Personally, i feel like transports are not portrayed that well... they are extremely vulnerable, while their movement is not that great, considering they can only fight every other turn if moved at max distance.. infantry units with movement heroes can sometimes have more useful mobility to a unit w...

i think main problem with this view is how disproportional it is.. ground looks flat while units are huge.. Of course we cannot have units vs ground in 1:1 but what is on those pictures is not very appealing. I think they should think about changing units into Field of Glory 2 type of units, with mu...

units are too big on map.. i think same approach as Field of Glory II would be better, with single unit being represented by multiple entities.. even with dynamically portrayed unit strength..

Personally, i like artillery more than bombers.. Bombers cant operate in bad weather, and are vulnerable to flaks.. artillery always works.. in my current campaign, i have same amount of artillery units as tank units, while i completely ignore tactical or strategical bombers, and only keep few fight...

i wouldnt be against moving to different scale, or using army units instead of weapon type units.. For example, devs could just make army unit that can contain let say 3-4 slots where player could assign different units from his core list, while these big units would fight as one, getting benefits f...

its all about experience with the game.. at some point, once you learn all there is to be learned, you will find way too easy to win decisively..

anyway, back to main topic - if anything, Late Veteran Legionaries would be equipped with Mail or Scale armor, usually reinforced with Manica Laminata on sword arm. Some of those men could even still use bronze/iron muscled breastplates (quite common with officers, centurions etc).. technically, Vet...

of course, yet there was a notion saying that Auxilia only used mail and not Segmented armor.. which is not true. Segmented armor was present in Auxilia camps, while Trajan column is not anyhow representative of its use considering Adamclisi column doesnt show a single segmented armor present ( yet ...

Mail was always "armor of status", due to its labor intensive manufacture process. It was something only rich could afford. Regarding Segmentata, there are plenty of works about it that suggest it to be not very successful type of armor, while quality wise it was found to be made of low qu...

historically, Lorica Hamata was used thorought entire Roman time period, while Segmentata was quite limited to just 50 years.. besides, Hamata was considered better armor than segmented armor, which was considered cheap "munition grade" armor.. Mail was also used by Auxilia forces, but the...

i went for HA damage copying the CD.. in my files CD also depends on "weak spot armor" protection, as majority of infantry antitank weapons were not fired against frontal armor, but against sides or rear, or thrown on top. At the same time, i have adjusted the HA, based on weapon type, the...

actually, Livy and other Roman historians suggested that Phalanx was defeated by Romans who put "uneven resistance" so parts of phalanx moved forward and parts were pinned by romans so holes appeared and Romans used them to get into flanks of phalangites.. Greek historians tend to overstre...

Ancient phalanx is not Line battalion.. at least its not deployed in 3 ranks... its deeper therefore can form square a lot faster than battalion of 600men in 3 rank line... which was practically a main reason why battalions usually deployed in columns on march, and when threatened by cavalry deploye...

yeah, plus, it feels kinda weak, as most of the time, those units just pass the cohesion test without problems... you really need to have them at least disrupted/fragmented to see any difference.. most of the time, nothing happens at all

From historical perspective - while Pyrrhus had a lot of veterans from Epirus and Macedonia, Roman army was not inexperienced, most of them fought against Samnites in quite intense conflict, therefore had plenty of combat experience. (only rookies would be young Hastati, but Principes were old enoug...

my point is if its too one-sided, then there is some balance problem.. because in reality, these battles were close calls, with heavy losses on both sides.

which kinda suggests balance is a bit off towards Romans... Their main strength is set against them in FoG2.. they had number advantage, yet because their units are smaller, pikemen army has advantage.. i think unit cost should also take into account number of men in unit.. It does actually. I know...

they lost first one(Heraclea), while the second one (Asculum) was celebrated as victory by both sides... third one (Maleventum/Beneventum) was clear victory for Romans..

which kinda suggests balance is a bit off towards Romans... Their main strength is set against them in FoG2.. they had number advantage, yet because their units are smaller, pikemen army has advantage.. i think unit cost should also take into account number of men in unit..

Actually, that chase after battle, was the only thing that actually made perfect sense... it was precisely what usually happened after battle... why would you leave enemy army withdrawn intact after you defeated it... only dead would not fight you back again... Only problem was, CA made it cheesy wa...