Have you ever tried archers? Normally, they kill these low armor units quick.

I wouldn't consider 60-70 to be low armor for infantry.

Shock cav and armor piercing missile units m'dude

Can you imagine the damage these weapons wouls have? Cant say I see a problem

It's simply what happens when modders try to represent how real life combat worked. In reality, the guys wielding two-handed maces and swords etc, would have been slaughtered by better disciplined opponents. In a video game, whichever is 'coolest' is assumed to be the most effective, and statted accordingly.

Oprindeligt skrevet af ajaxjs:

It's simply what happens when modders try to represent how real life combat worked. In reality, the guys wielding two-handed maces and swords etc, would have been slaughtered by better disciplined opponents. In a video game, whichever is 'coolest' is assumed to be the most effective, and statted accordingly.

These units should be high risk high reward shock troops, but instead, they are cheap top tier units you can stack.

Not found any with armour over 60 lol. An like another said use ranged units. Missle cav with javs make short work of slow heavy armour and if they have low armour just use archers.

Oprindeligt skrevet af ajaxjs:

It's simply what happens when modders try to represent how real life combat worked. In reality, the guys wielding two-handed maces and swords etc, would have been slaughtered by better disciplined opponents. In a video game, whichever is 'coolest' is assumed to be the most effective, and statted accordingly.

The OP is talking about DEI, not Radious :)

Ive tested this , my results do not match the OP. A lot depends also on how you use your units tactically in battle (and army composition)

A unit like a Mauryan Axeman is a shock infantry unit. It s has high AP damage , high charge bonus, and very low (virtually no) armour and defence ,and a lower moral (compared to roman front line units). Used correctly they can be very effective but are also weak to sustained combat and very weak to any missile units. And if pinned and flanked will be decimated.

In my experience roman front line units are more defensive in nature ,with good moral and discipline , good formations, high armour, and good missile resistance. They make good pinning units, for skirmishers and cav units.

Isn't complaining about "how op some units are" always the case with with mediocre players? In the first Total War Rome, the hoplites of sparta also just demolish units like praetorians or legionnaires if the romans don't use archers.

I think you may need to reevaluate your battle strategies, or lower the battle difficulty if you are having this much trouble. Because, I'm sorry ole chum, this argument of yours is probably due to not understanding how battle formations and lines work (dont just line dudes up and run across the map and attack). Try mixed unit tactics. If their elite noble infantry/cheap berserk line bashers (the falx and rhomphia boyz) are getting into melee with units they can scrub, than you arent doing a good job at managing which of your units is fighting which, or you are prioritizing enemy units incorrectly. Youtube is full of peeps who can teach you how this works, or just try different tactics than what youve been using. But if silvershield swordsmen are somehow OP to you, you are doing something wrong. They are woefully inadequate for their price and upkeep. Especially when you could have another pike unit instead.

I agree that in an infantry 1 on 1 in a flat grass field historically, nothing could defeat a legion. However, to solve your problem, I suggest hammer and anvil (look it up).

Oprindeligt skrevet af Naregatzi:

I can't get over the fact of how ridiculously overpowered some of these units are. They belong to factions such as Kush, Mauryans, and Thracians, Baktrians, and they are usually pretty cheap. The units weilding these two-handed weapons are way too powerful, they even make top-tier Romans look like a joke. I mean they pretty easily destroy Roman Clibanariorum, Nakharar Infantry, and Silver Shield Swordsmen, which are pretty much the strongest, stat wise and cost. However, these high armor and top tier units have nothing against the two-handed units of other factions, some of them don't even have armor, they are wearing robes. I think this is a serious issue with balance right now, Rome doesn't have a special trait to it, if it can be smashed by dudes with robes and great axes.

I remember in the German campaign the 2-handed units worked perfectly. If you meet legionaries head-on, they fight for a while and then flee and/or get slaughtered. But if you engage the legionaries from the front and bring in the 2-handed weapons from the rear, then it's you doing the butchering - and that's really one of the only ways for Germans to beat legionaries at all in my experience (everything else being equal). I used the Briton 2-handed swords the same way, even though they are really more of a hybrid unit due to their high experience, noble heritage and heavy chain mail. I have no idea about the Thracians, I only ever used their regional troops where the 2-handed ones function exactly like the Germanic ones, just not quite as mobile.

-Edit-
I just retested the Britons' Kluddargos units again Legionaries. You're right that they beat them even from the front, but you have to realize that these are noble units which require nobles to recruit. You're not gonna have a whole lot of these unless you're absolutely killing it on the map already, at which point it really shouldn't matter. More than two of these units per army would be really the exception, whereas legionaries make up the core of the Roman army (literally most units) and are almost as good as Kluddargos.

@Jelte I didnt know the historical TW has necromancer in it. This is quite an old post, you know? :D