Hi DustyAceAllright,
I did not want to sound arrogant or anything regarding the rules suggested by Korani. I can understand why he introduced them to get a more realistic gameplay (or „Roman feeling“). One thing I dearly miss is the almost complete lack of inter-Roman political struggle in the game: Apart from completing Senate missions, there sadly is really not much you can do to improve your standing (and be elected to offices). No bribery, machiavellan scheming and such.
But for the inaccuracies: Polybios describes the pre-Marian (a very long period in itself) legion during the second Punic war, which is pretty close as the game starts at the beginning of the first. He states that it consists of an equal number of maniples of velites, hastati, principes and triarii (1 maniple = 120 men, with the triarii having half that strength) plus about 300 cavalry (equites, likely not including the generals bodyguard).
This makes for a strength of about 4500 men (1200 each of velites, hastati and principes, 600 triarii and 300 equites). This, however, is only the Roman contingent, which would be reinforced by about the same number of "socii" (Italic allies), which were armed (and thus probably fought) on the same lines as the Romans.
This may stand in contrast with other historical sources (e.g. Livius), but Polybios was a witness of the time, had a military education and was one of the first historians with the then „modern“ approach of describing events and analyzing their causes and consequences instead of re-telling mythical stories. So he can be considered to be pretty good authority.
The „correct setup“ for pre-Marian legions you quoted (1 Velites, 3 Hastati, 4 Principes, 4 Triarii and a General plus cavalry, auxilia and mercenaries) would be therefore badly out of balance. A setup of 3 velites, 3 hastati, 3 principes, 2 triarii (because the unit size difference itself is not big enough to make up for half-strength), 1 general (plus one cavalry, standing to discussion) would be closer, socii (which are different from auxilia) not being accounted for.
The restrictions regarding the training and recruiting of „Roman“ troops are certainly more realistic. However, as Iulii fighting mostly barbarians at the start, you will not be able to recruit most of the better troops until all the captured settlements have reached the required size, and then you still must build the correct buildings. So a recruitment delay will occur all by itself.
On the other hand, if you want to stick to realistic recruitment and stay in tune with Roman traditions, your army leaders would have to „stand down“ their armies after a campaign/war, saying goddbye to unit experience (which is what really happend and certainly was one of the chief reasons for the many defeats...)
I played three Roman campaigns (two Iulli, on hard/medium and v.hard/hard, one Brutii on v.hard/hard), so far, but after the first enthusiasm I quickly became bored. I quit the Brutii campaign after about twenty turns, as I found the Macedons and Greeks were a complete pushover if you act fast and decisive. Then I tried the Greek cities, which I believe are very easy, too, if played in the right balance between offense and caution (might be different against an intelligent campaign adversary). Now I am playing barbarians (Germans), which I find much more of a challenge with all their infrastructural limitations.
So I can really understand why anyone would play with a handicap. I just stumbled over the rigidness of those rules accompanied by what I believed are surprising inaccuracies and/or lenient interpretations.
P.P.