AGEOD Forums

Why Legatus replacements cost 5 NM when buy a legion cost only 2? Which is the historical reason for that?
Ok 30 denarii but 5 NM seems to high (playing Clodius in the Septimius Severus scenario).

I think some said this has to do with a bug and should be corrected in the next patch!

I thought the legatus replacement means, you have lost a legatus and this means you lost the sacred eagle of the legion. The gods are angry, and therefore you loose moral. If you simply raise a new legion, people are not happy with the conscripton, but that's less worse then suffering the same of loosing the eagle I thinks its wanted.

Cfant wrote:I thought the legatus replacement means, you have lost a legatus and this means you lost the sacred eagle of the legion. The gods are angry, and therefore you loose moral. If you simply raise a new legion, people are not happy with the conscripton, but that's less worse then suffering the same of loosing the eagle I thinks its wanted.

Not necessarily. Attrition will give you hits to your Legatus, which you can only repair by buying the replacement chit. So you could have 10 legions each with a Legatus with 2 hits lost, and the replacement screen says you need 20 hits replaced (that is the same as 2 brand new Legatus units). To bring those legions up to full strength will cost 10 NM at that point. Versus 4 NM to create 2 new legions (which is way more troops). So it's a game mechanic, but I believe it should be corrected. Also the fact that some men deserted/died during marches is not a NM breaker. Now, if you have to replace an entire Legatus, that's different.

You don't have to replace those hits to your Legatus, but then you run the risk of losing it.

The issue is that Attrition / lack of supply / weather hits are spread out over the entire army, not just the "fighting" troops.

Blind Sniper wrote:Why Legatus replacements cost 5 NM when buy a legion cost only 2? Which is the historical reason for that?
Ok 30 denarii but 5 NM seems to high (playing Clodius in the Septimius Severus scenario).

In other scenarios they only cost 2NM.

It makes some sense to have it cost more as a replacement and less as a new unit. Perhaps they wanted to simulate the difficulty that you should treat your legions with care as more damage means more NM loss. Buying new legatus units might ameliorate this, but you would still have to fight with the old damaged ones too, taking even more hits, etc.

The problem there Kensai, is the men are nothing really special, it was the eagle that was sacred. I doubt that the eagle deserted or died of Typhus. This needs to be entirely redone.

lycortas2 wrote:I doubt that the eagle deserted or died of Typhus.

But I agree, the current system seems quite illogical.

pantsukki wrote:

But I agree, the current system seems quite illogical.

the alternative, [color="#FF0000"]and i clearly dont speak for AGEOD nor for the developer team[/color], is that you DONT gain any national moral from battles. then we dont need to compensate this too fast playing with the romans, take away all your money (in game and in RL) and you will knock on the door and say, WTF? have you thought about it...

either a game with NM and [color="#FF0000"]multiple [/color]ways to loose them, or one without and a completely new balance of Dinarii.
(PS: for my normal clients in the forum, i dont start to mod before DB is opened :mdr

you have

options
towns objectives/strategical
events

etc and are in the position to recover over 25 NM or even get it simply by events, simultaneously making the foe loosing NM, but no one complains about it. As soon you are supposed to pay back what you earned too easy [color="#FFD700"](my opinion, not more)[/color] you claim its counterintuitive/not logical
you are slaughtering hundreds of thousands and just pay Dinarii for legions replacements, yet for the element [color="#FF0000"]WHERE YOU HAVE THE LOWEST LOSSES[/color], Legatus units, you have to pay the extra price and you find it annoying...
most certainly you would do so if they say, ok, no NM from battle resolution, but every legions replacements chip is at least 1 NM gone. but such a way would spoil it for everyone who just starts the game.
so where to take the NM from you? the automatic levelling to a normal value of NM just happens when its nearly to late, momentum in a campaign won. that leaves only the option to split it constantly over a loss of support units (combat units are ruled out, see above), like the legatus:
many land troops are NOT effected (leaving enough free stacks on the map), it hits the overpowered romans, as more aggressively you play, as more legions you built, and as more you march around as more pain is caused....

read about the Equestrian order, read about how few they were and how much money they needed, read about how much time they had to spend in public services, just to get the age and the position to be given such a military command (too many legats are in game anyway).


PPS:

the loss of Legatus while marching can be reduced easily, but if you do so, INCREASE it for supply used and cohesion lost with the other troops

Well, your Legatus Legionis is of course your HQ. Recruited among the finest. Pretty important people, in my opinion, with connection in the highest political spheres of Roman society. They die, people get upset at your commander. Hmm, they might stop backing you up. May even back your opponents. No good for NM, this, not good.

That's the way I rationalize it anyway. Real reason : balance.

As a rule of thumb ;

Pre Empire Legatus cost is 2 NM
Empire Legatus cost is 5 NM.

Regards

I understand it from a balance point of view, but that doesn't mean that it's logical or realistic. Currently IMHO they suffer far too much attrition losses.

Regarding the "special status" of the men serving in the legatus elements, I don't remember it precisely, but isn't the element a few hundred men strong (or even a little bigger, 4/6 hundred?) ? I doubt that so many of them would've been part of the senatorial or knight classes. It can't all be officers? Also Goldsworthy claims that even some of the tribunes were pretty much professional soldiers, even if they had originated from the knight class. Thus they wouldn't be "important people", i.e. that well connected back home.

makes sense, Publius Licinius Egnatius [color="#FFFF00"]Gallienus[/color] Augustus 218 – 268 introduced the fact, that the Legatus was not longer a public servant, but really chosen from experience military staff. the trust in the emperor of the legion was based on the trust the commander had in the emperor.

if, one day, the game would cover time after the years around 400, the NM would be needed to be reduced again. the title/command could be bought, as well as the listing in orders/political structures/offices

also, some factions should simply not being able to replace them, but modding this needs to use additional legion types for factions like Pompey who had the senate on his side but had to rely even on quaestors and magistrates as commanders...

I don't remember it precisely, but isn't the element a few hundred men strong (or even a little bigger, 4/6 hundred?)

yes, its a whole support unit, not one single person. just imagine how it would get out of hand if you count only the commander in it. there would be only total loss or no loss. As legions will receive new elements as long at least parts of the legatus are existing, i find that ok.
But i remember that the engine could use only a one-men-commanding-element and use NM penalty for him. but this would really mess up with all the "generals". people would tend to think they can replace "commanders" and claim it would be not logical

for the loss due to atrittion, yes, totally agree and have marked it as undesirable during beta. the problem is you need to buy whole elements for few losses.

however, afterwards the panem event which makes you loosing loyalty in Rome is also giving you national moral back. I can imagine that is was intended that you use at least one of the government option in a year, compensating the NM loss from legatus or battles. at least you have enough money, even more...
you can identify the models file and need to change [color="#FFFF00"]AtrMove[/color] (if i remember right). however, as wrote above, normal troops should get higher penalties then. also please remember that playing historical attrit. would lead even to losses INSIDE of structures.

***********

PS: for the tribunes, in early times they used to be knights which were too young to hold political power. they had to serve as prefects (mounted prefect outranks infantry prefects) and could be promoted to broad stripe tribuns.
next step would be quaestors, with higher age. if the quaestor ends the turn of service, in early times he would be entering the senate automatically, while the legatus legionis was under senatorial appointed command power. two years service and then going back to Rome or getting more power. up or out.

pantsukki wrote:Regarding the "special status" of the men serving in the legatus elements, I don't remember it precisely, but isn't the element a few hundred men strong (or even a little bigger, 4/6 hundred?) ? I doubt that so many of them would've been part of the senatorial or knight classes. It can't all be officers? Also Goldsworthy claims that even some of the tribunes were pretty much professional soldiers, even if they had originated from the knight class. Thus they wouldn't be "important people", i.e. that well connected back home.

A Legatus element is 10 men strong. So you can suppose some of them are pretty high level people.

Narwhal wrote:A Legatus element is 10 men strong. So you can suppose some of them are pretty high level people.

Hahah, oops! Yeah, you're right. But then it's even more unlikely that they would suffer from attrition as badly as the ordinary grunts.

Good point, but maybe they got fragged ?

Narwhal wrote:Good point, but maybe they got fragged ?

transfered to the eastern front, they had to eat the own horses... ok, wrong time period.

value for Att. of movement is 15, while troops have 18. i am not sure about the combination with terrain/weather, i just remember that some irregular/ non-romans elements used a value of 20

But then it's even more unlikely that they would suffer from attrition as badly as the ordinary grunts.

Absolutely right.

Given the game mechanics loosing 5 NM and 30 denarii every time you need replacements (and it happens very often if you play with historical attrition) is too much, then you can call this guys VIPs, kings and say that without these men the legion is useless but is not balanced anyway.
Moreover you have to add the money spent to recover this NM loss and the total cost for a single replacement is very exorbitant.

Just started a MP game with the new beta patch installed.
I olny move a legion and I have been so unclucky to take cohesion hits, of course some of them were on the legatus element.
Now I have to pay 5NM and 30 denarii for replacements, silly.

Given the time scale chosen (30 days per turn) you can move without fear of replacements only for 4-5 turns in a whole year.

the losses cannot be avoided, right, i understand you are angry, yes, but the around the last beta test i made a list.
including MARCHING AND BATTLES LOSSES

i bought

- 9 times replacements for legatus leg. in the MS87, Populares, won by suddendeath (not historical attrition)

- 14 times in the GMW as Romans, loosing whole legions in Asia minor

- 11 times playing Caesar, winning within three years

the losses from battles, random events and bread distribution for national moral penalties is much higher than legatus malus. other events excluded in the calculation

for money... well, the smallest amount you get by a regional decision is 50.

for the 5 NM, they wrote it officially, 2 NM for republican time, 5 NM for imperial.[color="#FF0000"] thus most of the time the 5 NM are not even given[/color] and you can easily survive the loss of money.
the GAIN of NM from battles is higher than the loss of NM from battles/marching in all scenarios, provided you are on the winning side. the potential gain of NM from used options to stabilize Rome itself is higher.

however, in some situations, you are right, the loss of NM ends up in a downward stream