Why do Legionaries get +4 bonus damage against infantry?

Romans get great scorpions, and there are only two infantry units which are somewhat resistant to scorpions; huskarls and eagles. However, both huskarls and eagles are easy prey for the legionaries. You could just give legionaries the same attack as champions instead of 1 less.

So, I’m confused. What is the point here? What does this achieve? Can someone please enlighten me?


I think it’s done to make them a bit more unique.

1 Like


Another cheap unit, that is stronger than aztecs champions, burmese, it has more HP, cheaper to upgrade, charge attack that refills pretty fast, more armor and if that wasn’t enough hidden bonus vs infantry, hell yeah.

There is nothing unique, it is only another copy pasta bonus but stronger, the devs have killed original bonuses and unit stats non stop, there is nothing unique anymore just overbuffed stats to impress low elo players, sorry boy.


Whilst true, scorpions struggle still against other good infantry + siege civs.

Romans would get flattened by civs like Aztecs, Goths, Teutons, Slavs, Celts … Even civs like Italians with their condottieri + bbc are dangerous to the romans if the legionaries wouldn’t had that bonus.

Atm you can probably argue that the Bonus is a bit overtuned. But I think it’s also a matter of inexperience with the unique roman comp on the ladder and will be figured out.

Romans - 1v1 Random Map | ALL - aoestats:

(* All Elos)


The numbers say otherwise. But even without those, I don’t buy that argument one bit. Infantry civs have to be the weakest to romans.

Cavalry civs can withstand scorpions better, and archers+siege can deal with scorpions+legionary far better.

The best composition against Romans have to be bombard cannons/siege onagers+archers+monks.

They do get a bit of charged attack. They also have more armour, and there’s that whole gimmick with centurions. I think that they are unique enough without this.

This bonus just feels so out of place, you know?


We’re talking here about FU Legionaries no?

You know when they come into play 90 % of games are already over (except it’s super closed map).

These winrates mostly represent the early and midgame matchups which are especially for these infantry civs mostly determined by their economic matchup.
That’s why Romans have such a high Winrate against Goths, cause they both are almost played the same just with the difference that Romans have just the way better eco.

I’m talking about hte lategame civ Matchups whith these civs. And Romans would totally get flattened by them if their Legionaries didn’t had that extra Bonus vs Infantry.
Same why Aztecs have Jags and Dravidians Urumis, cause they would otherwise just get flattened by the other top Infantry civs.

That’s what scorpions are for. That’s my whole argument. If you are playing Romans and you are facing an infantry civ in the late game, just make scorpions.

Aztecs, Vikings, and Japanese have to make onagers to deal with those. And if you are playing against urumis or jaguars, your legionaries will die anyway.

Oh, and goths get HCs. Your legionaries will die to that. Against a competent goth player, you’ll have to go scorpions in the late game regardless.

Have you ever tried scorps against Huskarls?


Firstly, yes. If you have enough scorps, you’ll be fine against huskarls. Heavy scorps have 17 pierce attack, while huskarls have 10 pierce armour. Around 12 scorpions will one-shot a huskarl.
Secondly, I have addressed this in the post. Huskarls are weak to champions, and legionaries -even without that bonus damage- are just a better version of champions.

Nevertheless Romans will have Issues against Goths as Romans lack the crucial mobility element.
That’s why their Legionaries need that Bonus damage.

In the matchup vs Goths in the lategame it’s crucial that you have a unit that can face of mediocre amounts of the wild Goth infantry spam whilst being i a ressource disadvantage.
It’s a complex topic, but either this or you have to force Goths to take a Battle at their own gates. Which romans can’t as they neither have good mobility nor the superiore forcing Siege (trebs vs BBC can’t effectively push without special Bonusses).
And in low amounts without protection the Scorps just die to randomly raiding infantry.

It’s a really complicated game, but there is a Reason why the devs added that bonus vs Infantry to the Legionaries. Former Infantry civ designs jsut showed that it doesn’t work without but it works pretty fine if you give the Infantry civs that kind of tool against other Infantry.

And btw this is also again thr Reason why Aztecs need the Jag. It’s very rarely needed, but otherwise they would have the maned issues against the other Infantry (+Siege) civs. What could they otherwise do against Stuff like TK or Druzhina Champs? Or the mentioned Goth flood?

Do you guys think Romans are balanced in the state they are in right now?

I haven’t crunched all the numbers, but it seems to me, that Legionaires trade cost effectively vs. pretty much all champions and most UUs if you mix in Centurion. Also you have a great economy with 5% better villagers and can pump out Legionaires 50% faster than your opponent can spam his champs.
So I would argue Romans aren’t even in a disadvantage if they would just clash their infantry (+centurion boost) vs. other civs infantry. On the contrary they would probably handily beat most of them, even without scorpion support.

For the most part it seems like they mostly struggle vs. heavy ranged troops, like various forms of cavalry archers and gunpowder.
However I seem to recall that SotL showed in a recent video, that they are #1 arabia civ right now.
In conclusion I think Romans are OP at this point and should and likely will be nerfed and I would propose on both fronts, the scorpions and the Legionaires.


Same holds for goths. It’s not like goths are a super mobile civ either.

I don’t know, I don’t buy this. This is like saying “god does everything for a reason”. Romans have a tool against infantry, it’s called scorpions.

No, the reason for jaguars is obvious. That’s for dealing with infantry that Aztecs can’t deal with otherwise. For example, teutonic knights, bulgarian 2HS, or urumis. Aztecs have nothing there. They don’t have Hand Cannoneers. That’s the actual issue.

Every civ needs an anti-infantry option. For archer civs, it’s archers. For cav civs, it’s HCs. There are a few special cases like Inca’s slingers, and Aztec’s Jaguar warriors. Romans get scorpions. Simple as that.

Romans, on the other hand, have extra strong scorpions at a steep discount.

Nope. They are just broken. They need a huge nerf, which will happen eventually.

1 Like

Maybe that’s your idea.

Haven’t seen that working so far at high level.

https://youtu.be/5D2MdIYj1Yk: scorpions eat legionaries

https://youtu.be/taw0-lFhc2M: scorpions eat condos

Not a lot of games with infantry civs against romans.

A couple more things. You cannot go legionaries against goths and dravidians in late game. Goths have cheaper infantry and overwhelm you. Wootz steel champions have +7 against legionary, compared to legionary’s +4 (including champion’s +1 damage). Also add in urumis. With equal resources and FU units, you will always lose with just legionaries. So, scorpions are the actual option they have.

No, that’s what the numbers say. You’ll see it eventually. I’m confident in my evaluations. Confident enough to bet on it.

1 Like

Why do franks and teutons can fight pikes with siege or HC? if they have FU champions

I think they wanted legios to be the best main infantry (specially since they get no supplies)

Japanese, Teutons, Vikings, Aztecs champions… all of them may win in 1v1 before considering supplies… so that would raise the question “wouldn’t be better to give them a bonus instead of a new unique?.. we can save a lot of work not doing any new model and animation”


To make them an OP unit so that people are forced to buy the DLC to win.


From an historical point of view, the legionary have the anti-infantry bonus is to reflect the fact that the roman infantry, even the one if the late empire, was heavily armored, disciplined and can demolish almost everything head on with the right conditions.

From a balance prospective, is to have the romans being able to trade decently with other infantry.

If you look at the legionary stats, he have just 5 extra HP and +1 MA in comparison to the champion, and the latter is oftest by 1 less attack. So stats-wise they are on the same level, but the legionary cost more (since it lack supplies) and without the +4 against infantry it wouldn’t be able to trade cost effectively.

So the problem isn’t really the attack, but the cost of fielding champions, eagles, huskarls or condos.

I would instead argue that it’s the centurion a BIT OP, both in its stats and in the effect that it have on the legionary, and despite the high cost of the combo offsets that, it’ll probably get a small nerf in the future.

A lot of civs have more than one answer against infantry (or other kind of units) even the ones that have very good anti infantry units, like:

  • Italians and bohemians have both arbs and HC
  • Franks have HC and axemen
  • Etiopians have arbs and great siege
  • Byzantines have HC and catas
  • Kmer have arbs, HC, scorps and ballista elephants
  • Teutons, aztecs, dravidians japanese all have both great champs and anti infantry UU.

In fact, having overlapping solutions to a certain units doesn’t make it OP, as you said there are different type of infantry units, some are countered by scorps, some not.

Romans are more countered by gunpowder civs, and to a less extend by siege civs, lacking any kind of long range options besides monk (and not even FU ones) or good light cav. Archer civs can counter them but it’s more situational, as siege rams and scorps can di the job, but if the enemy have a big deathball you’ll find it hard and expensive to counter it as romans.

Against cav civs really depends, not having particular weaknesses or strengths, and against infantry civs the romans just mop the floor with them… but that’s quite common, a lot of civs in the game hard counter other kind of civs.


For being a relative new civs, yes…

The win rates are inside the 45-55% range, which is the instrument used for judging if a civ is OP or UP.

Most of their units seems crazy, but when you factor their cost and the holes that they have in the tech tree, they don’t seem as OP.

The only thing that probably need adjustments are the centurions, both theit stats and the impact that they have on the legionaries are too big in my opinion. I like the mechanic thought, so maybe just keep the movement speed, reduce the stats a bit, and make it a bit cheaper balance it. It have another area effect that have a smaller impact.

About their eco bonus I still don’t know, there are times that seems a bit overturned but for the most it doesn’t seem broken… it probably needs more testing.

1 Like

They’re the newest civ so they’re stronger than average like most other new civs were upon release.
The way i see it they’re either getting nerfed or the winrate drops because people will figure out a way to play against them.