Following on from the topic on legionary melee expert.  Following on from suggestions made in the earlier forums and concerns expressed about Roman armies being too strong.
I am neutral about both these possible changes.

This might affect Mid-Republican, Late Republican, Early Imperial Roman and Imperial Roman armies.

1. Should we limit the TuG size of Exceptional legionaries to 6?
2. Should the limit on Superior legionaries be restricted to half the total number of legionaries?  (Superiors only, so you could add Exceptionals).

I am aware this might impact on some existing armies.

Richard

I think a 6 base limit on Exceptionals has merit. The numbers of truly harder than nails nutters as a unit is always likely to be small.

In respect of limiting the proportion of Superior legionaries (did you mean Superior + Exceptionals BTW, or just Superior so you can get Exceptionals on top) I am broadly OK with that with a couple of caveats.

Firsty I think that there are some MRR and LRR armies that can justify a high proportion of Superior - the army of Lucullus always springs to mind when this is mentioned for some reason, and Scipio in Africa at the end of the 2nd PW - but I also suspect that they wouldn't have the Exceptionals as Caesar generally seems to have a proportion of legions who would not justify Superior.

Secondly I think for the EIR I would suggest that Superiors (& Exceptionals?) be no more than half of the Roman infantry - i.e. legionaries and auxilia combined. This would both avoid hamstringing the army (which I think is seen as the weakest of the pre-C4th CE onwards Romans), and sort of give the auxilia minimum more of a justification and fit in with the idea that they are "budget legionaries".

Depends on era. Think your possibly going to over complicate things. As the Republic/Empire was vast its likely that some campaigns were conducted by experienced battle hardened legions, Other campaigns by newly raised Legions. Mid Republic would depend on the Campaign and probably like the later Republican Civil Wars have Raw/Poor (newly raised) Legions. Later republic would have had Veteran field armies and Inexperienced. Personally i would leave it to the player to decide. Praetorian Guard should only be one unit/Cohort/ Legion and I believe a 4 or 6 would be correct. Caesars Xth legion would have been whole minus casualties, sick etc same as all other legions.

Not really sure why so much fuss is being made of how the Romans perform. No recollection of them winning a competition. In fact they are normally rarely used because of cost. I suspect its more a case of one or two very good players know how to use them and there opponents are not as proficient.

Quote from: Robin on November 15, 2023, 07:50:27 AM
Not really sure why so much fuss is being made of how the Romans perform. No recollection of them winning a competition.

Warfare; youknow, last weekend - you were there   

It isn't all about competition wins. Specific historical interactions are important. However, as you say player ability has a very significant impact on competitions, but competition performance overall can be symptomatic.

I'm still with Robin on this issue - I remain unconvinced that it is a problem that needs solving.

Quote from: SteveO on November 15, 2023, 09:06:56 AM
I'm still with Robin on this issue - I remain unconvinced that it is a problem that needs solving.

It appears to be more of an issue on the continent. 

I wonder whether a part of the issue is Romans get to upgrade a lot of bases as "veterans" and to exceptional, but their opponents don't.

Romans (ignoring cavalry)
CR 4 so no-one's complaining about them, except perhaps the people running them.
MRR 30 sup with ME if using combined units. No ex.
LRR 24 sup, 8 Ex (with ME)
EIR 24 sup, 8 Ex (no ME).
IR   half of all TUGs
FR  half of infantry TUGS but they are not IW/ME any more, so not seen as a problem.

Samnites 24 Sup ME but UJaSSp instead of IW  Still pretty good, though.
Later Mac 8 sup pike.
H Gallic 12 sup, 6 sup fanatic none with ME
L Gallic  12 sup, 6 sup fanatic, 12 sup chariots if you also take 12 average, none with ME
E German 18 sup inf, 6 sup cav, none with ME.
AB 18 sup inf, 12 sup chariots if you also take 12 average, none with ME but you can take EIR allies with 16 sup legion and 6 sup cav.
L Cartho 6 sup ME cav, 18 inf LSp but 18-36 veteran Gallic infantry only upgrade from tribal ave to formed ave.

OK, not as far behind the Romans as I suspected (except Later Mac) so I think it is the combination of +2 in charge, +1 in melee to start with AND the upgrades AND the flexible fight-in-all-terrains. 

Despite all that, the army results from numerous uses on https://www.dracostandard.co.uk/ArmyStats do not show any great benefit from using these armies.

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 15, 2023, 09:37:27 AM
Despite all that, the army results from numerous uses on https://www.dracostandard.co.uk/ArmyStats do not show any great benefit from using these armies.

Bingo!

I used the LRR at Warfare 2023 and came 11th. At Warfare 2021 I used the unfavoured Phoenicians with their excruciating command structure and came 4th. Nothing to see here IMHO, move along.

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 15, 2023, 09:37:27 AM
Despite all that, the army results from numerous uses on https://www.dracostandard.co.uk/ArmyStats do not show any great benefit from using these armies.

Could it be that the points system does a half decent job of putting a value on the good Roman infantry?

Quote from: Hammy on November 15, 2023, 11:36:46 AM

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 15, 2023, 09:37:27 AM
Despite all that, the army results from numerous uses on https://www.dracostandard.co.uk/ArmyStats do not show any great benefit from using these armies.

Could it be that the points system does a half decent job of putting a value on the good Roman infantry?

Heaven forbid

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 15, 2023, 09:37:27 AM
 

Despite all that, the army results from numerous uses on https://www.dracostandard.co.uk/ArmyStats do not show any great benefit from using these armies.

great work these stats ! thank you sad to see so many armies that are never played.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 15, 2023, 09:09:20 AM

Quote from: SteveO on November 15, 2023, 09:06:56 AM
I'm still with Robin on this issue - I remain unconvinced that it is a problem that needs solving.

It appears to be more of an issue on the continent.

Yes it is

The problem is difficult to discuss by messages as direct communication is sometimes better .

Romans were good, but not that good. They lost battlesbut won campaigns thanks to organisation, supply etc.

What we see is roman armies with so many "veterans" that we wonder where are the veteran pikes, the veteran gallic warriors, ..and so on . The romans are not the only ones to have veterans, even lots of them .

So if you say 24 veterans + 8 exceptional is OK for Rome , I will agree but ask where are the Carthaginians veterans, the Alexandrian veterans, the gallic veterans and so on ..; So veterans YES but same for others and if romans do not always score well, perhaps their leaders should learn how to use their armies    . But it is better to discuss with people and also, a problem on the continent . YES it is and we would like to discuss it openly and in a friendly way .

But a limitation of SUP and exceptionals , in an analogous way as experienced and skilled shooters is an effective way to have veterans and recently raised troops on the same battlefield.

No army was ever made up of only veterans

I would think Richards 2 questions that started this topic should be easy enough to answer here. Go on, push the boat out 😁