be like elite units such as galic light cavalry? Maybe there was some light infantry which was considered to be very good as well.
There was some famous Archer units as well such as balearic slingers who was considered to be really good.
There was some famous Archer units as well such as balearic slingers who was considered to be really good.
Oh I need to get reading on this ere again. Didn't Caesar prize a contingent of Germanic Cavalry ??
Was not cavalry in general considered to be elite units because cavalry was so expensive compared to infantry so that only the equites social class in Rome fought as cavalry otherwise Rome used cavalry recruited from other Cultures?
I suspect the difference between Heavy and light cavalry may not be all that big in status because if horses already was expensive, the Equipment would probably matter less (in terms of cost) (Maybe light and Heavy cavalry needed different horses).
I suspect the difference between Heavy and light cavalry may not be all that big in status because if horses already was expensive, the Equipment would probably matter less (in terms of cost) (Maybe light and Heavy cavalry needed different horses).
Make sense, but I remember getting the distinct impression that he highly regarded his Germanic contingent.
In EU: Rome it always chafed that the Roman Velites were no more than an unruly mob of Militia!
A category of proper Light Infantry is very welcome indeed.
Correct, Roman soldiers had some basic military skills and knowledge just because Rome was almost always fighting a war somewhere, and some of that experience filtered back into the legionary class as a whole, but that's no substitute for serious, formal training. It did mean that the average Roman levy, who could fall back on military traditions even if he didn't get any training, still had an edge over Carthaginian levies who didn't even have that kind of second-hand cultural knowledge.
Besides the Carthaginian levies, the Bruttian recruits Hannibal took on during his years in southern Italy seem to have been poor replacements for his African, Spanish and Gallic veterans.
I really hope this is worked in somehow. Levy- or mercenary-based armies worked differently in the field but even more importantly, had different political and social impacts on their countries, and I really hope this gets the attention it deserves.
That's not a reassuring thought since that attempt at differentiating heavy infantry was pretty terrible and not super interesting. It also would mean that you couldn't have different types of heavy infantry in the same army, or even medium and heavy infantry. Sad!
You can have different Heavy infantries if the differences in attributes are on the units themself instead of global modifiers.
In EU: Rome it always chafed that the Roman Velites were no more than an unruly mob of Militia!
EU: Rome battles was very deterministic because they had no tatics and such which could impact the value of different units.
I hope the Hellenistic armies will be able to reform their army towards the Machairophoroi.
If i remember correctly there are not that many differences on "formations" between cultures. It's a mix of everything not just the uberstronk phalanx or uberstronk legionaries. Why rome overwhelmed with his armies? Many reason : Manipules (tactics and formation), easy conscription (recrutment), professionnal army (conscript must serve 40+ years so they become and are trained as soldier), logistics etc.
Sparte was often described are a warrior state. While it's true it's mainly by comparison over other Greek state. Sparte's citizen were trained to be soldier unlike other citizen which was basically the "rich cast" of others states.
So it can be easy in this game to see differences beetween cultures.
Sparte was often described are a warrior state. While it's true it's mainly by comparison over other Greek state. Sparte's citizen were trained to be soldier unlike other citizen which was basically the "rich cast" of others states.
So it can be easy in this game to see differences beetween cultures.
- It seem there are technologies. Maybe relatives of recrutement? How to recrut, which % of population etc. For exemple in greece the core army (and armored ones) were citizen. Maybe a Quality of "soldier". Rome soldier were given equipement from the state unlike others state.
- It seem there are "action/movement/formation" to choose before a battle. So phalanx available to Greek and Manipule to Roman while Gaul tribe have the "classic" shield wal
If that is possible. It wasn't possible in EU:Rome - you had only one type of heavy infantry unit with country modifiers attached.
Yes but that game is a decade old now so don't expect the same limitation to exist in Imperator,
It's a limitation that has existed in every Paradox game with the exception of Stellaris and the HoI series, so I don't see why I shouldn't until I see something that changes my mind.
Don't EU IV had expansions which allow you to recruit unique units such as banner armies who have more discipline than normal units?
I dissent.
Bruttian warriors are despised in most roman texts, but that's most probably a biased opinion. Bruttians, like Samnites Before them and Veneti after, were staunch adversaries of the SPQR. They were mountain people that fought midway light and heavy infantry (sturdy armors, short swords -probably greek- and often mid-sized shields). They were surely inferior to Roman Principes, but on hills and mountains were way more deadly. They fought the Romans before and after Hannibal, and continued until the romans broken and absorbed them definitively.
If they don't shine in the Hannibal's roster is because they weren't the kind of troops he was used to deal with. Hannibal never really fought a guerrilla hill-war, the kind of conflict at with the Bruttians excelled.
Period.
This was true only from the Marian Reform on, which means around the end of II century BC. Before that roman soldiers should provide their equipment by themselves, like every city-state of the ancient world (even though they stopped being a city state a lot before...).
But it's true that clientes -sort of vassals ante litteram (oversemplification, don't bite me) - were often armed by their patroni (patrons), so by that time not many of them actually armed themselves buying their own equipment.
