Senator buff

[DreJaDe]

I actually still wasn't playing as much so im not sure if this is really a great idea but...

Senator should be a 3 turn unit

Reasons
-Senators are available only in ONE factory.
-its usefulness is put into question over other units of the same category. Roman tactics still don't seem to be viable to me so other supportive units seem more logical.
-although more powerful in conversion, its skill isn't upgradeable like priests (or is it?)
-The priest is available in two factories yet, it's a three-turn unit.
-in terms of usefulness, priests and churches seemed more useful and better to put investments on.
-Even on other counterparts in support, they seemed more desirable than others.
-its demoralize skill can easily be neutralized by other units. (Though dismiss propaganda doesn't seem to affect it)

[phoenixffyrnig]

Yeah, kind of agree here. Senator is a little bit weak given how many other things one needs the roman camp for. Another possibility would be to maintain cost 4 but give him a second action, with CD of 1 on demoralise - it is rather powerful, (albeit ubderused... there seems to be a whole lot of powerful choices that aren't used as much as they should be. I guess, really, most people only use the same couple dozen units or so when we've got how many...? 200 plus different units ? Such has been my experience on MP anyway. Although it seems now a lot of the better players are starting to branch out and try more things).

Tbh, the Romans do need some sort of minor re-jig imo to have some way of dealing with enemy cavalry. Whenever I see Romans, I bang out a few knights (backed with maceman) and it's the fall of the roman empire all over again.

Q - how did the Romans historically deal with cavalry? And how shall we give them a fighting chance Vs Cav in game? Dromedary is not really up to the task I don't think, (far too weak Vs upgrades, even with camel fear) and again, is only available in Roman Camp. We can't rely on auxiliaries to give us the necessary spearmen to deal with massed cav, so how could this Achilles heel made less Game Over-y?

[Endru1241]

Historically Rome mostly held cavarly by their own cavalry, while defeating the rest of the army.
First by their own elites - equites, then most of the time by auxilary or mercenary cavalry.
When cavalry attack was targeted at main battle formation it actually withstood, but that is also true for any other type of heavy infantry tight formations.
So cavalry was deployed to avoid flanking and attacking missile troops, supplies, leaders.
And apart of cavalry and elephants - legionaries could deal with everything else with relative ease, then finish off or make surrender cavalry and leaders left.
Even the strongest units surrounded didn't last long.
Surrounding was also used in some battles without sufficient cavalry by tactically retreating with the center and tempting enemy cavalry to follow.

In some other situations they used quickly constructed defensive structures or groundworks plus brought field artillery and missile units to slowly decrease enemy numbers. And prevent much of hit and run tactics from being used.
Especially if they managed to take advantageous terrain, like hill, that brings down both enemy cavalry and archers effectiveness.

But still the truth is most of Rome losing battles was vs cavalry.

[phoenixffyrnig]

When cavalry attack was targeted at main battle formation it actually withstood, but that is also true for any other type of heavy infantry tight formations.

That's kinda what I thought. So would there be any mileage in giving Legion training a mild anti cav effect, like camel fear but not as strong, to simulate the horses reluctance to charge against a huge mass of men?

quickly constructed defensive structures or groundworks

What would these have been, basic structures like palisades and trenches and spiky fences/sharpened stakes? Could sharpened stakes be added to legionary build? Or something that could help bridge the gap. I appreciate we are talking about a Classical foot army having to deal with high medieval /renaissance cavalry, anachronistic to say the least, but something like this i feel is necessary to make a Roman play through viable rather than a novelty strategy.

[b2198]

That's kinda what I thought. So would there be any mileage in giving Legion training a mild anti cav effect, like camel fear but not as strong, to simulate the horses reluctance to charge against a huge mass of men?

Maybe giving them an aura that reduces adjacent cavalry's attack by an amount affected by ability power, and give them ability power too with the legion training aura along with the +1/+1 armor? Would that be possible to do?

[Endru1241]

What would these have been, basic structures like palisades and trenches and spiky fences/sharpened stakes? Could sharpened stakes be added to legionary build? Or something that could help bridge the gap. I appreciate we are talking about a Classical foot army having to deal with high medieval /renaissance cavalry, anachronistic to say the least, but something like this i feel is necessary to make a Roman play through viable rather than a novelty strategy.

Hard to tell what exactly was used, because wood doesn't conserve well around mediterranean climate.
Or maybe they just deconstructed it later on to use for some buildings?

Descriptions of battles mostly concentrate on units and tactics, while those more romanticized - on particular people.
Nobody describes exact kind of fortifications used, unless really novel or very effective.
But I'd assume they all probably worked as denial of movement to lower cavalry mobility - the real greatest enemy of the Roman army.
So I think combination of palisades and gates should probably represent it in good way.

The only way I can think of to really lower the gap between classical and late medieval periods armies like that would be something to simulate probable advancements they could make if they lasted longer.
My thinking is that legionaries would probably stay, but be decreased in total percentage of armies. Some heavier regular cavalry unit could possibly be added and mostly percentage of light cavalry, archers would be significantly increased.
But much more importantly - their overall effectiveness would be boosted by newer armor and weapons made with medieval ironworking discoveries.
It's also a given that they would start to use gunpowder, probably sooner than later. But some could argue, that strong military could have been against it (like happened in many places).

That's kinda what I thought. So would there be any mileage in giving Legion training a mild anti cav effect, like camel fear but not as strong, to simulate the horses reluctance to charge against a huge mass of men?

Maybe giving them an aura that reduces adjacent cavalry's attack by an amount affected by ability power, and give them ability power too with the legion training aura along with the +1/+1 armor? Would that be possible to do?

To be more historically accurate - cavalry charge was not so effective against any highly professional army.
But then - wouldn't all heavy infantry have that?
Or maybe even some medium?
So that is not the solution I would use.
Let's keep current cavalry vs heavy infantry scheme, which represents overall advantage cavalry would have.
Let's ask ourselves - how long could strict formation be kept on in the face of intense battle?
They would strike when it's most advantageous.
They could also shoot with some crossbow and just go back or even go much closer for throwing weapon range and just retreat to try to entice some enemy to break off the formation and create a hole.
Sometimes going to the enemy and just spreading to strike against slightly less organized unit were much more optimal than attempt of frontal charge
Not small number of knights fought on foot in many cases.


As for Senator - I think the problem might be indeed decrease of usefulness to higher chance of conversion for the increase with number of attempts.
Senator has higher range along with max chance comparing to all other regular convincers.
And demoralise is twice as effective vs conversion attempt to lower resistance.

My idea was for senator to be support by using conversion mainly on enemy cavalry and elephants.
Most cost effective cavalry have low resistance after all and still huge hp.
So first we take over some of enemy units and later bring enemy down to 1 hp after loyalty.

To increase its effectiveness in that regard either some 5-10% chance could be added (maybe as a cheap tech) or second action along with cost 4->5.
The question here is if it's actually underused because of:
- being too weak for the cost
- roman garrison having much better units to produce
- roman garrison being build rarely for better buildings
- just having low popularity
Or in other words - is it really needed and if - how much.

[phoenixffyrnig]

But I'd assume they all probably worked as denial of movement to lower cavalry mobility - the real greatest enemy of the Roman army.

Yeah, thats the thing... I'm fully aware that I'm asking for is a counter to what was in reality the Roman army's bugbear, their historical weakness, so I'm certainly not suggesting they should have strong anti cav possibilités, just the chance of survival. I mentioned sharpened stakes as an idea separate to frisian horse, what I was thinking was something that was passable by cav but slowly, ie with a hefty movement penalty, and no effect to foot. Would that be possible currently, or even suitable historically?

Another idea would be to give Praetorian's pilum a sizeable anti cav boost?

But some could argue, that strong military could have been against it (like happened in many places).

Huh? Could you expand on that point please, was the novelty of gunpowder resisted by proud traditionalists?

My idea was for senator to be support by using conversion mainly on enemy cavalry and elephants

OK, so intended to be used from safety behind a strong line of heavy infantry.

To increase its effectiveness in that regard either some 5-10% chance could be added (maybe as a cheap tech) or second action along with cost 4->5.
The question here is if it's actually underused because of:
- being too weak for the cost
- roman garrison having much better units to produce
- roman garrison being build rarely for better buildings
- just having low popularity
Or in other words - is it really needed and if - how much.

Is Senator currently affected by Persuasion? Tbf he has a decent base conversion chance.
For me, its mainly roman garrison having better (or more necessary) units to produce, but also low popularity - see my previous comments about people choosing to have a small selection pool of units - there is only so much we can do about that.

roman garrison being build rarely for better buildings

As for that particular point, whenever I am talking about faction specific balancing, I am assuming the player is deliberately trying to play purely as that faction rather than trying to take the best of all worlds and combine them into an anachronistic and ageographic army. Yes, obviously we can mix and match everything and come up with the ultimate army (probably involving hatamoto, Berzerkers, Celtic chariots , Condottiero, elephants, Herbalists etc... ie a horrible mess) - it's the science of winning Vs the art of having fun, a totally personal perspective.

[Endru1241]

But I'd assume they all probably worked as denial of movement to lower cavalry mobility - the real greatest enemy of the Roman army.

Yeah, thats the thing... I'm fully aware that I'm asking for is a counter to what was in reality the Roman army's bugbear, their historical weakness, so I'm certainly not suggesting they should have strong anti cav possibilités, just the chance of survival. I mentioned sharpened stakes as an idea separate to frisian horse, what I was thinking was something that was passable by cav but slowly, ie with a hefty movement penalty, and no effect to foot. Would that be possible currently, or even suitable historically?

I thought palisade gate already works like that - denies enemy, while allowing your own army movement.
But as long as suitable idea and image appears - sure, why not add something like that.
Not sure if should be roman specific or general though.

Another idea would be to give Praetorian's pilum a sizeable anti cav boost?

Not sure about that.
I am mostly afraid of following requests to make anything even remotely close in shape to spear to have anti-cav bonus too.

But some could argue, that strong military could have been against it (like happened in many places).

Huh? Could you expand on that point please, was the novelty of gunpowder resisted by proud traditionalists?

Nah.
That is probably a fake (like supposed protests of knights vs crossbow).
Nobles, which were decreasingly smaller percentage of population with time and could easily switch from getting on the battlefield themselves to employing some military men. And initial cost of gunpowder made sure it would stay as something owned by nobles for a long time.

But roman army was not really like knights, nobles.
It represented more of a middle or even lower class.
And was fully financed by the state.
Paid soldiers with some solid privileges and military strength had to be convinced to changes.
And initially gunpowder personal weapons was not very effective plus quite dangerous to the user.
So they could be like unions protesting against anything not convenient to them.
Extreme unions to top that, as in case of worst conflict there could be some risk of rebellion.
Something like that could set back introduction of such weapons by tens of years or even 100-200 years.
Up to the time, when development in other countries would make it safe and efficient enough, so that protests would look ridiculous.
And such things happened in mining, construction, production, albeit only since 19th century (I believe earlier they would be just militarily suppressed).

But I doubt it.
If we assumed such mentality, then Rome would probably never start to deploy advanced siege machines.
Those were novelty and probably quite expensive.
I'd rather place Roman army as something more similar to current US army - very high funding to RD to always have as much tech advantage over enemy as possible. Even if there are cheaper ways to achieve similar military feats.

Is Senator currently affected by Persuasion? Tbf he has a decent base conversion chance.

Yup.
Otherwise High Priest would be much better.

roman garrison being build rarely for better buildings

As for that particular point, whenever I am talking about faction specific balancing, I am assuming the player is deliberately trying to play purely as that faction rather than trying to take the best of all worlds and combine them into an anachronistic and ageographic army. Yes, obviously we can mix and match everything and come up with the ultimate army (probably involving hatamoto, Berzerkers, Celtic chariots , Condottiero, elephants, Herbalists etc... ie a horrible mess) - it's the science of winning Vs the art of having fun, a totally personal perspective.

Making all buffers limited to only their own culture would surely increase the fun side.

Roman faction on the other hand should already be quite good by having the numbers in the later game.
Or maybe all those units too weak to make an impact?

[DreJaDe]

As for Senator - I think the problem might be indeed decrease of usefulness to a higher chance of conversion for the increase with number of attempts.
Senator has higher range along with max chance comparing to all other regular convincers.
And demoralise is twice as effective vs conversion attempt to lower resistance.

My idea was for senator to be support by using conversion mainly on enemy cavalry and elephants.
Most cost effective cavalry have low resistance after all and still huge hp.
So first we take over some of enemy units and later bring enemy down to 1 hp after loyalty.

To increase its effectiveness in that regard either some 5-10% chance could be added (maybe as a cheap tech) or second action along with cost 4->5.
The question here is if it's actually underused because of:
- being too weak for the cost
- roman garrison having much better units to produce
- roman garrison being build rarely for better buildings
- just having low popularity
Or in other words - is it really needed and if - how much.

Honestly, I thought of countering cav using senators but that kinda sucked.

I have a roman army plus supportive stuff and it mostly didn't work for them. The only way you can really use them is if they are in defense. I mean senators being garrisoned (then behind units doesn't work because archers)

Even then, they are going to be defeated by a cav that is available in so many places. The only conversion counter that works is priests as they are more spammy than knights and in reality, the only chance you got to convert knights is if they started attacking. I mean knight being on almost melee range.

Even against AI. Strategies involving senators aren't worth it. I tried so many times and it just doesn't seem to bear fruit.

[DreJaDe]

Making all buffers limited to only their own culture would surely increase the fun side.

Roman faction on the other hand should already be quite good by having the numbers in the later game.
Or maybe all those units too weak to make an impact?

I've thought of this and honestly. I think this would really force players to play more culture specific. Not a bad thing.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Making all buffers limited to only their own culture would surely increase the fun side.

Roman faction on the other hand should already be quite good by having the numbers in the later game.
Or maybe all those units too weak to make an impact?

Fully agree with the first point.

Re the 2nd, although I haven't played with the Romans as much as I have with other factions, I don't think that they are too weak, just that they are too easily countered by upgraded heavy cav.

[Endru1241]

As for Senator - I think the problem might be indeed decrease of usefulness to a higher chance of conversion for the increase with number of attempts.
Senator has higher range along with max chance comparing to all other regular convincers.
And demoralise is twice as effective vs conversion attempt to lower resistance.

My idea was for senator to be support by using conversion mainly on enemy cavalry and elephants.
Most cost effective cavalry have low resistance after all and still huge hp.
So first we take over some of enemy units and later bring enemy down to 1 hp after loyalty.

To increase its effectiveness in that regard either some 5-10% chance could be added (maybe as a cheap tech) or second action along with cost 4->5.
The question here is if it's actually underused because of:
- being too weak for the cost
- roman garrison having much better units to produce
- roman garrison being build rarely for better buildings
- just having low popularity
Or in other words - is it really needed and if - how much.

Honestly, I thought of countering cav using senators but that kinda sucked.

I have a roman army plus supportive stuff and it mostly didn't work for them. The only way you can really use them is if they are in defense. I mean senators being garrisoned (then behind units doesn't work because archers)

Even then, they are going to be defeated by a cav that is available in so many places. The only conversion counter that works is priests as they are more spammy than knights and in reality, the only chance you got to convert knights is if they started attacking. I mean knight being on almost melee range.

Even against AI. Strategies involving senators aren't worth it. I tried so many times and it just doesn't seem to bear fruit.

I'd like to avoid it's cost decreasing.
Then:
- cost 4->5 and +1 action
- chance increase by 5% (17% multiplicatively vs 0% resistance)
- tech increasing chance by 10% (67% multiplicatively vs 0% res)

Which seems best here?

[Aral_Yaren]

I vote the first (combined by the second imho is still fine).

[phoenixffyrnig]

cost 4->5 and +1 action

This one, for me. To allow demoralise followed by conversion attempt would be a big boost, and one that would keep it relevant later game too.

Advantage due to chance increase would fade with time as enemies develop, and to necessitate a tech from the already overworked Roman camp would be a less clear advantage.

[b2198]

I also think the first would be the best option, also maybe alongside a small increase in hp? Like 15 -> 17 or 15 ->18, just so that they aren't as easily snipable by archers?

[DreJaDe]

Tech is definitely a no as the roman factory is already overloaded with high cost techs.

Seems to be that the first option is the only really option.