在法国乡下，我正试着在我的游戏里, 演算清楚罗马军团和秦军到底谁更“硬”，你怎么看？

My Chinese partner helped me translate this into Chinese, but he is not a history expert. Please check the English below for my exact logic. 大家好，我是Steam策略游戏《迦太基: 决战罗马》的制作者。我住在法国的犄角旮旯里，平时不出门，生活里只有代码和古代地图。 我花了很久研究罗马的“三层线格斗”。我觉得它像一种“接力赛”：前面的人累了，就退后换人。我以为这是古代最完美的组织逻辑。 最近我突发奇想：如果把同时期的中国秦朝军队数据放进这个模型，会发生什么？ 我发现，地中海打仗像 “有来有回的对话”，但秦军更像“没声音的压路机”。因为弩太快太猛，罗马的“换人接力”还没开始，第一排就直接“坏掉”了。 我很困惑。秦军的“砍头换官做”制度在逻辑上怎么写？它是“杀人越多、攻击越高”的魔法，还是“不准后退的死命令”？ 这只是个脑洞，我很想听听你们的逻辑。 Hi everyone, I’m the developer of Carthage: Bellum Punicum, a strategy game on Steam. I live in a quiet small town in France; I don’t go out much, mostly just staring at maps and C# code. I spent months perfecting the Roman "Triplex Acies". To me, it’s like an elegant relay race: soldiers rotate out when they get tired. I thought this was the peak of ancient military organization. Recently, I had a "What If" moment: What would happen if we dropped the Qin Dynasty army into this model? I realized that while Mediterranean warfare feels like a dialogue, the Qin army feels like a silent steamroller. Their crossbow fire is so intense that the Roman "relay" might never even trigger—the front line could collapse before the swap even happens. It left me wondering: how should the "Legalist Meritocracy/Rank system" be defined in logic? Is it a "buff" that rewards kills, or a "hard directive" that simply forbids retreat? Just a thought experiment, but I’d love to hear your logic on this.