[EB] Historical Battles Poll N°2

[Arjos]

Here's a new poll to pick 2 new historical battles :)

[gamegeek2]

Arausio!

[Vega]

Vote for Vosges :D

[Arjos]

Ceasar vs gauls

Ahm... Swebozez :D

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I sense favoritism here, all these battles involve the Romans

[TheShakAttack]

That's just because I asked for non-phalanx battles. Unfortunately all the recorded battles involve either hellenisitc factions or Rome.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

That's just because I asked for non-phalanx battles. Unfortunately all the recorded battles involve either hellenisitc factions or Rome.

I know, hence the clowin' symbol.

[vartan]

Cicero speaks in the Senate and reveals Lucullus's falsified propaganda. Please refrain from voting for a battle (Tigranocerta) which never took place (the only skirmish was nearby, as the legions had not even crossed the Euphrates).

[Arjos]

Cicero speaks in the Senate and reveals Lucullus's falsified propaganda. Please refrain from voting for a battle (Tigranocerta) which never took place (the only skirmish was nearby, as the legions had not even crossed the Euphrates).

Damn XD
Maybe we can play if they went on and engaged, but yes that battle never felt right :P

[TheShakAttack]

I know, hence the clowin' symbol.

Oh. I thought that was your self portrait. :P

[vartan]

Damn XD
Maybe we can play if they went on and engaged, but yes that battle never felt right :P

For sure. The fact that we can create "historical" battles using a battle editor surely suggests that we may enjoy historical battles as the game sees them, not as historians may see them. So you could definitely create fictional battles and play them out.

[TheShakAttack]

Haha, no votes yet!

[TheShakAttack]

Arasuio would be very interesting if we could add a gameplay twist to reflect the 2 heads of army refusing to work together. They should be in different teams :D

Meaning, if they get too close together, they will start killing each other. Ofc the 2 teams can still talk to each other though. I don't think there is any other way to prevent the second roman army sprinting to assist the first, which, had it been done in the actual battle, might have meant a Roman victory.

I would vote for Arausio if that were the case.

And as much as I would like to play Telamon- it was a slaughter. It's not like Cannae/Magnesia where a smaller army won a stunning victory, or like Raphia/Zama where things were pretty even. IIRC, it was a record of Rome slaughtering some gauls whilst enjoying superior numbers in infantry, though being outnumbered in cavalry. If we decide to play this, maybe give some bumps to gauls to even things out?

[Arjos]

Arasuio would be very interesting if we could add a gameplay twist to reflect the 2 heads of army refusing to work together.

Oh yes about that, what we know is that the optimas made camp much closer to the enemy and the Romani couldn't swim/cross the river from their side...
My idea, if that battle gets chosen, was to place the 2 roman armies quite afar from eachother, and on the side with no river crossing; while the Swebozez would have a crossing nearby...
That should leave two options for the Romani: stop the Swebozez, but with only half their forces, or regroup giving time to the tribes to gain a formidable position...

The other solution would be to have a very weird division of troops between the Romani players...

[vartan]

Haha, no votes yet!

Huh? I've voted already. It's just that whoever made the poll made it such that votes are hidden until the deadline of the poll.

[Yavana]

Pydna or Arausio or Heraclea. Damn too many of them. I voted Pydna but Arausio would be great as well. Ofc IM IN!:D

[TheShakAttack]

Oh yes about that, what we know is that the optimas made camp much closer to the enemy and the Romani couldn't swim/cross the river from their side...
My idea, if that battle gets chosen, was to place the 2 roman armies quite afar from eachother, and on the side with no river crossing; while the Swebozez would have a crossing nearby...
That should leave two options for the Romani: stop the Swebozez, but with only half their forces, or regroup giving time to the tribes to gain a formidable position...

The other solution would be to have a very weird division of troops between the Romani players...

Thats a good idea as well. But I still like my idea! :D

It would make communication between the 2 Roman sides incredibly important. It also has the potential to case REAL problems for the Romani (killing each other, etc). I like the thought of that. I also think its the best way to reflect the leadship issues Rome was suffering at that time.

[Arjos]

Thats a good idea as well. But I still like my idea! :D

But same factions must be in the same team, plus the consuls were in competition, I don't see them killing eachother near an enemy...
Maybe we can still divide the troops (triarii, equites, all the rich classes with the optimas and poorer with the popularis) and still have the river crossing...

[TheShakAttack]

Just re: same team/faction, that can be averted if u pre-make using "historical battles". I've seen Roman civil wars made.

Whilst I agree they wouldn't kill each other, what I meant is I think it would be the best way to show complete lack of unity and teamwork. So it will make teamwork very difficult during the battle itself.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

It doesn't make sense that legionaries would start fighting each other if they came into contact though. Or toss pila at each other if FAW was left on. Why don't you just turn on general cam or restrict camera?

[Arjos]

I think the most accurate/balanced options for Arausio are: restricted camera and the river crossing for the Swebozez...
Any other input is more than welcomed though :)

[TheShakAttack]

Ok fine spoil sports. :P

Just thought it would be very interesting.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

It is interesting and indeed, if civil wars can be recreated using the Battle Creator, we have a few more options with regards to battle choices.

[gamegeek2]

I have no problem creating whatever you guys want on the editor.