AGEOD Forums

Just played the Samnite war scenario. I liked the way you are (as Roman) limited to the 4 legion (and the memergency force under an dictator).

I was wondering though, if the replacement manpower wasnt a bit high. Line replacements are very cheap, especially as there are virtually no upkeep costs. I could easily keep the number of replacements at 20, battling each turn, and without running low on money. The speed at which those replacements were absorbed also surprised me - just resting the legions one turn would generally turn them from depleted 100 strong units back to 200+ full legions. I think I ran a casualty rate for my legions of about 200% - each year. This seems a bit high.

(I got to say it was balanced by the Samnite recruitment rate. I didn't play that side, so I have no details, but I had several multi turn battles, in which I reduced their army quite a bit, only to find them 4000-7000 stronger next month. And that with only one town left to them).

Not saying this is wrong perse, no idea of the turnover rate for the troops during this time. But I thought it odd, and would bring it here for discussion.

Bertram wrote:Just played the Samnite war scenario. I liked the way you are (as Roman) limited to the 4 legion (and the memergency force under an dictator).

I was wondering though, if the replacement manpower wasnt a bit high. Line replacements are very cheap, especially as there are virtually no upkeep costs. I could easily keep the number of replacements at 20, battling each turn, and without running low on money. The speed at which those replacements were absorbed also surprised me - just resting the legions one turn would generally turn them from depleted 100 strong units back to 200+ full legions. I think I ran a casualty rate for my legions of about 200% - each year. This seems a bit high.

(I got to say it was balanced by the Samnite recruitment rate. I didn't play that side, so I have no details, but I had several multi turn battles, in which I reduced their army quite a bit, only to find them 4000-7000 stronger next month. And that with only one town left to them).

Not saying this is wrong perse, no idea of the turnover rate for the troops during this time. But I thought it odd, and would bring it here for discussion.

The Romans had a huge reserve of trained manpower, and their ability to replace even huge losses was amazing. Polybius remarked on this fact several times in his writings. Huge Roman armies and fleets were destroyed several times during this period, including fleets that had over one hundred thousand men and troops aboard, yet the Romans were able to replace them. The game models this well.

Thanks. Learned something today

How come Romans always had so many men at their disposal? Or, for example, why did Carthage have to rely on mercenaries, and not her own populace?

vonBredow wrote:How come Romans always had so many men at their disposal? Or, for example, why did Carthage have to rely on mercenaries, and not her own populace?

Carthage was a city of traders, not warriors. It's not they had few people, Carthage during the time of of the Punic Wars was an huge city, wouldn't surprise me if it was bigger than Rome itself, but they weren't good warriors and/or didn't like to fight so they preferred to use their money to buy people who fought better than them.

Can't really explain how the Romans had so many people though, the only thing I can say is that they had a borderline suicidal commitment and discipline to throw everyone into the fray until the last man. They kept fighting whereas a normal ancient state would have surrender in that situation.

In the Pyrrhic scenario, replacements for Pyrrhys' replacement cost four times more than the Roman ones. I think this reflects the situation very well.

Soulstrider wrote:Carthage was a city of traders, not warriors. It's not they had few people, Carthage during the time of of the Punic Wars was an huge city, wouldn't surprise me if it was bigger than Rome itself, but they weren't good warriors and/or didn't like to fight so they preferred to use their money to buy people who fought better than them.

Can't really explain how the Romans had so many people though, the only thing I can say is that they had a borderline suicidal commitment and discipline to throw everyone into the fray until the last man. They kept fighting whereas a normal ancient state would have surrender in that situation.

Most of the Roman population during this period had their own, prosperous small farms, and big families whose children lived to adulthood. The population was huge, and Italy had other densely populated areas that provided plenty of allied troops. Roman law required all able bodied men to train for war, from the time they were children. Absolutely correct about the commitment and discipline.

Searry wrote:In the Pyrrhic scenario, replacements for Pyrrhys' replacement cost four times more than the Roman ones. I think this reflects the situation very well.

I agree. I love the attention to history that shows in this game!

Romans enlisted their citizens and assimilated the Italian people they conquered. Giving these various forms and levels of citizenship and incorporating them into their military as well. Meaning their manpower only grew as they became a larger power. Carthage never (or hardly ever) gave those they conquered citizenship and basically ruled over them as conquerers. Meaning that their manpower base kept limited to the Carthaginians themselves and made them rely on allies (those they subjugated) for levies and professional troops they hired.

The Punic Wars by Adrian Goldsworthy is an excellent read on the matter, btw.